Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-4-1989 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING VILLAGE OF ARDEN HILLS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. VILLAGE HALL 1. Call to Order and Roll Call. 2. Approval of Minutes of September 6, 1989, Planning Commission Meeting. 3. Case 89-15 Minor subdivision of part of Lot 7, Borstad Addition, on Amble Road; Tom and Jerry Weaver and Geraldine Cuff. 4. Case 89-17 Variance of 10 feet from front yard requirement and variance of 20 feet from lakeshore setback requirement on Lot 19, Block 2, Arden Hills Addition, 3435 Siems Court; Charles and Sylvia St. Sauver. 5. Case 88-30 Final Site Plan and Final Plat for P.U.D. General Develop- ment Plan previously approved by Planning Commission; Continental Development Corporation. • 6. Discussion of the ordinance provision (see VI,E,6a) that allows paved access driveways to be placed adjacent to property lines. 7. Council report. 8. Adjournment. �}a PLEASE CALL THE VILLAGE OFFICE IF YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING J633-5676 J •.J J J J iC iC iiiiC JJ.J.J.J.J.J.J.J.J.J. .J`i i "• ��Rs � MINUTES OF THE ARDEN HILLS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 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 Dennis Probst, Members Dave Carlson, Peter Martin, Barbara Piotrowski, Dorothy Zehm and Jeanne Winiecki. Member Robert Woodburn arrived at 7:35 p.m. Absent: Members Scott Petersen and Raymond McGraw. Also present: Planner John Bergly, Councilmember JoAnn Growe, Clerk Administrator Gary Berger and Deputy Clerk Catherine Iago. APPROVE MINUTES Martin moved, seconded by Zehm, that the September 6, 1989 Planning Commission minutes be approved as submitted. Motion carried. (Martin, Zehm, Carlson, Piotrowski and Probst voting in favor; Winiecki abstained) (5-0-1) PUBLIC HEARING CASE #89-16; SUP Chairman Probst advised the Public Hearing to consider an FOR FILL, 3803 application from Glenn Johnson for a Special Use Permit NEW BRIGHTON RD, to allow 10,000 cubic yards of fill on his property GLENN JOHNSON located at 3803 New Brighton Road, as published in the New Brighton Bulletin on September 20, 1989 and mailed to affected property owners the same date, will be continued to the November 1, 1989, Planning Commission Meeting, at the request of the applicant. He stated any persons present for this matter will be heard at the November 1 meeting. CASE #89-15; MINOR Planner Bergly explained the request is to divide the SUBD. , PART LOT 7, west 284 feet of the east 392 feet of Lot 7, Borstad • BORSTAD ADDN. , AMBLE Addition into two parcels, with lot dimensions as ROAD, WEGLEITNER & described in his report dated 10-4-89. WEAVER Bergly reviewed the background of this parcel of land and explained the area including this parcel and adjacent lots to the east and west were approved as a final plat in 1978. The final plat was never recorded and the lots to the east and west were divided in separate actions in the configuration as the approved final plat. He further stated the Council had accepted the proposed drainage easement as satisfaction of park dedication requirements, however, because the plat was not filed, the easement was never recorded. The easement now proposed as a drainage easement is 34 ft. narrower than the initial proposed easement. The Planner advised initial discussions with the applicants the low land across Parcel A was shown as an easement for drainage purposes; that drainage area contains water and is needed for water storage. The petitioner now is requesting a division of the property, leaving enough room on Lot A to construct a house on the east end of the lot and are proposing to fill a corner of the wetland area on the north edge and dredge to compensate for water storage. Bergly reviewed the considerations listed in his report regarding the proposed drainage easement, filling and dredging a small portion of the north edge of the pond, City review of the drainage plan due to the fact Rice Creek Watershed District does not have jurisdiction over this pond, limited building envelope on Parcel A, and resolution of Park Dedication. • Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Minutes, 10-4-89 Page 2 CASE #89-15 (Cont'd) Planner Bergly recommended approval of the minor subdivision with the following conditions attached: • 1. The City Engineer approve the engineering aspects of the division, including drainage, easements and grading. 2. The City Attorney approve the legal aspects of the division, including descriptions and filing requirements. 3. The park dedication issue be resolved by Council liaison with input from the Park Director and Park Board if deemed necessary. 4. The site grading be performed in conjunction with the construction of the home on Parcel A. 5. The minimum elevation of the site grade at the building perimeter on both lots be no lower than 975.2. The Planner referred Commission to a report from Engineer Maurer dated 9-29-89, recommending acceptance of the drainage plan. Bergly advised that when this subdivision was presented to the City for plat approval the drainage easement area was accepted as park dedication for the three lots to be created. At this time the developer is proposing to leave the easement as park dedication, however the area has been reduced; since one additional building site is being created it is appropriate to request additional park dedication. Member Zehm questioned if the City will be responsible for maintenance of the drainage easement. Bergly stated the previously approved plat for the area dedicated the easement to • the City and therefore maintenance would have been the responsibility of the City; since Rice Creek Watershed has no jurisdiction over this wetland area, it would be appropriate for the City to maintain the easement. He explained that ordinarily maintenance would be the responsibility of the property owner, however, the pond drains an area larger than this lot and affects other properties which would be rationale for the City involvement in maintenance. Member Winiecki questioned if the drainage calculations include the prospect of the other two lots being developed. Bergly advised he would refer that question to the Engineer. NOTE: Engineer Dennis Brown calculated the drainage based on fully-developed conditions. Winiecki also asked if it is the intent of the property owner to have both lots developed by the same person. She also questioned the building envelope on Lot A. Tom Wegleitner, co-applicant, advised there is no buyer for the parcels at this time, however, development by the same person would be the intent of the property owner. The Planner stated the building envelope on Lot A would be approximately 36 ft. wide, 132 ft. deep; the home would have to be oriented east/west on the lot. Tom Wegleitner requested the Commission consider attaching the first three • conditions listed in the Planner's report to the recording of the lot split and the last two conditions attached to securing the building permit. Member Martin questioned if the excavation will result in severely steep slopes close to the roadway. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Minutes, 10-4-89 Page 3 CASE #89-15 Wegleitner advised the slope will be only slightly steeper in the northeast corner of the pond area. • Martin questioned if the roadway is centered in the right-of-way. Bergly stated it does not appear to be centered; there seems to be more right-of-way on the north portion of the road than the south. Member Carlson noted the lot appears to be small for building purposes; asked if variances will be requested. Wegleitner advised no variances will be requested. Member Woodburn stated it would be appropriate ro riate at this time for Commission to advise the applicant no variances will be considered for development on the property. Woodburn also referred to the definition of land in the City Subdivision Regulations; questioned if the lot area requirement would be met, since a portion of the lot is pond. Bergly explained past policy indicates a lot can be filled if there is evidence a of a building site on the land and filling will create a slightly larger building site. He stated there is sufficient building site without granting variances. Woodburn suggested the City Attorney be requested to locate a definition in the subdivision regulations relative to "land" as high ground versus wetland for future reference. • Chairman Probst expressed concern relative to this applicant utilizing previously dedicated easement to establish a building lot; the easement was given as satisfaction of park dedication. Bergly explained it is his understanding the easement was not exactly park dedication rather land that would be set aside for public open space; the Ordinance does provide for that under park dedication. He further stated the applicant is creating a different requirement for water storage by changing the shape of the pond and are willing to make a cash contribution in lieu of park dedication for utilization of the easement. He also noted this occurred due to the fact the plat was never filed and the lots were sold separately. Winiecki questioned how the minimum grade established will be enforced; expressed concern that the grade elevation requirement may be lost if the property is not developed for a long period of time. Wegleitner suggested it be attached as a requirement to secure a building permit for the site and agreed to meet any other method of establishment Commission imposes. Zehm moved, seconded by Winiecki, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case #89-15, Minor Subdivision as requested, the west 284 feet of the east 392 feet of Lot 7, Borstad Addition, subject to the following . • 1. The City Engineer approve the engineering aspects of the division, including drainage, easement and grading. 2. The City Attorney approve the legal aspects of the division, including descriptions and filing requirements. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Minutes, 10-4-89 Page 4 CASE #89-15 (Cont'd) 3. The Park Dedication issue be resolved by Council liaison. 4. The site grading be performed in conjunction with the construction of the home • on Parcel A. 5. The minimum elevation of the site grade at the building perimeter on both lots be no lower than 975.2 feet. With the stipulation that conditions 1 thru 3 be satisfied prior to filing the minor subdivision and conditions 4 and 5 be satisfied prior to building permit issuance, and further that no consideration be given for setback variances on Lot A in the future and that 975.2 feet minimum building elevation be recorded and filed as part of the minor subdivision. Motion carried. (Zehm, Winiecki, Probst, Martin, Piotrowski, and Woodburn voting in favor; Carlson opposed) (6-1) CASE #89-17; VAR. Planner Bergly explained the application is for front SETBACKS, FRONT yard and lakeshore setback variances for a residence YARD & LKSHORE, proposed to be constructed on Lot 19, Block 2, Arden 3435 SIEMS CT, Hills Addition, Charles & Sylvia St. Sauver, 3435 Siems ST. SAUVER Court. Bergly stated the existing house on the property has major structural defects and the owner has advised it would be more costly to bring the house up to standards than to remove the house and rebuild on the site. He noted the proposed new structure would need a variance of 10 feet for the front yard and 20 feet for the lakeshore setback; new sideyard setbacks would conform to the current requirements. The Planner noted that homes and lots on this cul-de-sac are designed to fit the • land instead of designed to fit the current ordinance requirements. The homesites are unusual shapes, different depths and widths to accommodate the unique topography. Bergly advised the front and rear setback on other nearby lots vary considerably and the proposed home generally will be placed in the same location as the old one; the new home will be turned slightly resulting in trade-offs in the open setback areas. Planner Bergly reviewed several factors that indicate the requested variances are appropriate and meet the stipulations of the variance provision in the Zoning Ordinance. He recommended approval based on the factors listed in his report. Commission was referred to the Board of Appeals minutes of 9-26-89, recommending approval of the requested variances and requesting the utility lines be placed underground. Charles and Sylvia St. Sauver were present and agreed to place utilities underground. Commission questioned if State agency or Rice Creek Watershed District approval would be needed for the lakeshore setback variance. Bergly stated State agency approval would not be necessary as the enforcement of the setback requirement is designated to the local government entity; the State • requires utilizing customary restraints during construction, such as containing run-off. Commission suggested the applicant check with Rice Creek Watershed District to see if there are any restrictions or approvals necessary for the lakeshore variance. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Minutes, 10-4-89 Page 5 CASE #89-17 (Cont'd) Carlson moved, seconded by Piotrowski, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case #89-17, Front Yard and Lakeshore Setback Variances as submitted, subject to approval from Rice Creek Watershed District, if necessary, and based on the following factors: • 1. The building envelope is substantially smaller on this lot than on typical lots in the City and would allow only a 20 ft. x 20 ft. structure. 2. More than 50% of the homes on the cul-de-sac have front yards and lakeshore setbacks that are equivalent to or less than those requested on this site. 3. The proposed home will be similar in terms of height, scale and irregular siting with other nearby homes. 4. Granting the variances will allow the new home to be located with less non-conformity is terms of side yards and lakeshore setbacks than the existing home. 5. The variances will not impair the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the public, nor will it be contrary to the intent and purposes of the Comprehensive Plan or City Ordinances. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) CASE #88-30; FINAL Planner Bergly explained in April 1989 Council approved SITE PLAN & PLAT, the Preliminary Plat and Rezoning of this development CONTINENTAL DEVLMT subject to approval of the PUD General Development Plan CORP. , HWY 10 & and the applicant was requested to return to Commission PARKSHORE DRIVE for review of several items. The Planner first explained items which were not addressed in the Commission or Council action: 1. Entrance Sign Plan - The Developer proposes to bring this in at a later date; • two signs are proposed with locations shown on the plan submitted. Commission and Council approval are required when a plan is submitted. 2. Drainage Plan - The plan is being submitted to RCWD; permits for the site grading will not be issued until RCWD approval is received. 3. Final Plat - The Final Plat is submitted this evening; it is identical to the approved Preliminary Plat. Approval should be subject to the City Attorney and Engineer review and approval. 4. Provision of Cross-Easements - Easements for access, drainage, use of open space, maintenance and utilities over the common drives, parking areas and open space. These apparently cannot be included on the Final Plat, but will be filed with the Final Plat. The City Attorney should review/approve these prior to filing. The Planner outlined the items Commission had requested the applicant to return with more detail for review: 1. Building Exteriors - Elevations, materials and colors; the Developer will submit drawings this evening. 2. Building Floor Plans and Bedroom Mix - The new buildings are all 191 ft. in length and the mix is: 20 one-bedroom units, 32 two-bedroom units and 12 three-bedroom units; total 120 bedrooms. Initially 108 bedrooms were proposed by the Developer; a market study indicated a different demand. 3. Landscape Plan - Developer is proposing to add Black Hills Spruce and/or Colorado Blue Spruce to a buffer area between I-694 and interior court area; a decrease in the quantity of trees on other area of the site is shown. Plan approval is usually deferred to the Planner. Upon initial review by the Planner the site remains substantially landscaped even with the decreases. • 4. Lighting Plan - Additional lights have been added at the ground floor units of Building No. 1 for access for handicapped persons; examples of the lights are included. 5. Handicapped persons access - The Developer has added open parking for the handicapped units at the lower level; indicated this problem was extensively reviewed by the architect and could not be resolved in any other manner. This approach is utilized at other sites and appears to work satisfactorily. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Minutes, 10-4-89 Page 6 CASE #88-30: The Planner reviewed the items that can be approved by Commission and Council at this time, as listed on page 2 of his report, and items to be brought back for Council approval after staff or • committee recommendation. He discussed Tax Increment Financing for public improvements to the trail and park. Bergly stated the Developer is now considering making the pathway a private trail for use by residents of the project only. Previously it was discussed as a trail to provide access for public use as part of the City trail system. The Planner also reviewed items to be reviewed and approved by staff. He noted the sign plan will have to return for Commission review and approval by Council as required in the Sign Ordinance. Commission expressed concern relative to the following items: 1. Lighting fixtures proposed have no controls for illumination "cut-off" and questioned if the fixtures will sufficiently light the parking lot area for safety purposes. Preferred a more detailed location plan including illumination information and a fixture with shielding capabilities. 2. Handicapped parking situation; not pleased with proposed pathway situation. The Planner noted the design is at standard ramp grades for handicapped access. 3. Preferred trail/pathway system be utilized for public use; design and responsibility for maintenance were also discussed. Charles Cook, developer for the project, outlined the areas of concern expressed • at the previous Commission meeting that have been addressed: 1. The developer has adjusted the handicapped parking on the site; moved the outside parking area to better accommodate access. A walk-out design was not feasible with the topography on the site. He noted other units constructed in different cities and currently in use have met handicapped requirements with this exact design. The sidewalks meet all grade requirements. Handicapped tenants have 15 ft. wide stalls in the garage, ramped sidewalks inside the garage to the entry elevations for mail pick-up, and maintained sidewalks and parking at the rear level for the handicapped units. 2. The Fire Chief requested the trail/pathway system which doubles as an emergency vehicle access be constructed as a 20 ft. wide, 10 ton roadway. The City Engineer has reviewed the issue and indicates in his letter of 10-3-89 that either a 7-ton Bituminous surfaced trail or a gravel surfaced trail designed as outlined in the letter. Cook advised it is not his preference to use a bituminous surface and feels the pathway should remain private due to the closeness of the trail to the units; felt it would invite vandalism with outsiders using the trail system. He was of the opinion a paved surface would invite automobile traffic and prefers the gravel surfaced pathway. 3. The developer explained the lighting provided across the front of the building, at the ends of each building and at the rear of the buildings. Security lights at the corner of each building that are photo-sensitive will also be installed. He also outlined the handicapped lighting in the parking lot area. 4. The landscaping costs were decreased approximately $13,000.00, however, $9,000.00 of the decreased amount was due to the elimination of crushed rock and edging around each building. He substituted pine trees at two locations to buffer the noise from the freeway and to buffer the parking areas, as per the Planner's recommendation. 5. The entrance sign has not been designed at this time; the locations have been designated. The developer stated he would return with the design as required. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Minutes, 10-4-89 Page 7 CASE #88-30 (Cont'd) 6. The grading plan is exactly as previously submitted. The Developer's Engineer has been discussing the plan with RCWD representatives. 16 7. The developer has submitted the Final Plat and explained the cross-easements for access and utilities will be submitted in written form in favor of adjoining lots, as those cannot be recorded on the final plat. The document will be submitted for review by the City Attorney prior to recording the plat. 8. The developer explained the market study he recently completed indicates the market desire for one and three bedroom apartments which generated the changes in the bedroom mix for the project. 9. The minor exterior building changes occurred due to the bedroom mix for the project. The developer explained the basic exterior look of the building will only change slightly. 10. The developer is proposing aluminum siding and brick exterior on the buildings and displayed the design features and materials. Commission questioned if the park dedication discussions by previously included public the dedication of the trailway. Bergly advised that the park dedication cash or land amount was not discussed with Commission except in terms of possible location should the dedication be land. He did not recall discussing the trailway dedication. The Planner commented he had viewed the trailway system for neighborhood use. Cook stated the trailway dedication was not discussed previously and he has contacted • Councilmember Mahowald regarding park dedication; Mahowald advised the discussion of park dedication will occur after Council review of the project. Commission questioned the distance of the pathway relative to the building patios. The Planner stated the closest distance from pathway to patios would be 20 ft. and the farthest approximately 35 ft. He indicated the land has a steep slope in the area of the path location which dictates the closeness to the building. Commission questioned if the landscape plan minimum level was set when the plan was previously reviewed. It was suggested the Planner review the plant materials to insure some visual buffer during the winter months. Bergly recalled the landscape plan being discussion and presented as being somewhat more substantial than the developer would propose with the final plan. Chairman Probst reiterated the concerns relative to the lighting fixtures. He preferred a public use of the pathway; stated the residents of the project will have no means of enforcing usage of the path. Probst indicated this is an opportunity to develop a trail system throughout the City. Cook suggested the lighting plan could be resubmitted after staff input is received. • The Chairman indicated it would be appropriate for the signage plan to return at a later date, however, the applicant should be advised that no variances for the signs will be considered by the Commission. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Minutes, 10-4-89 Page 8 CASE #88-30 (Cont'd) Commission questioned responsibility for maintenance of the trailway if it is dedicated for public use. • The Planner commented if TIF funds are utilized for the trail installation as part of the City trailway system it would not be inappropriate for the maintenance to be performed by the City. Commission questioned if the handicapped parking area would be utilized by visitors. Cook stated the parking area is reserved for the tenants of the building not for public use. George Winiecki, 4175 Highway 10, stated he would be opposed to utilization of the pathway system for public use. He advised his property abuts the project and he did not favor persons walking through his property from the trailway. Chairman Probst stated the issues discussed can be included as part of action taken by Commission and the applicant will respond to the restrictions imposed. Piotrowski moved, seconded by Martin, that Commission recommend to Council approval of the Building Exteriors--elevations, materials and colors and the Building Floor Plans and Bedroom Mix, and that Commission concerns remain regarding the non-public trailway system and its design, the lighting plan illumination patterns and safety, and the landscape plan proposed. Cook suggested if Commission recommends public dedication of the pathway it be contingent upon the City Attorney and the Developer's financial institution • reviewing potential liability; preference for construction of the pathway would be a gravel surface. He also stated he will meet any criteria requested relative to the lighting plan and will meet with staff to receive input prior to revising the plan. Cook stated it is his opinion the previous concerns mentioned relating to the landscape plan regarding the buffer along I-694 have been addressed and the landscape plan is sufficient; agreed to work with the Planner if plant material changes are recommended. Woodburn moved to amend the motion, seconded by Martin, that Commission recommend approval of Case #88-30, General Plan Approval include and be contingent upon: 1. Site Plan approval. 2. Public Easement Dedication of the trailway/emergency access path with maintenance of the trailway to be the responsibility of the property owner and contingent upon review and recommendation of the City Attorney. 3. Bituminous surface on the trailway which meets design standards as recommended by the City Engineer. 4. Landscape Plan approval subject to review and approval by the City Planner. 5. A revised lighting plan be submitted for Planning Commission review, to include information relative to illumination controls and type of fixtures and safety factors for the parking areas of the project. Amendment to the motion carried. (Woodburn, Martin, Probst, Piotrowski, Carlson and Zehm voting in favor; Winiecki abstained) (6-0-1) • Original motion as amended carried. (Piotrowski, Martin, Woodburn, Probst, Carlson and Zehm voting in favor; Winiecki abstained) (6-0-1) Woodburn moved, seconded by Zehm, that Commission recommend to Council approval Case #88-30, Final Plat, contingent upon the City Attorney review and approval, and that the proposed easement be filed and recorded as part of the plat. Motion carried. (Woodburn, Zehm, Piotrowski, Probst, Carlson and Martin voting in favor; Winiecki abstained) (6-0-1) Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Minutes, 10-4-89 Page 9 CASE #88-30 (Cont'd) The applicant was notified that the Lighting Plan and Signage- Plan will return to Commission for review. DISC; ORDINANCE The Planning Commission was referred to a memorandum AMENDMENT, SIDE from the Zoning Administrator dated 10-4-89, relative to YARD SETBACKS a survey of surrounding communities ordinances on side yard setback for driveways. Deputy Clerk Iago explained a resident requested Commission consider amending the current Arden Hills driveway setback requirements to provide a 5-foot buffer between the driveway surface and the property line. She stated the other communities surveyed require a 5-ft. setback, unless a variance or permission from the adjacent property owner is granted. Mable Gluesing, 1143 Ingerson Road, was present and explained her neighbor has recently added a bituminous surface which is causing severe drainage problems on her property. Commission advised Gluesing she should contact an attorney to pursue remedies for the drainage problems and that an ordinance amendment requiring a 5-ft. buffer would not be retroactive and would not resolve the problems she is experiencing. Commission concurred that the City is almost fully developed residentially and the precedent for the current requirement has been set. No action was taken on this matter. 1990 CENSUS Chairman Probst advised he received a request from Deputy • Clerk Iago for assistance with the 1990 Pre-Census reports. Members Zehm and Winiecki volunteered their assistance. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Growe reported on items of interest to the Commission. She discussed the Council recommendation to give all committees special charges to review; questioned if Commission had discussed any of the items mentioned by Mayor Sather at a previous meeting. Chairman Probst advised the Commission has not had an opportunity to discuss the following and would do so at a future meeting: 1. Lexington Avenue Study 2. Round Lake Study Area. 3. Zoning Ordinance Review for Update. 4. Arsenal Property. 5. Redevelopment of Lakeshore Property. Winiecki suggested Commission worksessions be held to discuss these items. Commission requested the November Agenda include discussion of the above items. ADJOURN Zehm moved, seconded by Winiecki, that the meeting be adjourned at 10:00 p.m. • Dennis Probst, Chairman