Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 02-26-2001 . . . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2001 7:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Dennis Probst called to order the regular City Council meeting at 7:37 p.m. Present: Mayor Dennis Probst, Councilmembers Beverly Aplikowski, David Grant, Gregg Larson, and Lois Rem. Absent: None. Also present were City Administrator, Joe Lynch; City Accountant, Terrance Post; and Recording Secretary, Kathleen Altman. ,y ADOPT AGENDA Councilmember Larson requested items 6b, 6c, and 6d precede item 6a. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to adopt the agenda for the February 26, 2001, regular City Council meeting as amended. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. January 29,2001 Regular Council Meeting B. February 5, 2001 Special Council Meeting C. February 12,2001 Regular Council Meeting* (*Fiftieth Anniversary Proclamation Event) D. February 20,2001 Council Workshop Councilmember Grant clarified the February 20,2001 Worksession that it was a Council worksession and there were no formal actions taken. Councilmember Larson requested on the January 29,2001 Meeting Minutes, Page 12, 4th paragraph from bottom second sentence, be changed to ready "he was concerned about the parking areas surrounding the buildings". On Page 16, under Administrator's Comments, 5th paragraph, Mr. Moore's comment was to the gymnasium, not to the playground facilities. Page 17, 3rd paragraph from top, 2nd sentence, in addition to.. . delete the word "do", and in the following sentence the word "that" was missing. Councilmember Rem requested on the January 29,2001 Meeting Minutes, Page 5, 3rd paragraph from end ofthe page, last full line change the word eating, to "meeting". Page 17, 5th paragraph, ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 26,2001 2 e should state "Councilmembers". February 5, 2001 Special Council Meeting, last line of Page 2, where it indicated using the Keycard technology, change to "users would only need to hold their cards in front of the sensor". Mayor Probst requested on the January 29, 2001 Meeting Minutes, Mr. Doughty's spelling of his name be corrected. On the February 5, 2001 Meeting Minutes, Page 3, 4th paragraph from bottom should state "conduit and boxes". On Page 4, last paragraph, "Mayor suggested deal with". On the February 20,2001 Meeting Minutes, page 3, 3rd sentence, "Mayor Probst indicated that he had agreed that the City of Arden Hills would lead the process through the next step. " MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to approve the January 29,2001 Regular Council Meeting, the February 5, 2001 Special Council Meeting, and the February 20, 2001 Council Workshop as Amended, the February 12,2001 Regular Council Meeting as submitted, and the February 20,2001 Council Workshop as corrected above. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). CONSENT CALENDAR A. Claims and Payroll. B. Public Works Vehicle Purchase (2001 Budgeted Item) C. City Hall Construction, Professional Design Services Fee Adjustment e Councilmember Grant asked why the Public Works Vehicle, which he indicated was for snowplowing was being purchased at this time. Mr. Post replied these vehicles are factory purchases. The current model year order needed to be placed in the spring for delivery in late summer, early fall. Councilmember Rem asked on the T47, claim transaction with Roseville, if those workstations were to be used for water billing. Mr. Post replied that the payment to the City of Roseville represented invoices for fourth quarter 2000 water purchases, and the purchase of five (5) PC workstations. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar and authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Probst invited those present to corne forward and address the Council on any items not already on the agenda. No public comments were made. .e ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 26,2001 3 . UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS PLANNING CASES B. Resolution #01-08, Pot 0' Gold Premises Permit Gambling Permit Renewal Mr. Post explained that the proposed resolution would renew applicant's application for the period from June 1, 2001 to May 31, 2001. He stated staff was not aware of any issues that would cause staff not to recommend approval of this resolution. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to adopt Resolution No. 01-08, Pot 0' Gold Premises Permit Gambling Permit Renewal. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). C. Resolution #01-09, A Resolution Approving an Application for Authorization for an Exempt Gambling Permit Mr. Post explained that the proposed resolution would allow an exempt gambling permit from the University of Minnesota Urban Forestry Club. He stated this organization had proposed to have a raffle fund raising event on March 30 and March 31, 2001. The organization was also requesting the City to waive the thirty-day waiting period to the charitable gambling event. Staff recommended approval of the Resolution. . Councilmember Rem asked which date was the correct date of the event. The application stated March 20 and 21,2001 and the Memorandum dated March 30 and 31, 2001. Mr. Post replied March 20 and 21, 2001 were the correct dates of the event. MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to adopt Resolution No. 01-09, A Resolution Approving an Application for Authorization for an Exempt Gambling Permit, waiving the 30-day waiting period for the event scheduled on March 20 and 21, 2001. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). D. Resolution #01-07, A Resolution Approving the Minnesota Department of Transportation Proposal (S.P. 6284-130) to Construct a Noise Wall on the East Side ofI-35W from C.S.A.H. 96 to Railroad Overpass Mr. Post explained the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) had programmed construction of a noise wall on the east side of 1-3 5W from Highway 96 north to the railroad overpass. MnDOT required approval as evidence by the City to proceed with the project. He stated this topic was discussed at the February 5, 2001 City Council meeting. Input provided by the Council included the following design: . · Use of uncolored concrete posts; · Decorative endcaps on the concrete posts; · Decorative "Christmas Tree" trim on some panels; ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 26,2001 4 . · Alternating (offset) panel attachment to the posts; and · Use of the dark chocolate brown stain color. The Council also directed staff to request the Arden Manor Park owners to inform mobile home park residents of the proposed noise wall project. Mr. Post stated Mr. Gedstad, MnDOT Project Engineer, had previously indicated that there would be aesthetic treatment upcharges to the City for decorative trim ($9,000.00), concrete post endcaps ($12,250.00), and integral colored concrete posts ($104,085.00). MnDOT had since indicated they would provide the decorative trim at no cost to the City. The Arden Manor Park owners issued a February 1, 2001 letter to park residents informing them of the proposed noise wall and informing them to forward comments to the City by February 16,2001. To date, the City had only received one comment about the project and that was in support of the project. Staff recommended the City adopt the resolution. Councilmember Rem asked for clarification regarding the decorative trim. Mr. Post replied the State would charge for the posts and endcaps, but not the decorative trim. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to adopt Resolution No. 01-07, A Resolution Approving the Minnesota Department of Transportation Proposal (S.P. 6284-130) to Construct a Noise Wall on the East Side ofI-35W from C.S.A.H. 96 to Railroad Overpass. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). . AI. Case #01-01, Corporate Express, 1233 West County Road E, Site Plan Review Mr. Lynch explained that the applicant, Corporate Express, was requesting a site plan review of the existing facility at 1233 W. County Road E, for additional dock doors on the west side of the building, a dock addition on the north side of the building and a revised parking plan to accommodate interior and exterior remodeling. Mr. Lynch reviewed the past planning cases for the Corporate Express property. He noted that Planning Case 69-23 reviewed two variances for this property: rear yard setback (18' where 20' was required for overall expansion; allowing as close as 2' for the NE corner of the structure) and building coverage (47% where 40% was the maximum permitted). The applications were unanimously approved and, therefore, any variances approved with this structure, remain a part of the property until which time that the building was removed. There were a number of existing issues with this property, greatly the result of variances granted in the past, hindering future expansion and reasonable attempts by the applicant to bring the property into conformance. Mr. Lynch presented the site plan as follows: . 1. Building Setbacks. The proposed dock addition on the north side of the building was shown at 16' from the rear property line. It must be no closer than 18' to be in conformance with variance #69-23. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 26, 2001 5 2. Building Height. A maximum height of35' was permitted. The dock addition would be . approximately 20' in height. 3. Lot Covered By Structure. A variance was granted in Planning Case #69-23 to allow 47% lot coverage by the structure. The current lot coverage was 46.84% (235,914.9 square feet of lot area/109,570 square feet of building). The dock addition increases the lot coverage to 47.35 % (235,914.9 square feet oflot area/ll0,770 square feet of building). 4. Parking and Circulation. The property currently had 137 parking stalls on the property. This was permitted at the time that the building was constructed. Mr. Lynch noted the applicant had broken down the parking requirements for the business, showing that not more than 127 parking spaces were required at anyone time. However, 188 spaces were required by the Zoning Ordinance, requiring 47 to be shown as proof of parking elsewhere. The applicant had submitted a letter of agreement with the neighboring property owner, Flaherty's Bowl, for joint use of 47 parking spaces. Mr. Lynch explained that parking spaces were required to be located a minimum of five feet from the property lines with drive aisles no less than 24' width. The parking at the rear of the building could not meet these minimum requirements, requiring the elimination and relocation of the proposed parking stalls on site. The Building Inspector had also noted that two additional handicap-parking stalls were required by Building Code. . 5. Screening. A compactor was being added to the west side of the building, screened through landscaping since it could not be easily contained in a structure. As a security measure, the entire truck dock area would be enclosed with a fence and electronic gate. It was proposed that the existing fence and gate be relocated to just south of the truck dock area and that a chain link fence with security barbwire on top (no longer permitted by Zoning Ordinance) surround the area. Barbed fences were not permitted by Section 6 (E) 4 (c) of the Zoning Ordinance. Chain link fences were acceptable to a height required by the applicant. The fencing along the rear property line should be relocated onto the applicant's property as it appeared to currently be within the railway right-of-way. 6. Aesthetics. The dock addition would be constructed to match the existing building as would the dock doors. Mr. Lynch advised that the City of Arden Hills received a completed application for this request on January 8, 2001. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by March 9,2001 (60 days), unless the City provided the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The additional review period would extend to May 8, 2001. The City may, with the petitioners' consent, extend the review period beyond the May 8, 2001 date. . Mr. Lynch noted that if the City denied the petitioners' request, "... it must state in writing, the reasons for denial at the time that it denies the request." ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 26,2001 6 . Mr. Lynch advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning Case #01- 01, site plan review for Corporate Express, 1233 W. County Road E, for additional dock doors, a dock addition and a revised parking plan, with the seven conditions. Councilmember Aplikowski asked why more handicapped parking was necessary when this was not a retail facility. Mr. Lynch replied it was a public facility and the Code required that accommodation. Steve Unruh, applicant, stated they had worked very closely with the City Planner and explained they were merging two companies and would like to stay in Arden Hills. He indicated they had already leased a facility in New Brighton because they realized parking was going to be an issue. In order to properly process their orders out of this facility, the dock doors and new receiving areas needed to be added. Councilmember Larson asked about the existing compactor and inquired if there would be two compactors on the site. Mr. Unruh replied there would be two compactors on the site. Councilmember Larson inquired about the re-striping of the parking lot. He asked if the areas that indicated there were islands were new. Mr. Unruh replied that those areas were not islands. They were painted areas, and they were new. . Councilmember Grant asked if there was going to be screening of the compactor. Mr. Unruh replied they were going to try and rotate the compactor and have it loaded from the front. There would be no tree in front of the compactor as indicated. Councilmember Grant stated he wanted a screen requirement on the front of the compactor added to the Resolution. MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to approve Planning Case #01-01, Site Plan Review for Corporate Express, 1233 West County Road E, for additional dock doors, a dock addition and a revised parking plan, subject to the following conditions: . 1. The dock addition must be no closer than 18 feet from the rear property line; 2. All parking stalls and drive aisles must be set back 5 feet from the property line; therefore, the six parking stalls and drive aisle proposed at the rear of the building must be eliminated, the area reconfigured to meet the Ordinance and the parking stalls relocated on site; 3. No additional landscape area may be taken for parking space reconfiguration; 4. The applicant must accommodate two additional handicap parking stalls on site (total of four as per the Building Code); 5. A more permanent letter of agreement for proof of parking be provided for City files; 6. All fencing must be located within the property lines, constructed of chain- link to a height acceptable to the applicant and agreed to by staff; electric and barb wire fencing was not permitted; ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 26, 2001 7 . 7. Application for a building permit must be made with the Building Inspector; and 8. Screening to be placed in front of the compactor. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). A2. Case #00-45, Semper (Walgreens), County Road E & Lexington Avenue North, Special Use Permit (SUP)/Site PlanNariancelLot Split Mr. Lynch explained that the applicant had made the following requests for the property located in the Northwest quadrant of County Road E and Lexington Avenue, zoned B-2, General Business District: 1. A lot split of the property located at 1201 County Road E creating two parcels from one; 2. A variance from Section 6 (D) #1 (b), proximity to drive-in businesses; 3. A Special Use Permit for a drive-in business in a B-2 District; and 4. A site plan review of a proposed Walgreens on the newly created parcel. Mr. Larson advised that the Planning Commission heard the applicant's request at the January 3, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. The applications were tabled, pending submission of additional information, and heard again at the February 7, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. . Mr. Lynch presented a list of past planning cases for the Holiday Inn property, located at 1201 County Road E and explained the outcome of each. Mr. Lynch then presented staffs review of the application as follows: Lot Split The applicant requested a lot split from the property located at 1201 County Road E, creating two parcels from one. The Holiday Inn remained on one parcel, splitting off a second parcel, 78,515 square feet in size, for a proposed Walgreens. The remaining Holiday Inn parcel, as proposed, was sufficient for it's parking and operating requirements. The lot split application met all of the requirements of Section 22-12 (e) of the City Code, division of platted lots of record. Variance The applicant requested a variance from Section 6 (D) #1 (b) ofthe Zoning Ordinance, proximity to drive-in businesses, 200 feet (from parcel to parcel) where 1320 feet was required. This Section of the Ordinance states that a drive-in business could not be located within 1320 feet of another drive-in business. The City Attorney had advised staff that this business did meet the definition of a "drive-in business" (Section 2, #42) since it offers a service without entering a building and there was a separate definition identifying "restaurant, fast food" (Section 2, #126). Therefore, a variance application for distance from another drive-in business was required. . The following findings of fact could be made: · The drive-in was required for the operation of the business and the property could not be put to a reasonable, approved use within the District without it; · The granting of the variance would not alter the essential character of the District; ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 26,2001 8 . The application met the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and The Special Use Permit application, as required for drive-in businesses, gives the City the opportunity to review and address any future potential problems on the property on an ongoing basis. . . Special Use Permit/Site Plan Review The applicant requested a special use permit (SUP) for a drive-in business (as required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6 (D)) and a site plan review for a Walgreens. The application met all of the minimum dimensional requirements (lot area, size, setbacks), lot coverage, floor area ratio, landscape lot area, building height, parking requirements and aesthetics. The grading and utilities plan was reviewed by the City Engineer and comments have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The Ordinance requires that drive-in businesses have two accesses to public streets (Section 6 (D)#2 (h)), which it does, plus a third requiring a permanent access easement through the Holiday Inn parcel. Ramsey County had confirmed their preference for the access through the Holiday Inn parcel for better access to and from County Road E. . Mr. Lynch explained that the majority of the discussion of this application at the Planning Commission focussed around the impact of this business on traffic and the designation of this parcel as a "Community Gateway" as it related to signage requirements. Commissioner Sand submitted a memorandum to the Planning Commission, addressing his concerns regarding the proposal as it related to community gateways in the City. Mr. Lynch advised that the applicant hired URS/BRW to complete a traffic study for the impacts of the proposed Walgreens on the Lexington Avenue/County Road E area. The study illustrates that the proposed changes to County Road E would actually improve the intersection and traffic flow, even with the addition of a Walgreens store at this location. Mr. Lynch noted the Sign Ordinance permits one freestanding sign and one wall mounted business sign per frontage on a public street. The proposed freestanding sign met the Sign Ordinance requirements, whereas the wall mounted signs must be adjusted to not be higher than 16 feet in height at the top of the sign. Significant discussion took place around a gateway sign for the City at this location. Mr. Lynch noted that the November 1998 Comprehensive Plan update identified "Community Gateways" in Figure 7.1, Road Classifications. This map, as adopted, did not match the identified "Community Gateways" in the 1985 Parkway System Feasibility Study. The Parkway System Feasibility Study amended the 1980 Comprehensive Plan, which was completely redone in the 1998 update. The Comprehensive Plan, as updated, did not identify the comer of Lexington Avenue and County Road E as a "Community Gateway". The Planning Commission had directed staff to amend the Comprehensive Plan through the proper procedures to correct the map. . Mr. Lynch explained that although this property was not formally designated as a "Community Gateway" by the last adopted plan, the applicant had attempted to incorporate the landscaping ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 26,2001 9 ideas from the Parkway System plan into their plans. The only information provided on . "Community Gateways" in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan was as follows: "The intent is that special attention be paid to enhancing intersections where there is an entrance to the community. Special attention may include street and curb realignments, signage, burying overhead utility lines, berming and landscaping. Design parameters need to be developed to help define each intersection." Mr. Lynch noted this language was vague and provided little direction for potential applicants. If the City wishes to have specific design guidelines for "Community Gateways", they should be developed and adopted into the City's Zoning Ordinance as a separate district or overlay district. Additionally, the properties identified as "Community Gateways" were not City owned parcels. If the City intends to have entrance signs on any of these properties in the future or have special landscaping, the City would have to purchase land, replat as substandard lots for a sign or obtain a permanent easement from the private property owner, if willing. . Mr. Lynch stated the City of Arden Hills received a completed application for this request on December 6, 2000, pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by February 4, 2001 (60 days), unless the City provided the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The applicant was notified, in writing, that the application would be extended sixty days to AprilS, 2001. The City may, with the petitioners' consent, extend the review period beyond the AprilS, 2001 date. He noted that if the City denies the petitioners' request, "... it must state in writing, the reasons for denial at the time that it denies the request." Mr. Lynch advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning Case #00- 45, for the following applications, each contingent on the other's approval: 1. Lot split of the property at 1201 County Road E from one lot into two lots, for the following reason and with the following conditions: a) The proposal met the minimum requirements of Section 22-12, (e) of the City Code; b) The subdivision shall be recorded with Ramsey County within sixty days of approval from the City Council; and c) Following recording with Ramsey County, the applicant would provide a final plat plus evidence of recording to the City of Arden Hills. . 2. Variance from Section 6 (D) #1 (b), proximity to drive-in businesses, for the following reasons: a) The drive-in was required for the operation of the business and the property could not be put to a reasonable, approved use within the District without it; b) The granting of the variance would not alter the essential character of the District; c) The application met the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and d) The Special Use Permit application, as required for drive-in businesses, gave the City the opportunity to review and address any future potential problems on the property on an ongoing basis. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 26,2001 10 3. Special use permit for a drive-in business, for the following reason: a) The application met the requirements of Section 6 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance, "Additional Minimum Requirements for Drive-In Businesses, Fast Food Restaurants and Automobile Service Stations" if granted in conjunction with the variance application for "Proximity to Other Establishments". 4. Site plan review for a Walgreens in the northwest quadrant of County Road E and Lexington A venue with the following conditions: a) Final plans shall indicate how the depression in the northwest comer of the site was drained, the diameter and invert of the existing culvert located under the railroad, grading and restoration through the ditch on the northern edge of the site to the lowpoint and the site Engineer shall provide drainage calculations to the City for review; b) Install a silt fence along the northern limit of the project, review proposed French drains with Rice Creek Watershed District and obtain the required permits; c) Obtain required permits from Ramsey County for curb cuts on Lexington Avenue and County Road E and for construction of a median extension on County Road E as acceptable to Ramsey County and the City; d) The permanent access easement to the Holiday Inn parcel must be recorded with Ramsey County and proof of recording provided to the City; e) The two proposed wall-mounted signs must be relocated on the building so that they do not exceed 16 feet in height at the top of the sign; j) The changeable copy on the freestanding sign shall not change more than once in a 24 hour period; g) Landscaping shall be as shown in the applicant's drawings, dated 01/08/01, with the addition of coniferous trees, as acceptable by staff; h) Lighting shall be in warm tones, as agreed on by staff; i) A base for a City "gateway" sign (to be subsequently installed by the City) be constructed on the comer of Lexington Avenue and County Road E, constructed of materials similar to the building and of a width and height similar to the proposed business monument sign and facing the street intersection, working with staff to obtain the necessary permanent access easements; and j) Two monument Walgreens signs be located on the parcel, one at each entrance, setback 20', instead of the one monument sign proposed on the comer of the two streets, to accommodate a City gateway sign. Mr. Lynch stated Staff agrees with all ofthe recommendations made by the Planning Commission, with the exception of #4, site plan review, items i and j. At this time, staff was uncomfortable with these recommendations since the City had not formally adopted sign locations (as well as parcel ownership), sign design, overall project budget nor a timetable for implementation of gateway signs. Mr. Lynch advised that staff overlooked the requirement for parkland dedication during the review process, as required by the Subdivision Ordinance (Section 22-9 (b)) when a property was subdivided. For nonresidential projects, the amount ofland dedication shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total area of the parcel. This may solve the issue of City land ownership if the applicant was willing to dedicate land for the City sign. However, ifthe City Council . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 26,2001 11 preferred, cash in lieu of land dedication may be provided, in the amount equal to the percentage of land that would be dedicated multiplied by the fair market value of the property at the time of approval. Mayor Probst inquired as to the number of accesses into Walgreens. He asked if all of the accesses would stay. Mr. Lynch replied there would be an elimination of a right-in right-out on West County Road E to a right-in only. The curb cut at the hotel would be where the main entrance to Walgreens would be. Mayor Probst asked if there was any discussion with the Planning Commission regarding where the building was situated on the property. John Kohler, Architect with Semper Development, showed an overhead transparency of their proposals. He stated access to the site would be a right-in, right-out on Lexington Avenue. He stated a full cut would be on West County Road E. Also, on West County Road E, there would be a right-in only entrance, which would eliminate full access at the hotel full cut on West County Road E. He stated the hotel cut lined up directly from the Arden Hill Plaza location. He also presented a summary of landscaping, signage, parking, and building exterior. Jack Forsland, BRW, summarized the traffic impact analysis. Councilmember Grant asked if there had been any consideration regarding the Target Store under development, the Shoreview Office Building, as well as other development when they prepared the traffic impact analysis. Mr. Forsland replied they had taken into consideration the existing developments, not future developments. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she did not believe people would just stop in at Walgreens. She believed most people who went to Walgreens, went there with a definite purpose, not just a stop in. She expressed concern regarding the entrance on Lexington Avenue being so close to the railroad tracks. She asked how many drive-in stalls were being proposed. Mr. Kohler replied they were proposing two drive-in stalls. Councilmember Aplikowski stated this was a good service to the neighborhood, however it seemed to serve more of the City of Shoreview than Arden Hills because the traffic flow did not serve Arden Hills. Councilmember Larson asked what would happen if they did not have the right-in only. Howard Gerker, Semper Development, replied they would use the full cut. He stated the right-in only would reduce conflict and there would be less movements at the full cut. He indicated it would distribute the traffic among more entrances. He stated Ramsey County preferred having the right-in only access. Councilmember Larson stated he would like to see fewer entrances, and eliminate the right-in only access. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 26,2001 12 Councilmember Rem she believed the Ordinance stated they needed to have a curb-cut. She . asked for a clarification regarding the Ordinance curb-cuts. Mayor Probst stated he believed the Ordinance addressed two points of access, not anything about required curb-cuts. Councilmember Grant asked about the median extensions. Mr. Gerker replied on Lexington Avenue, there would be no extensions; West County Road E would have one extension for the right-in only. Councilmember Grant asked how they were handling the surface water. Mr. Kohler showed on the site map where they proposed to have the detention area. He stated the site drained from the front of the building to the southeast and picked up in catch bases and relocated to the northern part of the site where the detention ponds were located. He stated the engineers had worked with the Watershed District. This had been reviewed by the Watershed District. Ron Johnson, 1280 Nursery Hill Court, also had a business in Arden Plaza. He asked ifthe applicant was familiar with the report written February 21, 2001 by Daniel E. Soler. He indicated the January 3, 2001 Planning Commission meeting minutes stated they had the blessing of Dan Soler. Mr. Johnson stated Mr. Soler said he would look at it, but did not give his blessing. He asked for clarification regarding Ramsey County's statement regarding that everything was fine. He asked if applicant had anything in writing from Mr. Soler. . Mr. Gerker replied the County was always consulted first for their comments. He stated they had talked to Mr. Soler about that and what they had in mind was based on the traffic study. He stated Mr. Soler told them at that time that this was fine, and it was only the past week or so that Mr. Soler stated the traffic study was too conservative. Mr. Gerker indicated until they got to the final process, things did not get into formal letters. Mr. Johnson stated in the February 21, 2001 report, Ramsey County did not want to extend the median on West County Road E because it would cut off the left hand lane into Arden Plaza. Michael Frakes, 3712 Chatham Circle, stated he drove that intersection every day and there would be substantial traffic problems in this area ifWalgreens were added. He stated right now, there was no way to get in and out ofthe Arden Plaza businesses easily. He urged them not to grant variances for the drive-in, as it would add too much traffic, especially since it was located so close to the railroad track. He stated he did not see this location for a Walgreens as having a purpose. He indicated there were already several drugstores in the area, and he believed this business would have a negative on traffic in the area. . Greg Tiesen, 1556 Oak Avenue, urged Council to vote against this proposal. He stated the traffic study did not speak to the issue of the disruption of the traffic patterns. He stated it was a very busy intersection and he did not see the addition ofWalgreens as an advantage and did not see how it served the community. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 26,2001 13 Tom Ostby, 3517 Siems Court, stated nothing would be improved in terms of traffic in this area. He indicated one of the problems they had in Arden Hills was that this area was not pedestrian friendly. Chuck Erickson, Arden Pharmacy & Gift, stated he objected on the grounds that it would be an undue hardship for the Arden Hills Plaza customers getting in and out of the businesses in Arden Hills Plaza. Kevin Carroll, 462 Carver Circle, Shoreview, MN, stated he had many concerns regarding the facility he had available for lease, and his inability to lease that facility because of the traffic problems in the area. He stated there had been very little traffic from his building located at 1203 West County Road E since summer because the building had been vacant, so when the traffic study was prepared, it may not have taken into consideration their building was not contributing to the traffic at that time. Councilmember Larson noted Walgreens had been very cooperative with the Planning Commission, and he appreciated the changes made based on the comments received at the Planning Commission. He asked if this was going to be a 24-hours Walgreens. Mr. Kohler replied he was not aware of it being a 24-hour Walgreens. Councilmember Larson asked if there was any way this could be a 24-hour Walgreens because there were no 24-hour Walgreens in the area. Mr. Gerker replied the 24-hours stores were centrally located throughout the metro area and there was no intention of having this a 24-hour Walgreens. Councilmember Larson asked about the flood lighting. Mr. Kohler replied the flood lighting was being requested as a desire ofWalgreens to present the building, but if the City did not want it, they could take off the lighting. Mayor Probst asked about the pole height. Mr. Kohler replied the pole height was 30 feet. He stated when they had lower poles, more poles were required. Councilmember Larson asked where the sidewalk was located. Mr. Kohler replied the sidewalk would be located along West County Road E and tied into the existing sidewalk. Mr. Gerker stated they would not object to having the sidewalk go around on Lexington Avenue if they wanted. Councilmember Larson stated that would be a nice addition. Councilmember Larson agreed with Mayor Probst regarding not having parking in front of Walgreens. He stated he would like to see a plan where the building was closer to the street with parking in the rear. He asked if there was any reason they could not look at a design that would pull the building closer to the street. Mr. Gerker replied the function of the building would not work very well that way because of the drive-in facility and the loading docks. He stated they had tried it once and it did not work and they were now trying to relocate that building. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 26,2001 14 Councilmember Larson asked why they needed the drive-in facility. Mr. Gerker replied the elderly, handicapped, and people with sick children liked the drive-in facility. It was a nice convenience for those customers. Mr. Gerker stated the Walgreens were more local stores and not regional stores such as a Target Store. He indicated they were attempting to place a Walgreens every two miles in the Twin Cities area. Mayor Probst expressed concern regarding the updated traffic analysis being given to them this evening and not having the opportunity to review this information prior to the meeting. Councilmember Grant asked what the turning radius was from the median turning into Arden Hills Plaza. Mr. Kohler replied it would be over 100 feet. Councilmember Larson asked about Ramsey County recommending the right-in only. Mr. Kohler replied they had presented that to Ramsey County and Ramsey County had not recommended the right-in only. Councilmember Aplikowski indicated she had been struggling with this. The building looked wonderful, but she did not believe it belonged on this corner. She disagreed with Councilmember Larson about pulling the building closer to the street. She liked it back farther away from the intersection. Councilmember Grant asked if there was a way to make the right-in only with no possibility of traffic making a left turn in. Mr. Kohler replied it was just the matter of the angle ofthe approach. Councilmember Aplikowski expressed concern regarding four signs, when the other businesses did not have that many signs. Mr. Kohler replied the Ordinance allowed them to have this number of signs. Also, the corner signs were moved back to allow room for the City sign. and the signs had been dropped down to keep them below the height of the canopies of the building. Mayor Probst asked to have this extended until April 5, 2001, so the Council could have further time to review all of the information presented this evening. Councilmember Rem agreed. Councilmember Larson agreed to table the item for further discussion. He stated he had no opposition to the idea of it being developed, but he did not think it did a good job of setting the tone of the downtown area. He stated he wanted more time to review the plan and obtain additional ideas from the architect as to what might make this more attractive as an entrance to the City. He stated he would still like to see the building pulled forward. He believed more thought needed to be given to the lighting and sidewalk access. Councilmember Grant stated he would be in favor of taking more time to look at the options. He expressed concern regarding the traffic flow, the traffic study, and the median. He indicated he needed more time. He stated this was a major intersection and he thought this proposal deserved more reVIew. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 26, 2001 15 Councilmember Aplikowski disagreed this was the only entry way into the City. She clarified this was one entryway. She believed the building looked fine, but her concern was the traffic on the corner. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to table Planning Case #00-45, Semper (Walgreens), County Road E & Lexington Avenue North, Lot Split ofthe property at 1201 County Road E from one lot into two lots, until such time it could be reconsidered within the 60-day extension time period. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS A. City Position, Proposed Liquor Sales Mr. Lynch stated staff had been previously approached by Senator Reiter regarding legislation allowing wine to be sold in other businesses other than liquor stores. He stated they had not prepared a response on this. Councilmember Larson stated he spoke against it because he believed the Council should not get involved in this type of legislation. He also stated the City did not have a grocery store, and was not directly affected by this. Councilmember Aplikowski pointed out the City did have liquor stores. Councilmember Aplikowski stated her objection was that any business that was open on Sunday should not be allowed to sell wine. Mayor Probst stated he did not believe the Council's role was to evaluate competition to other businesses. He stated they had to be careful about approving or disapproving issues such as these on that basis. He stated he had understood Council had agreed to not deal with this as a formal resolution, but he did not oppose it. Councilmember Rem stated she also understood as a Council they were not going to take any action. Councilmember Aplikowski stated they should inform Senator Reiter that the Council was not going to take any formal action regarding this. MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion send a letter to Senator Reiter stating the Council was not going to take a stand on the issue of the sale of wine in grocery stores. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Grant had no comments. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 26,2001 16 . Councilmember Larson stated there was a Parks and Trail Committee meeting scheduled for tomorrow night. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she had attended a conference last week regarding alternative methods of road improvements and the Rice Creek Watershed District would be interested in speaking with the Council about their road pavement plan and suggested that for one of the future sessions, they have her come in and talk to them. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she got a call this afternoon from Jackie Kreschback(?sp). asking if the City would be interested in a tri-city potluck on the arsenal site in August, 2001. It would be the various historical societies coming together to do a program and a possible tour. She suggested they could have the potluck outside the new City Hall weather permitting. Mayor Probst suggested having this potluck as a part of the ribbon cutting ceremony for the new City Hall sometime in September, 2001. Councilmember Aplikowski replied they were definite on the August 2, 2001 date. She stated she would ask Ms. Kreschback if a September date would work. Council decided August 2, 2001 would not be a good date for this potluck. Councilmember Rem stated the Newsletter Committee was meeting on Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. . Mayor Probst commented on the arsenal and asked that over the next several meeting they try to arrive early prior to the Council meetings to discuss this issue. He suggested the first and last meeting of March to discuss this issue. Mayor Probst asked the following be kept in mind: Attempts being made to get together with the 35W coalition regarding special funding to allow them to move forward and the MnDOT interest in the arsenal. Mayor Probst asked staff to pursue easements across the back of the current City Hall to completed the trail loop. Mr. Lynch replied he believed they had obtained an easement from the Nott Co. and the City was waiting for signatures and the declaration of intent that they would not be asking for any money. He indicated they were pursuing the rest of the easements. Mayor Probst asked staff to look at the right-of-way Ordinance, and revisiting the variance procedure by looking at the City of Roseville's procedures. Councilmember Larson asked how they were going to address the Walgreens development again. . Mayor Probst replied he would like a second opinion regarding the traffic analysis taking into consideration the new developments that were being proposed. He asked that someone look at how the site was really working. He did not like the idea of having to drive through the parking lot to get around the site. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 26,2001 17 Councilmember Rem asked what type of a business could go onto that site that would not generate traffic. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she did not know of any business that could be added to that comer that would not generate traffic. She stated the problem she had was with the drive-in facility and the traffic patterns that occurred because of it. Councilmember Larson stated he had a problem with the additional curb-cut and wanted to see businesses share entries. Councilmember Grant offered praise to the members ofthe Public Works and the Parks and Trails for the good job they did with the snow removal over the weekend and the grooming of the trails today. ADJOURN MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10: 17 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5- ). NOTICE OF MEETINGS The next Council Meeting will be held Monday, March 12,2001 at 7:30 p.m. at the Arden Hills Council chambers.