Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-03-24 PC MinutesApproved: March 6, 2024 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 3, 2024 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Paul Vijums called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Paul Vijums, Commissioners Brad Bjorklund, Shelley Blilie, Joshua Collins, Steve Erler, Arlene Mitchell. Absent: Commissioners Kurtis Weber, Jonathan Wicklund, and Council Liaison Emily Rousseau. Also present were: Community Development Director Jessica Jagoe and Senior Planner Elena Fransen. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – JANUARY 3, 2024 Commissioner Mitchell moved, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to approve the January 3, 2024, agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 6, 2023 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Bjorklund moved, seconded by Commissioner Blilie, to approve the December 6, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). PLANNING CASES A.Planning Case 23-023; 1666 Oak Avenue – Variance – Public Hearing Not Required Senior Planner Fransen stated Plekkenpol Builders (“Applicant”) has requested a variance to construct a covered front porch addition on the property located at 1666 Oak Avenue (“Subject Property”). The Applicant has requested a variance to decrease the required front yard setback ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 3, 2024 2 from 40 feet to 29.6 feet. The existing principal structure is nonconforming with the front yard setback requirement and has a front yard setback of 36.5 feet. The Applicant is proposing a 36.2 foot by 7 foot covered porch addition that would encroach further into the required front yard setback. The addition would add 253 square feet to the existing structure. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a variance request to the required R-1 Zoning District front yard setback at the Subject Property 1666 Oak Avenue. 2. A single-family dwelling is a permitted use within the R-1 Zoning District. 3. Section 1320.06 of the Arden Hills City Code requires a front yard setback of 40 feet within the R-1 Zoning District. 4. The covered front porch addition will not impede sight lines or obstruct the clear vision area from the roadways. 5. The existing principal structure is nonconforming with the front yard setback of 36.5 feet. 6. Section 1325.03 Subd. 2(D) establishes provisions for the expansion of nonconforming single and two-family dwellings. 7. The proposed covered front porch addition would have a front yard setback of 29.6 feet and does increase the nonconformity of the lot. 8. Section 1325.03 Subd. 2(E) establishes provisions for the addition of a covered front porch and would allow for a covered porch addition with a setback decrease of up to 9.125 feet based on the setback of the existing principal structure. 9. The proposed covered front porch addition would decrease the existing front yard setback by 6.9 feet. Variance Findings: 1. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 2. The proposed covered front porch addition would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because the proposed design will integrate with the existing structure and will be compatible with the neighborhood. 3. The variance request is not based on economic considerations alone. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the motion options available to the Planning Commission for Planning Case 23-023 for a Variance to construct a covered front porch addition with a 29.6 front yard setback at 1666 Oak Avenue: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. 2. The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. 3. The proposed covered porch shall not be converted to a four season porch. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 3, 2024 3 Chair Vijums opened the meeting for public comments. There were no comments from the public. Chair Vijums opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Mitchell commended the residents for working to take action to address the ice problems on their property. She indicated she supported the proposed request. Commissioner Bjorklund agreed, stating the proposed changes would not adversely impact the neighborhood, nor would sightlines be impacted. Commissioner Erler explained he supported the addition and commended the applicant for thinking through the proposed plans. Commissioner Blilie stated she supported the proposed addition. Chair Vijums asked why a variance was necessary if the proposed addition met the requirements for a covered front porch according to the City Code. Senior Planner Fransen stated that because the property is nonconforming, and the addition did not meet the requirements in the code section for the expansion of nonconforming dwellings, a variance was required. The requirements for a covered porch still applied but did not exempt the proposed addition from the requirements that must be met for the permitted expansion of a nonconforming dwelling. Chair Vijums commented he also supported the proposed variance and addition for the applicant. He asked if the architecture of the addition would match or complement the home. Senior Planner Fransen stated the homeowner’s intent was to incorporate the addition into the existing façade. Eric Mann, Plekkenpol Builders, reported it was his intent to use the same exterior building materials that were on the house. He noted the addition would be integrated into the home with the same colors. Commissioner Mitchell moved and Commissioner Bjorklund seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 23-023 for a Variance to construct a covered front porch addition at 1666 Oak Avenue based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the January 3, 2024, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). B. Planning Case 23-024; 3751 Lexington Avenue North – Mister Car Wash - Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review – Public Hearing ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 3, 2024 4 Senior Planner Fransen stated the Applicant has submitted a land use application for Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review, proposing to redevelop a 1.26-acre site located at 3751 Lexington Avenue N. The Subject Property is currently owned by CS&M Arden Hills LLC and the building was previously occupied by Arby’s restaurant which closed in early 2023. The Applicant is proposing to demolish the existing building and redevelop the site. Senior Planner Fransen explained the Applicant is proposing a one-story car wash tunnel building of approximately 5,400 square feet as well as 17 parking stalls with vacuums for self- serve use. The car wash proposal also includes two detached accessory structures for an attendant shelter and canopy as part of the drive-through design. The Applicant presented a concept plan at the City Council Work session on November 27, 2023. Councilmembers provided feedback on the building appearance and materials, parking, landscaping, lighting, fencing and other items. This commercial corridor includes Red Fox and Grey Fox roads and is bounded by Lexington Avenue, Highway 51, Interstate 694, and the Canadian Pacific railway. This area is used by a number of small and large businesses for a variety of retail, manufacturing, distribution, warehousing, and office uses. This area was largely developed between the 1950s and 1970s, though the retail area along Lexington Avenue has had some new development and redevelopment in the last 15 years. This area is marked as an area of possible redevelopment in 2040. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The property located at 3751 Lexington Avenue N. is designated for Commercial uses on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 2. New building construction or site modification identified requires the submittal of a Site Plan Review application prior to construction. 3. For proposals for new construction, redevelopment of a site, and significant modifications to existing sites a PUD is required. 4. The PUD process allows for flexibility within the City’s regulations through a negotiated process with a Developer. 5. The Applicant has proposed a Master and Final Planned Unit Development for the development of one approximate 5,400 square foot exterior drive-through car wash on the Subject Property. 6. The Master and Final Planned Unit Development generally conforms to the requirements of the City Zoning Code and design standards. 7. Where the plan is not in conformance with the City Code, flexibility has been requested by the Applicant. 8. Flexibility through the PUD process has been requested in the following areas: landscaping, building positioning, building materials, transparency, drive-through facilities, lighting, and signage. 9. A public hearing for a Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development, and Conditional Use Permit request is required before the request can be brought before the City Council. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 3, 2024 5 Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the motion options available to the Planning Commission for Planning Case 23-024 for a Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review at 3751 Lexington Avenue N.: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. The Master and Final Planned Unit Development approval shall expire one year from the date of City Council approval unless a building permit has been requested or a time extension has been granted by the City Council. The City Council may extend the expiration date of such approval upon written application by the person to whom the approval was granted. 3. A violation of any condition set forth in the permit shall be a violation of this Code, and shall be cause for revocation of the permit. 4. A Master and Final PUD Development Agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval for the Development for the exterior car wash. The Master and Final PUD Development Agreement shall be fully executed prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape financial security equal to 125% of the cost of the landscaping to be installed on the site shall be submitted. The Applicant must submit a detailed cost estimate for the landscaping so staff can determine the final amount. Landscape financial security shall be held for two full growing seasons. For any landscaping that is not in accordance with the approved landscaping plan at the end of two growing seasons, the Developer shall replace the material to the satisfaction of the City before the guarantee is released. Where this is not done, the City, at its sole discretion, may use the proceeds of the performance guarantee to accomplish performance. 6. A Grading and Erosion permit shall be obtained from the city’s Engineering Division prior to commencing any grading, land disturbance or utility activities. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary from other agencies, including but not limited to, MPCA, Rice Creek Watershed District, MnDOT and Ramsey County (i.e. ROW or access) prior to the start of any site activities. 7. The final plans shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer, Building Official, and Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit. 8. Final grading, drainage, utility, and site plans shall be subject to approval by the Public Works Director, City Engineer, and City Planner prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit or other development permits. 9. Upon completion of grading and utility work on the site, a grading as-built and utility as built shall be provided to the City for review. 10. Heavy duty silt fence and adequate erosion control around the entire construction site shall be required and maintained by the Developer during construction to ensure that sediment and storm water does not leave the project site. 11. The Applicant shall be responsible for protecting the proposed on-site storm sewer infrastructure and components and any existing storm sewer from exposure ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 3, 2024 6 to any and all stormwater runoff, sediments and debris during all construction activities. Temporary stormwater facilities shall be installed to protect the quality aspect of the proposed and existing stormwater facilities prior to and during construction activities. Maintenance of any and all temporary stormwater facilities shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. 12. All light poles, including base, shall be a maximum of 25 feet in height and shall be shoebox style, downward directed, with high-pressure sodium lamps or LED and flush lenses. 13. All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be hidden from view with the same materials used on the building in accordance with City Code requirements. 14. A separate zoning permit shall be required for a new fence on the site. 15. A separate sign permit shall be required for all signs on the site. 16. Any future trash and vacuum enclosures shall utilize gates and be constructed on three sides using the same materials and patterns used on the building. Locations shall be approved by the Planning Department. 17. The Applicant shall be financially responsible for all applicable water and sanitary charges. Rates applied shall be memorialized in the Development Agreement. 18. All disturbed boulevards shall be restored with sod. All areas of the site, where practical, shall be sodded or seeded and maintained. The property owner shall mow and maintain all site boulevards to the curb line of the public streets. 19. The proposed structures shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 20. The Applicant shall provide a copy of the Stormwater Management Report and verification of Rice Creek Watershed approval prior to the approval of Development Agreement. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chris Campbell, Mister Car Wash representative, introduced himself and his organization to the Commission. He reported all stores are corporately owned and operated. He explained there were 27 Mister Car Wash stores in the Twin Cities and noted there were five under development. He reviewed the site plan in further detail and noted the restraints on the property. He described how vehicles would flow through the site, noting a wash takes approximately two to three minutes to complete. He thanked the Commission for considering his request and stated he was available for comments or questions. Chair Vijums opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. Chair Vijums invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comment Chair Vijums closed the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. Commissioner Blilie reported another car wash would be located one lot south of this property. She wanted to make the applicant aware of this and noted she had no problems with the proposed plans. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 3, 2024 7 Chair Vijums stated he wondered why two car washes would want to be located side by side on Lexington Avenue, given this was a high demand area. He believed the City Council should take into consideration how valuable these two properties were along Lexington Avenue and questioned if both properties should have car washes. Commissioner Erler agreed with these comments and wondered if two car washes on Lexington Avenue was a good use of land and was this something that fit with what the community wants and the City’s long-term planning goals. Commissioner Mitchell explained the free market makes those decisions and she supported the developer being able to make this investment based on the market research they have conducted. She stated this was a well thought through plan. Chair Vijums commented his concern was that revenue projections may not come out as expected for both car washes and he did not want additional unoccupied buildings along the Lexington Avenue corridor. He stated that he wanted the City Council to take this into consideration. Commissioner Bjorklund stated he was concerned with the location of the proposed parking spaces. He understood there was an agreement in place, but he wanted to better understand how these spaces would be dedicated. Mr. Campbell explained it was not his intent to need to use the additional spaces. He stated the during the City Council work session, the Council was concerned the site did not have adequate parking. He noted the original site plan had 18 vacuum stalls and three employee parking spaces. He reported this has since shifted to 17 vacuum stalls and five employee parking spaces. He indicated he would typically have three employees working at a time. He believed that all of the parking could be maintained onsite and the additional 19 spaces were a bonus. He reviewed the location of the additional parking spaces in further detail with the Commission. Commissioner Bjorklund stated he would like to add a condition for approval showing these additional 19 spaces on the site plan. Mr. Campbell stated he could provide this information to City staff. Commissioner Bjorklund commented further on how a condition for approval should be considered to address the Commission’s concern regarding the fact there would be two car washes next to each other. Commissioner Collins stated he believed this was outside the Commission’s purview. He noted the Commission was tasked with reviewing the merits of this planning case and explained the proposed use for this property was secondary. He stated that he did not think both car wash businesses would proceed and that one might self-select out, leaving the Planning Commission to review a different application for one of the sites in the future. Chair Vijums reported this was correct. He stated the observations of the Commission will be noted for the record and the City Council will be made aware of these voiced concerns. He indicated this was the best the Commission could do at this time. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 3, 2024 8 Commissioner Erler questioned if the applicant had a materials board available for the Commission to review. He stated he would like to see the veneer product that would be used on the building. Mr. Campbell provided a materials board to the Commission for their review. Commissioner Erler reported this property would have a large amount of illuminated signage. He indicated he could support the ground signage, but suggested the size and scale of the wall signs be reconsidered as well as the tube lighting on the building. Senior Planner Fransen noted the yellow tube lighting did not meet City requirements due to the proposed color and would require additional consideration. Chair Vijums asked if any other businesses in Arden Hills had similar lighting stretched across the top of its building and does Arden Hills want this look going forward. Senior Planner Fransen explained staff reviewed recent examples and noted there was a property that went through a PUD process and the proposed tube lighting on the canopy was not allowed though tube lighting on the principal structure was approved through a PUD amendment. She stated this information indicated that there was not a clear opinion on if this material would be approved. Chair Vijums asked the Applicant if other cities have allowed the yellow tube lighting. Luke Kittly, Director of Operations for Mister Car Wash, explained the Mister Car Wash in Hudson, Wisconsin is located along I-94. He stated the City of Hudson determined the tube lighting would not be allowed, given the heavy levels of traffic along I-94. He reported he has been successful installing this lighting at all other locations as it is a signature of the brand. He mentioned that there could be some flexibility with the use of the tube lighting. Commissioner Collins stated all lighting on the site was to be downlit or shoebox. He reported the tube lighting was not either of these, rather it was part of the business’s signage. He inquired if the City’s sign code should be amended to address this type of lighting. He asked about the Commission’s consideration of the proposed color of the lighting. He noted if this was a Holiday Station, they would be requesting blue lighting from the City. Senior Planner Fransen stated she interpreted this comment to mean that there could be more guidance for tube lighting in the City Code to determine if it is considered lighting, signage, or building materials. She shared that the Planning Commission could consider if this type of lighting is recommended based on the site characteristics and the location of the site. Commissioner Mitchell noted this lighting was part of their branding. She explained she would hate to have the applicant put up their building without all of their branding in place because the building would look less than in Arden Hills. Chair Vijums offered that the City may consider the design of buildings on Lexington Avenue. He did agree that the proposed yellow lighting was not a helping light but rather a branding light. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 3, 2024 9 Commissioner Bjorklund stated he considered the lighting to be signage which would increase the total wall signage requested by the Applicant. He expressed concern with how a precedent could be set if the City allowed this type of lighting for a new business. Commissioner Blilie offered that she would be ok with two car washes back to back and that she would grant the flexibility as the overall look was pleasing and aligned with the brand. Chair Vijums summarized the comments from the Commission stating it appears the Commission could support the lighting, possibly reduced, noting the yellow lighting was for branding purposes and should be allowed. Commissioner Collins asked staff to confirm what flexibility was being requested on the building transparency. Senior Planner Fransen reported the Applicant was proposing the use of vision and spandrel glass, with spandrel glass requiring flexibility to be considered as part of the total transparency. She indicated that the Applicant included additional vision glass on the other elevations as well. Commissioner Collins asked about the flexibility for exterior building materials. Senior Planner Fransen stated City required 75% of a building’s exterior to be constructed with preferred materials. She indicated the building was proposed to be a brick and stone veneer which was not listed as a preferred material. Commissioner Collins questioned what the problem was with the proposed fence based on the Code evaluation. Senior Planner Fransen stated the proposed building material for the fence did not fall within the City’s list of recommended materials which include finished and treated wood, brick, stone and wrought iron. She reported the applicant was proposing to use a composite material for the fence. Commissioner Collins discussed how vehicles would enter and exit this site when Arby’s was operational and noted he supported the entrance/exit remaining the same for the proposed car wash. Chair Vijums indicated he supported the location of the building as proposed. He explained he drove through the site today and it had a deep lot. He commented further on how traffic would flow in and through the site. He stated the Commission approved the use of a veneer façade for the Crew Car Wash. He commented on how building materials were evolving and noted the City Council may have to update its zoning code to allow for additional building and screening materials. He supported this item moving forward as is and noted the Council would have the final say when it came to the signs/tube lighting. He commended the applicant for bringing forward a strong proposal noting they had made good use of this site. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 3, 2024 10 Commissioner Bjorklund asked that Condition 21 be added to the recommendation for approval requiring the applicant to identify the plan for the additional 19 parking spaces on the site plan. The Commission supported this recommendation. Commissioner Bjorklund moved and Commissioner Collins seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 23-024 for a Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review at 3751 Lexington Avenue North based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the January 3, 2024, report to the Planning Commission with the addition of Condition 21 “The applicant shall provide a diagram of the 19 parking spaces provided for the site through the Reciprocal Easement Agreement” . The motion carried unanimously (6-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council None. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests Commissioner Bjorklund supported staff taking a look at how to address commercial development districts and economic issues. He stated other cities have bigger committees in place to consider redevelopment projects. Community Development Director Jagoe reported the City would be reviewing the zoning code and ordinances in 2024. She anticipated this would be a 12 to 18 month process and noted all of the zoning code ordinances would be updated and reviewed by the Planning Commission. Chair Vijums welcomed Commissioner Steve Erler to the Planning Commission. Chair Vijums read a prepared statement noting he had served as a Commissioner and Chair of the Planning Commission for several years. He stated he has cherished his time on the Planning Commission. He commented on the purpose of the Planning Commission which was to provide a recommendation to the City Council that was in the best interest of the community. He discussed how the recent Planning Cases have ruffled some feathers in the community. He believed his approach as the Chair has been to provide alternative perspectives, facts, experience and leadership. He noted he would continue to do this, but he would be doing this in a different capacity. He reported at the end of this meeting he would be resigning as the Chair and from the Planning Commission. He urged the Planning Commission to continue to do what was right for the community and to make Arden Hills the best place to live. Commissioner Bjorklund thanked Chair Vijums for his dedicated service to the City of Arden Hills. ADJOURN ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 3, 2024 11 Chair Vijums moved, seconded by Commissioner Bjorklund, to adjourn the January 3, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting at 8:28 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (6-0).