Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 11-26-2001 . ~ ~HILLS MEETING MINUTES CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26,2001,7:30 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1245 WEST HIGHWAY 96 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Dennis Probst called to order the regular City Council meeting at 7:30 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; and City Attorney, Jerry Filla. APPROV AL OF MEETING AGENDA Mayor Probst noted the revised agenda with the removal of the last two items under new business. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to adopt the agenda for the November 26,2001, regular City Council meeting, as revised. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. October 29,2001 Regular Council Meeting Councilmember Grant requested the following changes to the October 29,2001 Regular Council Minutes: 1. On page 6, in the last paragraph, in the first sentence, replace "20" with "30" and insert "round" after "four". . 2. On page 9, in the second paragraph, in the first sentence, after "Bethel College", insert "as an issue". ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 2001 2 . 3. On page 9, in the second paragraph, in the second sentence, replace "what" with "the type of development" and insert "to see" before "on the site". Councilmember Rem requested the following changes on page 10fthe October 29,2001 Regular Council Meeting: under Approval of Meeting Agenda, replace "removed" with "moved to the discussion under Unfinished and New Business" in both sentences. Mayor Probst requested the following change to the October 29,2001 Regular Council meeting minutes: on page 12, in the "build the argument" not "make the argument". MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to approve the October 29,2001 Regular Council Meeting minutes as corrected above. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). CONSENT CALENDAR A. Claims and Payroll B. Final Payment, Contract Retainage, 2001 North and South Water Tower Maintenance Project C. Trinity Lutheran Church Joint Use Agreement D. City Hall Maintenance Contract Approval . E. 2002 Official Meeting Calendar, Approval of City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Dates F. Joint Powers Agreement, City of Roseville (Technology Services) G. Springbrook Financial Software Purchase MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant 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 come forward and address the Council on any items not already on the agenda. No public comments were made. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. Planning Cases 1. Case #01-22, Beacon Construction, County Road E-2 and Cleveland; Rezoning, . Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Master and Final Planned Unit Development Mr. Parrish explained the location of the proposed apartment building. He reviewed the history of the case. He stated the applicant had facilitated a site visit. He noted that in ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 26,2001 3 . addition the applicant had provided a traffic review comparing an apartment development to an office development that might occur under Neighborhood Business zoning. He added this review listed 186 trips per day for the apartment use and 294 trips per day for the office use. Mr. Parrish reviewed three alternative site plans. He noted alternative two moved the building to the east and the access to the north. He added this alternative contemplated a 20- foot rear yard setback. He stated the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer had requested that the access be located as far south on property as possible. He noted he had not done a comprehensive review of the three alternatives because the application was not received in time. Mr. Parrish noted alternative three moved the building to the north and west. He added the final option had the most significant potential changes. He stated it moved the building closer to Cleveland A venue to the west. He noted it called for a reduced setback of 20 feet when the requirement was 40 feet. He added if this was a neighborhood business project, that orientation would meet the code requirement for setbacks. He stated this alternative put all of the parking to the rear of the building to screen it from Cleveland A venue. He noted the first issue was whether the Council wanted the Comprehensive Plan designation changed. He added to the extent that policy decision is . made, further evaluation of master unit development can be considered. Councilmember Larson stated the Council has to make a decision based on the proposed zoning being superior to what the property is currently zoned for. Mr. Parrish concurred. He reviewed the criteria for warranting a zoning change. Mayor Probst stated he was not prepared to support the base proposal as submitted. He noted that fundamentally he thought the site required a building designed for this site. He added the proposed options moved the project in a way to be more favorable, but he did not want to negotiate a design from the bench. He stated if the Council was interested in pursuing an apartment use, he would recommend remanding the case to the Planning Commission. He noted staff could work with the applicant to resolve some of the issues. He added the revised plan would go to the Planning Commission and then back to the Council. He stated it would mean a considerable delay. He noted that if it were not appropriate to change the Comprehensive Plan designation, then the rezoning would be unnecessary. Councilmember Rem stated she was leaning towards a use to minimize the impact the project had on the site. She noted she was not comfortable with putting in the additional parking. She added it would result in a dormitory situation. She stated she was not convinced the city needed to change the zoning on the site. She noted the Council pursued Neighborhood Business as the zoning in order to have a use that fit in more with . the neighborhood's pedestrian character. She added she would not be interested in pursuing this case unless there was compelling evidence presented. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 2001 4 . Councilmember Larson stated he was also opposed to this development for two reasons. He noted he did not feel the applicant made a convincing case that the proposed zoning is superior to the current zoning. He added this did not meet the fundamental standard. He stated the city has a master plan for Bethel College. He noted this was the first time the city saw movement from the college off its campus. He added before this should happen, the Council needed to give a great deal of thought on how Bethel College and the community would interact. He stated the dormitory nature of this building required more parking than was normal for an apartment. He noted the larger parking lot resulted in more surface runoff and more engineering problems in fitting the building to that piece of land. Councilmember Grant stated he would like to see the parcel developed. He noted he was not convinced R-3 was a superior zoning for the parcel. He added he would entertain the suggestion that the case could be presented to the Council. He stated he was concerned about the parking and the size of building. He noted he was not opposed to its development as an R-3 style building. He added he was not enamored with any plans, but believe it could be ironed out with further discussion with staff. Councilmember Rem stated in clarification that the proposed zoning was R-4. . Mr. Loren Kjersten stated he wanted to respond to the reference that Bethel College's standing was beyond the master plan. He noted the permit states Bethel College is prohibited from non-residential growth beyond its boundaries. He added this is not a Bethel College project. He stated a business would have more parking required than for a residential use. He noted this property has been paying a small amount of taxes for many years and no use has been found for it. He added this use is good for this property. He stated that on the table is a "get out of jail free card" for the city's encroachment on this property. He noted he is trying to work with the city to provide an easy solution for everyone. He added from the standpoint of an economic impact he does not see a better use. He stated this use would have less traffic than a business use. He noted they thought they were being creative. Councilmember Larson stated he thought the master plan of the college does not preclude this kind of development. He noted he was not suggesting there was a legal impairment. He added that when Bethel College development starts taking place beyond its boundaries he thinks there should be some discussion about this issue. Mr. Kjersten stated they are willing to put an II-year time limit on it. He noted that was their intent. He added it is not a Bethel College development. He stated it was his development and Bethel College is the tenant. Councilmember Larson stated he could not separate the two. . Mr. Kjersten stated the Bethel College use of the building is relatively short part of the life of the building. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 2001 5 . Councilmember Aplikowski stated the issue is whether they want to change the zoning. She asked that if one of the other institutions came forward and said it wanted to put housing on that comer, would the Council's response be different. She questioned whether they wanted an apartment building on that comer or wanted to save it for a business use. Councilmember Rem stated since it is a neighborhood business zone, it would be a smaller business. She noted the zoning has not been in place long enough to see if it was appropriate. She added she would prefer to see it kept neighborhood business for a longer time to see what might go in at the site. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she liked the proposal. She noted an apartment building was a better choice for the comer then a small business. Mr. Kjersten stated their original proposal was to do an office building. He noted since that time office demand has fallen off rapidly. He added this was an opportunity for all of the parties to have something that does work. Councilmember Grant stated he was willing to entertain the idea to change it to multi- family use. He noted was not sure about these particular plans, but he would want to see . something that fits the site aesthetically. He added he does have some issues with the traffic flow and parking. Mr. Raymond Kreps, 1676 Chatham Avenue, stated he was a retired general contractor. He noted he had seen this comer remain for sale for 22 years. He added it was a sore spot in the City of Arden Hills for looks and tax purposes. He stated he does not see a business going in there without a double access. He noted he would oppose that. He added he does not feel there would be a traffic problem. He stated the building is tight but fits in on the site. He noted this housing would be available to seniors in the summer time. He added many people look for a summer place, because they go south for the winter. He stated it was a good choice. He noted they should get that comer developed. Ms. Jan Bergman, 3790 Brighton Way, stated she had spoken to Mr. Dan Soler the traffic engineer. She noted she had asked him to review accidents on five sites in this area. She added there were 30 accidents in the last four years. She stated there were 25 accidents at E2 on the on and off ramps for 35 W. She noted Mr. Soler thought that was significant. She added Mr. Soler stated he would be sending a letter to the state Department of Public Safety recommending lights at the on and off ramps. Mr. Bob Carlson, 1482 Bussard Court, asked about the encroachment that the developer alluded to. Mayor Probst responded that some years ago a new lift station was built along Cleveland A venue. He stated some property owners wanted to have a lift station built. He . noted some paperwork needed to be done to grant an easement and that paperwork does not exist. Mr. Carlson stated Bethel College has an II-year lease. He noted it would behoove the council to see that lease to make sure Bethel College does not have an option to buy the building at the end ofthat lease. He added the Federal Highway Department ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 2001 6 . has to improve that area by either taking more property or relocating that bridge. He stated the apartment house would be very close to the access ramp. He noted it was just a matter of time before they had another problem there. Mr. Dave Carlson, 3535 Siems Court, stated he sat on the Planning Commission for 10 years. He noted Bethel College was not in the housing industry. Mr. Carlson added the developer said he was separating himself from Bethel College. He stated he saw no difference. He noted Bethel College has a huge campus and has room on that campus to build. He added they should look at what is happening with St. Thomas. He stated there is a limit as to how big Bethel College can be. He noted Bethel College needs to face facts that it can only be so big. He added Bethel College cannot be all things to all people. He stated he would like to address the north athletic field. He noted it was an accident waiting to happen. He added it was a mess during construction. He stated there was no place to walk and someone is going to get hurt. He asked who was going to have to pay for lights and a crosswalk. He stated it would not be Bethel College. Ms. Karen Johnson, 3003 New Brighton Road, stated Bethel College has been a real asset to the community. She stated it was a nice spot for people that want to live in the country. She noted when the lift station was proposed, all they heard was that it would bring up the value of their property. She added they were assessed on their taxes for five . years. She stated that at that time they were approached about putting in a lift station. She asked if the Council really wanted prospective contamination. She stated they did not want a convenience station. She noted they like all the open area, but something is going to go in there. She added this is the best thing she has seen proposed. Mr. Filla stated that technically the city should address these issues separately. He noted the Council should first deal with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He added that if the Council does not amend the Comprehensive Plan, it would be a reason to deny the rezoning. He stated that if the city does not pass the first two, there is no reason to consider the PUD. He recommended keeping the record straight and discussing the issues one at a time. Mr. Filla explained the city has legislative discretion to adopt a Comprehensive Plan. He stated all the Council would need to say that in the last two or three years nothing significantly has occurred in this neighborhood to cause the Council to change the Comprehensive Plan. He noted the Council does not have to worry about any standard leading to rezoning. He added it was not necessary for anyone to prove that the rezoning would be better than what is there at present time. He stated that would become a non- issue. He noted state law requires a resolution to approve or deny this type of action. He added the motion should be to adopt a resolution as outlined in this case by the City Attorney. . Councilmember Rem stated her main concern is that this use is too intensive for the site. Councilmember Aplikowski stated amending the Comprehensive Plan does not hinge on this apartment building. She noted ifthe Council rejects this amendment, it would be ------ --- ----- ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 2001 7 . difficult to approve an apartment four months down the road on this site. She added the main issue is whether they want to change the Comprehensive Plan or not. Mayor Probst stated he differed with Councilmember Aplikowski's evaluation. He noted a vote to not amend the Comprehensive Plan was not a vote against housing at this location forever. He added that ifthere is a project that is so meritorious that it caused the Council to rethink neighborhood business zoning, that would be different. He stated what is before them now does not meet that standard. He noted he was not opposed to housing. He added the other proposals did not fit the site. He stated it was going to require some sensitivity to make sure housing would fit into this site. Councilmember Larson asked if the Council first needed a motion to deny the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Filla responded that it was important to have the language of the resolution included in the minutes. He stated the motion could be: Motion to adopt a resolution to deny a request for a change to the comprehensive plan designation for this site from neighborhood business to high density residential, which incorporates the following: Whereas, Beacon Construction has represented that it is the owner or has the right . to purchase the following described property generally located in the southeast quadrant of County Road E2 and Cleveland A venue (Insert legal description "the Beacon Property"), Whereas, the Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map currently designates the Beacon Property as neighborhood business Whereas, the Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan and the designation on the Future Land Use Map was adopted in 1998, Whereas, Beacon Construction has requested that the City amend its Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for the Beacon Property to high density residential, Whereas, the City Council has determined that no substantial changes have occurred within this section of the City of Arden Hills since the Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan was amended in 1998 and the Council reaffirms its legislative determinations from 1998 Whereas, the City Council has determined that Beacon Construction has a reasonable use of its property if developed in compliance with the City's current development regulations. . Now, Therefore be it resolved, that the application of Beacon Construction to amend the Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan by changing the future land use ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 26,2001 8 . designation for the Beacon Property from neighborhood business to high density residential is denied. Councilmember Grant asked Mr. Parrish to review the possible uses for this property. Mr. Parrish responded the primary uses would be retail, banks, housing provision as long as done in conjunction with retail. He stated it is more of a commercial designation. He noted the setback requirements are less. He added there are provisions for buffering. Councilmember Grant asked if a video store would qualify. Mr. Parrish responded in the affirmative. He read the permitted uses. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to adopt a resolution incorporating the elements read by the City Attorney. The motion carried (3-2 Aplikowski and Grant). Mr. Filla stated there is still an application for rezoning and PUD approval. He noted the Council should take action on those as well. He added one legal reason for denial of a rezoning is the zoning requested is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to . deny request for rezoning since it is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and to deny the Master Plan PUD and Final Plan PUD/Site Plan requests since they are inconsistent with the current zoning. The motion carried (4-1). 2. Case #01-27, Tom and Kathy Goserud/Roger Aiken, 4320 and 4360 Hamline A venue, Preliminary Plat and Variance Mr. Parrish explained the request before the Council was for a preliminary plat and a variance to facilitate platting seven lots from two existing lots. He stated the two existing lots would be retained with existing single-family residences. He noted the remainder lots would be available for singe-family residential development. He added the first variance that is being requested is to allow for the use of a private access. He stated the second variance for lots 2 through 6 is for lot depth variances. He noted the range in type that is being requested. He added there have been past applications on these properties. He stated most recently there was a plan for a PUD for 12 detached townhomes. He noted unresolved issues caused the application to be withdrawn. He added that with the platting in the surrounding area on the south of Mr. Goserud's property with Karth Lake Second Addition and Karth Lake South there was also consideration given to these properties in terms of access or potential access. He reviewed the performance criteria contained in the staff report. He stated there are some lot depth variances that are being requested. He noted access is the fundamental issue. He added the subdivision ordinance requires a public dedicated street. He . stated the fire inspector indicated 20 feet of bituminous would be the minimum requirement for fire access. He noted the City Engineer indicated that this type of development would be more appropriately served by a public road. He added that as a result the Planning Commission did recommend denial with regard to private access. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 2001 9 . He stated there was a finding of no hardship on this property. He noted the existing single family use of the property continues to be a reasonable use of the property. He reviewed the criteria for a variance. Mr. Parrish stated there were some previous applications by the applicant. He noted that there are applications that the applicant did not maintain access on the southern part of the property adjacent to Karth Lake South Second Addition and Karth Lake South. He added the allegation is that the property at one time extended back to Cummings Park and part was sold off to facilitate the developments. He stated materials supplied by the applicant do reference city actions that provide a basis for hardship requirements. He noted it referenced similar shared access drives in Arden Hills. He added most of them listed are lake lots. He stated the development that occurred around lakes did not meet city standards and predated incorporation or the current zoning code. He noted most of these are private accesses that serve at most one additional lot. He added some are flag lots. He stated Amble Road was approved in 1996. He noted Amble Road is not at the same level as what is proposed. He added Amble Road was 200 feet and the proposed road is 500 feet. He stated some of the lots on Amble Road had direct access and here the lots do not. Mr. Tom Goserud, 4315 Hamline Avenue, stated the Council has a letter submitted . with the application. He noted they became residents of Arden Hills in 1970. He added he did sell some land as part of the Karth Lake South development. He stated there was an agreement that his remaining property would be provided access. He noted the final approval by the city did not approve that access. He added street access was discussed for the second time during development of the Karth Lake Second Addition. He stated an access was not approved at that time either. He noted these denials put him in the situation where he is in today. He added they have two large parcels over three acres that the city allowed to be landlocked. He stated that each of the lots is 4 to 5 times larger than the surrounding lots. He noted the only access that could be given to the lots now was through a private driveway. He added whatever development that evolves must access through Hamline A venue. He stated he does not think any traffic generated would be more than their business during the busy seasons. He noted the most recent example of a private drive being approved is the Amble case approved in 1996. He added there was no discussion of hardship at the Planning Commission meeting. He stated the discussion centered on the private drive that did not meet city code. He noted Amble case city staff had dictated special circumstances existed: 1. There was room for a public street, but it would have made existing homes nonconforming structures. Other variances would be necessary. 2. There was a substantial property right to redevelop lots of substantial size. This is . also true in this case. 3. It would provide for public welfare and an adequate turnaround for emergency vehicles. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 2001 10 . Mr. Goserud stated that to him the two plats are almost identical. He noted Mr. Parrish indicated the Amble driveway is shorter. He added Amble Road accesses four homes and his drive accesses five homes. He stated the Amble case's recommendation explains a hardship and his case states there is no hardship. He noted the preliminary plat before the city is just that. He added that a lot of time went into it, but they are willing to listen to suggestions. He stated he knows they have to work with Rice Creek Watershed and do engineering work on the site. He thanked the Council for its review. Mr. Roger Aiken, 4350 and 4360 Hamline Avenue, stated the PUD never rose to the level of the Planning Commission. He noted there was an error when they set up the lot lines. He added he was not aware the road detracted from the property. He stated he could correct that. He noted their purpose to maximize the number of trees that would remain on the property. He added he would work to retain the natural grading on the lots. He stated there is more than adequate slope for any kind of utilities. He noted the land offers many opportunities for walk-out designs. He added he had hoped to use a cul-de-sac design to maximize the trees. He stated the wetland area is shared with another lot platted in 1989. He noted that at that time the Planning Commission established as condition on the deed, an ordinary high water level. He . added they created a small building area and a swale that empties into another wetland. He stated that although it landlocked this area, it did provide for future drainage. He noted a Commissioner had commented that access would be to the west. He added he was at those meetings and commented that they would be landlocked. He stated a Rice Creek Watershed permit would be required. He noted his knowledge of those rules indicates the Watershed would be interested in making sure the total surface area of the plat did not exceed one acre. He added any substantial drainage going into a wetland the Watershed liked see done to a 10 to one land ratio. He stated the topography is such that drainage to the wetland is only for a small area. He noted the rest of the property drains to the swale. He added the access to Hamline Avenue was brought up by the Planning Commission. He stated the County required a 25-foot curb cut. He noted that is also the width here on Amble Road. He added he was open to suggestions on how to improve this plan. He stated the engineer could not see why the road was too long if it worked. He noted they have a turnaround. He added the road itself would be changed a little to protect some trees. He stated a shorter road would make the driveways longer. He noted he would rather have an association to make sure that the road was maintained primarily. He added the City Engineer felt an 18-foot road built to specifications would not present any liability if city takes the road over. Ms. Rhonda Mymell, 1284 Amble Road, stated she had safety concerns about the development. She noted her main concern about Hamline A venue. She noted it was . an extremely busy road. She added there were three roads in only 600 feet. She stated there was a ton of backup in traffic if cars were turning in and people were trying to turn there. She noted there was no sidewalk along Hamline A venue. She added there would be no walking access to the park. She stated she sees that as extremely ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 2001 11 . dangerous. She noted it would only add to the traffic, which is dangerous there. She added it would be a road access to five houses. She stated there would be no traffic except for 4 or 5 houses at the end. She noted the Fire Marshal determined it inappropriate for emergency vehicles. She added it would also be inappropriate for School buses and garbage trucks. She stated there is a reason the city has a standard for roads and lots. She noted the city had excellent planning. She added it was very appropriate to hold to standards and appropriate street widths. She stated that ifthe city approved this, it must approve other ones. She noted there must be a standard. She added the elevations were a problem. She noted Wyncrest Court is higher than their homes. She stated they have flooding in their yard. She noted their sump pump runs a lot. She added the soil is clay so there is no place for water to seep in. She stated she sees the development as being very detrimental to them. She noted it would lower the property values. She added she did not see this as a hardship. She stated Roger was offered a road coming in on Amble Road. She noted he chose for his land to be landlocked. She added he made the choice. She stated it was a fine piece of property for a single dwelling. Ms. Anna Maravelas, 1274 Amble Road, stated she had many problems with water coming down the hill. She noted her basement gets flooded and her front yard gets flooded because it is across from the marsh. She added the neighbor two houses over . indicated her building never flooded until the development was built. She stated she was very concerned it would make a bad situation worse. She noted the water would come up from the floor itself. Mr. Keith Mymell, 1284 Amble Road, displayed pictures of standing water on the property. He noted the culvert in front of his property. He stated the pond does not accommodate the amount of water there already. He added he assumed the Council had all seen the petition that had been signed. He stated they were surprised that Roger, a Sierra Club member, would generate this plan. He noted that as for a hardship, the existing land pays less taxes than he does per square foot. He added the dangers of the access on Hamline A venue had been mentioned. He stated there are concerns with the roads being misaligned. He noted he was a landscape architect and was familiar with this type of thing. He added there is potential here to avoid this type of situation from happening. He stated there is a potential for greenspace. He noted the neighbors would like to work with the owners and the city to do something other than developing this land. Mr. Paul Trovedke stated he lived in the area marked wetland. He noted he was the last to develop that property in the neighborhood. He added he liked the open space aspect of this property. He stated that if another property was put back in there it would detract from the value of his property. He noted something built back there would be expensive to do and would raise his property taxes. He added that at the . end of Amble Road, it is a dead end. He stated he did not think that same size of road could go onto those properties to accommodate them. He noted the two homeowners have enjoyed the property for a number of years. He added the hardship would be on the neighbors that would be left there. He stated these owners plan on moving. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 26,2001 12 . Mr. Jim Paulet, 1285 Wyncrest Court, stated the City Engineer's report should be seriously considered. He noted the City Engineer felt the road should be designated as a public road. He added the applicants had stated the development was consistent with the neighborhood. He stated that if that were true there would be room for a public road. He noted Mr. Goserud stated he did not have the opportunity to purchase access to Wyncrest Court. He added he knew of a neighbor that would dispute that. He stated that if a hardship was an issue, he thought it should be investigated. He noted two of the homes were existing homes on Amble Road. He added that only two of the homes were a new development. He stated that in terms of hardship, both of the applicants have had an opportunity to develop their sites with access to Amble Road or Wyncrest Court in the past. Ms. Diane Gibson,1297 Wyncrest Court, stated she had nothing to add. She noted she shared all the concerns about safety and flooding. She added it was her understanding that both residents had options to have an access. Ms. Maravelas stated Hamline A venue has really become a war zone to try to get off and on to. She noted none ofthe streets line up so there is no logical place to put in a stop light. She added the cars rev up for the ramp so the speeding there is atrocious. . She stated it is way below the standard for a county road. Councilmember Larson stated he certainly could not support the concept plan as proposed given the City Engineer's comments and the comments from the Fire Department. He noted that at the same time, this area is landlocked. He added that it was part of the city that could be developed although perhaps not to the intensity shown here. He stated this configuration is the wrong one. He noted he was not sure there is a right one. He noted the applicants should be given the opportunity to review it again. He added if the applicants wish to go forward, it would be worthwhile to look at it. He stated he lived next to an empty lot for five years and he loved it. He noted the lot was eventually developed and it was sad. He added it was the owner's right to develop that property. He stated it was not totally fair to the current property owners to say they would not develop the land because the neighbors like the open space there. Councilmember Aplikowski stated landowners do have certain rights. She noted she could not support this level of development. She added she was supportive of a modified plan with a cul-de-sac at the end. She stated she did not think it was a reasonable response to say the owners had a chance for an access 20 years ago and that was their only chance. She notes she could understand concerns about the loss of open space. She added her neighbor built a fence that destroyed her view. She stated she would like to say go back to the drawing board. She noted she was not against . doing something, but this is too much. Councilmember Grant stated he lived in an area with a meadow in the back. He noted he could relate to some of the comments, but Councilmember Larson expressed it ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 2001 13 . well. He added this is a large parcel. He stated if they dropped the density they could shorten the road and might reduce the costs. He noted he was not prepared to move on this concept plan. He added he would be open to some type of revision. He stated he shared Councilmember Aplikowski's concerns about the road. Mayor Probst stated he served on the Planning Commission prior to being on the Council. He noted it was his recollection that there were options for access. He added that for reasons not recalled the owners chose not to pursue them. He stated that in hindsight, the city should have taken action here and identified a paper street for access to these points. He noted there has been a fairly steadfast attempt to avoid flag lots. He added they have attempted to avoid private streets. He stated that in the instances private streets have been approved they have been for one or two properties only. He noted he had significant concerns about the five lots, their utilities, and the service of emergency vehicles. He added this neighborhood does have water problems. He stated the City has had to make a number of corrections. He noted that too much is trying to happen here. He added he would not support creating this number of properties on a private street. He stated that in addition to street corrections, there would also be two driveways. He noted those driveways would need to corne off the street and enforce the idea that it needs to be public. . Councilmember Rem stated her biggest concern was that as presented the maximum number of lots. She noted there is going to have to be a real street there. She added she really had misgivings about the street going onto Harnline Avenue. Councilmember Aplikowski stated there are already traffic problems there. She noted adding five homes would not increase the traffic significantly. She added the traffic was not a big issue here, but the size of the road was an issue. Councilmember Grant asked when the applicants could corne back with a revised plan. He questioned whether it would be better to table the matter and let them corne back. Mr. Parrish stated the zoning ordinance indicates that the applicant can corne back in six months. He noted he would suggest a new application. Mayor Probst stated if the plan changed substantially the applicants could corne in tomorrow with new fee. He asked about the applicant withdrawing the application. Mr. Parrish responded if they withdrew the application, anything new would be a new application. Councilmember Aplikowski asked the applicants why they wanted to do this. Mr. Goserud responded it is a large piece of property to maintain. He stated they were . looking for a smaller property in the future for retirement. He noted they would be selling the property. He added they feel it is a parcel that can be divided. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 2001 14 . Councilmember Aplikowski asked if the applicant's desire was strong enough to come back with another plan. Mr. Goserud responded in the affirmative. Mayor Probst stated his strong desire was to see a modified proposal go back through the planning process and not straight to the Council. Councilmember Larson stated he would agree with the Mayor. He noted he thinks it would be the best way to proceed. He added that he hoped that in the process the developer would try to work with the neighbors. MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to deny request for approval of the plat and request for variances in Planning Case #01-27 for reasons contained in the staff report of November 20,2001, as recommended by Staff. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 3. Case #01-23, City of Arden Hills, Sign Ordinance Mr. Parrish explained this is the second reading and consideration of final adoption of the Sign Ordinance. He stated it has elements discussed at the previous work session. He noted there was a limitation on the exemption for religious symbols. He added . there were also elements for the maintenance and repair of signs. Councilmember Larson asked for clarification under Section four in the paragraph that relates to religious symbols. Mr. Parrish responded the Council could omit the "public building" language. Councilmember Larson stated the mention of both types of buildings makes sense. He suggested the language "religious or other symbols". Mr. Filla requested further clarification on the reason for the changes. Mr. Parrish responded there has been some changes in the last couple of years in the regulation of churches. He stated that in the past there had been a blanket exception for religious symbols. He noted this section places two restrictions on the exception. Councilmember Aplikowski asked if this meant no crosses on churches. Mr. Parrish responded no cross could extend beyond the building. Councilmember Aplikowski stated this was un-American. She stated she never intended to affect church steeples. Councilmember Larson stated the original concern was based on lighting on a building. He noted the language was to say the city did not want to regulate religious . symbols unless they were nuisances. He added limits were to be set, for the most part, it was not to regulate them. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 26,2001 15 . Mr. Parrish stated if a church or other institution was proposing something that deviated from the ordinance, they could go though the process for a variance. Councilmember Aplikowski stated the purpose of the task force was not to eliminate crosses or steeples, but to regulate logos on the sides of buildings. Councilmember Grant stated he was not opposed to the illumination of a cross on a church. Mayor Probst stated he was comfortable leaving the language "as is" and moving forward. Mr. Filla stated there is federal law to preclude a city from discriminating against religious symbols. He noted he was confused by the need to distinguish between institutional or public buildings. He added if the city intended "institutional buildings" to mean churches, the language should just be "church buildings". Mayor Probst asked if the change should read "religious symbols attached to church buildings" . . Mr. Parrish stated that "institutional" was added to address Bethel College. Mayor Probst asked why not refer to symbols attached to buildings. Councilmember Larson stated he was comfortable with deleting "public". Councilmember Grant asked if a church desired to put a cross above the church would it have to meet the sign ordinance. Mayor Probst responded yes. He stated it would not be exempted automatically. Councilmember Aplikowski stated that other residents have been bothered by lights and the Council did not have to address the issue. She noted the complaints were about ground signs and signs on the side of the building. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to extend the meeting time to 10:30 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mayor Probst stated the language is important to be here. He noted that without it the ordinance would exempt all religious symbols without going through some process. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve in Case #01-23, the second reading and adoption of Ordinance #333 . adopting sign regulations for the City of Arden Hills, subject to deletion of "and public" in section 4, C, and to approve the Ordinance Summary for Ordinance #333 as recommended by Staff. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 26,2001 16 . B. City Hall Construction Project 1. Pay Request #13, Architectural Alliance Mr. Lynch explained Pay Request #13. He noted Pay Request #14 is pending further investigation by staff. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to approve Pay Request #13 in the amount of $149,310.63 for Rochon Corporation. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS None. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Grant stated the Operations and Finance Committee should meet on December 20,2001. He noted Ramsey County had approved bonding for its jail and maintenance facility. Councilmember Rem stated the Communications Committee is working on the final draft of the . newsletter. She noted the Restoration Advisory Board for the Arsenal property would be meeting at City Hall on December 3, 2001. Councilmember Larson stated the Parks, Recreation and Trails Committee would meet November 27,2001. He noted they would continue working on the Comprehensive Park Plan. He thanked the Public Works Department for the striping on Old Snelling Avenue. Councilmember Aplikowski stated the Governor has on his desk a resolution regarding smart growth. She noted it would affect how the cities view redevelopment. She added she would request staff get a copy of it. She stated it might not affect Arden Hills entirely, but would affect the undeveloped portion of the city. Councilmember Aplikowski requested storage for several boxes of the Events Committee's paraphernalia. She stated the Committee was returning many original photographs loaned to the City for the Anniversary Celebration. She noted she had hoped to use them with the City Hall open house. She added the Events Committee had inquired about possible dates for the open house. She stated the town hall meeting in March might be a good time to do schedule it. Mayor Probst stated he had thought there would be a presentation at the last worksession by a potential developer for the TCAAP site. He noted the developer is still interested in making a presentation. He added they might be prepared to make a presentation at the December worksession. . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 26,2001 17 . ADJOURN MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to adjo the meeting at 10:08 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). jI . .