Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-02-1989 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda - REVISED - AGENDA • REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING VILLAGE OF ARDEN HILLS WEDNESDAY , AUGUST 2, 1989 7 :30 P.M. VILLAGE HALL 1. Call to Order and Roll Call . 2. Approval of Minutes of July 5, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting. 3. Public Hearing. Case #89-11 , Rezoning from the I-2 General Industrial District to the B-2 General Business District, for a 4.24 acre parcel located at 3771-87 North Lexington Avenue. 4. Case #88-36 Revised Site Plan, Hans Hagen Homes Corporate Headquarters, Cleveland Avenue and County Road E-2, Hagen - REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM CITY COUNCIL, JULY 31, 1989. , 5. Council Report. 6. Adjournment. • • MINUTES OF THE ARDEN HILLS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1989, 7:30 P.M. - CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chairman Probst called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL The roll being called the following members were present: • Chairman Probst, members Martin, Petersen, Piotrowski and Ashbach. Absent: Members Carlson, McGraw, Zehm, Winiecki, Curtis and Woodburn. Also Present: Planner John Bergly, Mayor Sather and Deputy Clerk Catherine Iago. APPROVE MINUTES Members discussed the method of listing members absent from the July 5 Planning Meeting. Member Petersen advised the secretary that he had notified the city staff he would be absent from the 7-5-89 meeting and that information was not reflected in the minutes. Deputy Clerk Iago explained the reason on that Mary Ann listed the members as notifying her of their absence was due to the fact other communities reflect this information in their minutes; if members call prior to the meeting they are listed as "excused". Iago reported that Commission may request this information to be reflected in the minutes, however, Arden Hills did not require listing members in this manner. Iago advised she would correct the minutes to reflect Petersen as notifying the city of his absence. Piotrowski moved, seconded by Ashbach, that the July 5 Planning minutes be approved as corrected. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) PUBLIC HEARING CASE #89-11; Chairman Probst opened the meeting for the purpose of a • REZONING I-2 TO public hearing on the application for Rezoning from I-2 B-2, 3771 NORTH to B-2, 3771 Lexington Avenue, Scott Roberts. LEXINGTON AVENUE Deputy Clerk Iago verified that the Notice of Hearing was published in the New Brighton Bulletin on July 19, 1989 and mailed to affected property owners on July 14, 1989. Planner Bergly explained the subject site is adjacent to the Blue Fox Inn to the north and the Burger King/Goodyear/Kennedy Transmission site to the south. He advised the applicant proposes to rezone from an industrial to a business district. Bergly stated the applicant is proposing to delete a portion of the existing building which houses multiple industrial tenants and use approximately one third of the building for a shopping center. Bergly stated zoning ordinance requires that a development plan be submitted in order to illustrate the possible results of the rezoning and potential development of the site; it does not tie the developer to the use, nor does it tie the City to approving that use. He said some communities have site plan and rezoning approval tied together; if one is denied, both are denied. Arden Hills approval of a rezoning is on a land use basis and the actual site plan is submitted merely for convenience of the city. The Planner reviewed the proposed plan as it relates to compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: -The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as industrial, however the • Zoning Ordinance provides that if a rezoning takes place on a parcel of land, the Comprehensive Plan is automatically changed. Rezonings along Lexington Avenue include the Blue Fox Inn, Burger King/Goodyear/Kennedy Transmission, and Shannon Square; when these rezonings occurred the Comprehensive Plan was automatically amended. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, August 8, 1989 Page 2 CASE #89-11 (Cont'd) -The Comprehensive Plan policy statements on commercial development set the following criteria for evaluating rezoning applications: • 1. All commercial enterprises should be concentrated into compact, well-planned areas. 2. Commercial expansion should be primarily through extension of existing commercial areas. Planner Bergly noted the site is adjacent to two sites th at have been rezo ned to B-2 District. Bergly explained the Zoning Ordinance requires that a statement must accompany the rezoning request which indicates how the rezoning is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan; the applicant has provided the statement. The Planner advised that before any new business zoning occurs, the property must be located on a collector or arterial road, which it does, or the rezoning shall be an extension of an existing business district, which it is. Bergly reviewed the considerations listed on his report of 8-2-89, page 2, Items 1 through 6. He noted under Item #1 the circulation problems which currently exist in this area; the business uses are becoming more concentrated, however, the relationship between developments does not provide continuity of access and circulation. Bergly explained each development has its own access point on Lexington and there are not circulations connections between uses. The Planner also reviewed permitted uses and specially permitted uses in the B-2 • District. He advised that the site development will add traffic to Lexington Avenue and a retail/service development will generate significantly more trips per day than an office development, but will contribute less to peak hour traffic increases. Bergly explained that if this parcel is rezoned, there will be two remaining industrial buildings in this area of Arden Hills with frontage on Lexington. Although Lexington Avenue development could be termed "strip" zoning, due to the multiple uses on several tracts, the impact is not nearly as severe as "strips" of single user sites each having separate access. The Planner reviewed his conclusions: 1. The proposed rezoning for this site may be appropriate for the following reasons: a) The use will be more compatible than many uses permitted in the I-2 District. b) The change in use will start the redevelopment process for this old industrial area developed prior to current development regulations. c) Traffic will likely increase due to the development, but the nature of the traffic will have less impact than some uses permitted in the I-2 District. d) The site is located between two other B-2 Districts. e) The least desirable B-2 uses can be controlled through the SUP and site • plan review process. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, August 8, 1989 Page 3 CASE #89-11 (Cont'd) 2. Concern for traffic access and circulation should be addressed at some point while there is still some flexibility for resolution. 3. Approval of the rezoning does not limit development to a shopping center • and does not restrict the City from requiring a traffic or other study when a specific site development plan is submitted. 4. Approval of the rezoning automatically amends the Comprehensive Plan. Member Martin questioned why the rezoning and plan approval are being considered as separate issues. He noted that several developments have utilized the PUD approach with the rezoning contingent upon development plan approval. rezoning for Planner Bergly stated that approach is utilized when considering g g Y PP residential developments; the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan do not require the plan approval in conjunction with the rezoning. He explained if there were multiple buildings on site the PUD approach would be utilized. Scott Roberts, applicant, was present to answer any questions from the Commission. Chairman Probst asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in favor of or opposed to the rezoning. There was no response. The Chairman closed the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m. Commission discussed the possibility of the applicant subdividing the property after the rezoning is approved; the lot area requirements for B-2 are less than requirements for the I-2 District. • Commission favored tieing the site plan approval to the rezoning and expressed concerns relative to traffic circulation on site. Chairman Probst questioned if Commission will have an opportunity to review the site plan for this development. Planner Bergly advised the Zoning Code requires site plan review and a traffic study could be requested in conjunction with site plan review. Member Martin stated his objections relate on a conceptual level rather than toward the rezoning of the site; would like to have more emphasis on the PUD approach for this type of application. Petersen moved, seconded by Ashbach, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case #89-11, Rezoning of the Parcel at 3771 Lexington Avenue from I-2 to B-2, Scott Roberts property, based on more compatible uses in a B-2 District than uses permitted in the I-2 District and the B-2 zoning is consistent with zoning of the adjacent properties. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) CASE #88-36; Planner Bergly explained this revised Site Plan was REVISED SITE presented to Council for their consideration at their PLAN, HANS Regular Meeting held 7-31-89; Council referred this HAGEN HOMES matter to Planning Commission for their review and recommendation due to the two variances requested. The Planner reviewed his report of 7-31-89 and noted the applicant has modified the plan as follows: • 1. The floor area of the building has been reduced from 8,000 to 5,000 square feet by eliminating the basement of the building and enlarging the building footprint. 2. Parking has been reduced from 32 to 20 spaces. 3. Access to the site has been moved approximately 40 feet to the west. 4. Landscaping has been reduced somewhat to reflect the red Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, August 8, 1989 Page 4 CASE #88-36 (Cont'd) 5. A front yard setback variance of 10 ft. will be required for the north edge of the parking lot along Cleveland Avenue. This is being requested due to a jog in the County Road E-2 ROW just in the area of the parking. • 6. The building exterior has been modified slightly within the same basic design theme. 7. A sign variance will be necessary due to the jog in the ROW along County Road E-2 and is being requested by the applicant. Planner Bergly stated the slope of the land prohibits placement of the building further back on the slope; it could be accomplished but would create a blank wall adjacent to the residential development to the east of the site. Bergly noted the potential option for placement of the parking lot to conform to current code requirements and discussed the fact this would place the parking area too close to the building; if the option were utilized, no variance would be required. The Planner referred to the sign drawing submitted and location proposed for placement of the sign; it was noted the sign proposed is below the minimum size and height requirements and is tastefully designed. He referred to the property line jog as a hardship for placement of the sign. Member Piotrowski requested the revised site plan be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Planner Bergly stated in this instance the request was forwarded directly to Council because the applicant had been delayed due to the Cleveland Avenue improvements. He commented Council could refer this matter to the Board of • Appeals if they so desire. Chairman Probst stated this application was approved for a larger development with no variances and he would prefer the smaller scale development placed on the site without variances. Hans Hagen explained that the slope of the land prohibited placement of the building further toward the rear of the site; the intent of placement is to maintain the natural environment at the south end of the site which is adjacent to residential development. Hagen requested Commission consider eliminating the stipulation which prohibits mechanical equipment on the roof. He displayed the building design to shield the rooftop equipment from view along County Road E-2 and the rear portion of the site. Member Martin commented that Arden Hills has large setback areas along several roadways in the City; was not opposed to the parking variance on the corner of the site. He noted a vehicle parked in this area would not prohibit visibility nor detract from the site i.n the same manner as placement of a building closer to the roadway. Member Ashbach was not opposed to the variances as requested; noted Hagen has made an effort to enhance the site development and the Planner had identified hardships due to the topography and unusual lot lines. • Member Piotrowski expressed opposition to the parking and sign variance requests. She suggested the plan could be revised to accommodate parking on the site. Hagen advised the sign could be placed in compliance with the code, however, he felt the sign as proposed (8 ft. x 3 ft. ) is quiet, reserved, sophisticated and indicative of the quality development in the City. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, August 8, 1989 Page 5 CASE #88-36 (Cont'd) Petersen moved, seconded by Martin, that Commission recommend to council approval of Case #88-36, Revised Site Plan for Hans Hagen Corporate Headquarters, County Road E-2 and Cleveland Avenue, including a 15 ft. front setback variance for the parking lot, subject to the following conditions: 1. The site grading and drainage plan, including erosion control, be approved by the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District prior to grading. 2. The rooftop heating/air conditioning/mechanical equipment be shielded as proposed by the applicant on the building design as submitted, with the stipulation that further screening will be required if complaints are received regarding the visibility of the equipment. 3. Any trash dumpster shall be screened in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. 4. An access permit be secured from Ramsey County. 5. Easements for the Cleveland Avenue lift station and improvements be provided by the applicant prior to issuance of a building permit. Motion carried. (4-1) (Petersen, Martin, Probst and Ashbach voting in favor; Piotrowski opposed) Member Piotrowski left the meeting at 9: 10 p.m. Chairman Probst advised no further formal action would be taken by the Commission since a quorum was not present. He explained the applicant may submit a variance request for the sign setback at a future meeting. COUNCIL REPORT Mayor Sather reported on recent Council actions of • interest to the Commission. The Mayor explained the Council has discussed plans for directing the future roles and functions of city committees. He suggested committee members initiate ideas for study areas, form smaller subcommittees to discuss items of interest and submit recommendations for areas of study (as relates to ordinance amendments, redevelopment, etc. ) to Council for their consideration. ADJOURN Ashbach moved, seconded by Martin, that the meeting be adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) Dennis Probst, Chairman •