Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCP 02-16-1995 . , h'/~ . . .- AGENDA ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION . PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING LUNCHROOM THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16,1995,5:30 P.M. . 5:30 PM I. Cal! to order/roll call 5:30 PM 2. Agenda adoption . 5:30 PM 3. Discuss staff recommendations concerning request for tax increment fInancing from . Everest Development. 6:30 PM 4, Administrator\Department Head Comments . 6:50 PM 5. Council Comments C!ON . 6:50 PM 6. Adjourn meeting to Army Reserve Center ~K 7:00 PM 7. Reconvene meeting. tmlt .. 7:05PM 8. Welcomellntroductions of Committees. . 7:15PM 9. Mayor's address/1995 plans and goals. 7:30 PM 10. Discuss formation of Arden Hills TCAAP Reuse Task Force. . 9:00 PM II. Adjourn . . The above times may vary depending upon length of issue discussion. . . . . .- . I , . [2"') ,~ I. j~AFT MINUTES I CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 1, 1995 I 7:30 P.M. - NEW BRIGHTON CITY HALL I CALL TO ORDER I Chair Erickson called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL I Present were Chair Steve Erickson, Barbara Piotrowski, Dave Carlson, Brent Nelson and Dave Sand_ I Absent was Commissioner Gregg Larson. . Also present were Councilmember Dale Hicks; Brian Fritsinger, Community Planning Coordinator; and Ruth McLaurin, Recording Secretary. I. OATH OF OFFICE Councilmember Hicks administered the Oath of Office to Commissioners Brent Nelson I and Barbara Piotrowski. I APPROVE MINUTES Carlson moved, seconded by Sand, to approve the January 4,1995 minutes. All voted in . favor (6-0). CASE#9S,S PUD CONCEPT PLAN FOR A 14 UNIT TOWNHOME PROJECT AT THE . CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD E2 AND OLD HIGHWAY 10 - APPLICANT - DAN OGREN . Community Planning Coordinator Fritsinger indicated the applicant is proposing to develop an 4.8 acre parcel on the Northeast corner of County Road E2 and old Highway 10. Mr. Fritsinger I noted a revised plan before the Commission, which denotes additional land and four additional townhomes. The proposal is before the Commission for a Planned Unit Development (POO) concept revIew. I Mr. Fritsinger noted the applicant has entered into a purchase agreement with Bethel College .- with the intention of constructing a 18 unit townhome project. The preliminary sales price will range from $190,000 - $250,000. Mr. Fritsinger stated the site work is proposed to begin in April or May of this year. I I I. e''''''' c,. ~'r .~.> '0"' 'l>.J~ j Planninl! Commission Minutes Pal!e 2 2/01/95 I Mr. Fritsinger indicated the homes would meet all required setbacks from the property lines. He I noted one advantage of the setbacks proposed as compared to a standard R.1 development, is that a significant buffer is maintained from the homes located to the north. I Mr. Fritsinger indicated the applicant's engineer has reviewed the storage capacity of the wetland, pond and pipe and determined that sufficient capacity to handle the run off on the site is present, I Mr. Fritsinger noted the City engineer has also reviewed this information and found a number of items which will need to be addressed further. I Mr. Fritsinger indicated the applicant is proposing to complete the site grading at one time rather than as each unit is constructed. He noted although this will cause a significant tree loss, the PUD allows the site to be developed with considerably less tree removal should the site be developed I as a single family subdivision. Mr. Fritsinger stated the street detailed on the plan will be a private street. Mr. Fritsinger I indicated attorney Filla has indicated that in order to allow a private street to be developed a variance to Section 22-8, C, (15) of the Arden Hills Municipal Code is required. I. Mr. Fritsinger noted in reviewing the Pemtom and Hunters Park developments the common drive areas were dealt with in differing approaches. He indicated Pemtom does not have private streets, but has what is called public courts to access the homes. He continued, Hunters Park I platted all common drive areas as outlots. Mr. Fritsinger noted Staff would suggest the private drive in this case is no different than in those two developments and language can be placed in the I Master PUD Plan and development agreement which adequately addresses this. Mr. F ritsinger noted the parking on the site will consist of a two car garage and two off street I parking stalls for each townhome. Mr. Fritsinger indicated the curb cut on to County Road E2 will be approximately 161.35 feet away from the intersection with old Highway 10. I Mr. Fritsinger indicated the developer has not proposed to make any changes to the pedestrian trail currently located on the site. Mr. Fritsinger indicated preliminary discussions have been held with the Parks Department in regards to park dedication and the location of this trail. I Mr. Fritsinger stated within the Comprehensive Plan, the undeveloped Land Use chart on page 8 identifies this site as undeveloped. On page 95 the Land Use Plan identifies the site as open I space or parks and the zoning ordinance details the zoning as R-1, single family residential. I Mr. Fritsinger indicated while the plan indicates the area will be open space, no funding or methods have been identified to acquire the property for open space or park purposes. I. Mr. F ritsinger indicated the density of this proposal is slightly less than three units per acre, so it would be allowed in the R-1 district. I . ~, ''', """'. 1]:..1 I. t".,:, '. ;_."",~J Planninl' Commission Minutes Pa2'e 3 2/01/95 . Mr. Fritsinger stated as part of the approval of the PUD, the applicant will be required to . undertake the following actions which will be presented to the Commission at a future meeting. . 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2. Rezoning (Possible) 3. Lot Consolidation (Possible) . 4. Preliminary/Final Plat 5. PUD master Plan (pUD Final Plan - or site Plan Review - could be included in same application as Master Plan due to the simple, straight forward nature of the proposal. . Mr. Fritsinger recommended approval of the PUD Concept and direct the applicant to submit a PUD Master Plan including any changes to the elements of the plan as detailed by the Planning . Commission and those additional items identified by staff. Mr. Fritsinger indicated Rice Creek Watershed District has not yet rendered an opinion. . Carlson questioned the width of the private road. Mr. Fritsinger noted it would be 26 feet as .- built. Carlson inquired if the City would then have any responsibility of the maintenance of the road. . Mr. F ritsinger indicated the City would not be responsible, it would be the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association for the townhomes. . Chair Erickson inquired if there were any concerns regarding safety for access of emergency vehicles. Mr. Fritsinger indicated in working with Superintendent Winkel, he held no immediate concerns for the access. Mr. F ritsinger noted a wider cul-de-sac would be more comfortable and . the elimination of an island in the center of the cul-de-sac would be appropriate for emergency vehicle usage. . Rye inquired as to the open space. Mr. F ritsinger indicated the area noted as a trail has not yet been identified. It is not a dedicated trail and the Parks Department has been mowing this area to assist Public Works in accessing its sanitary sewer manholes. I Piotrowski inquired if with the additional land, could it still be zoned an R-l district. Mr. Fritsinger indicated the zoning would be based on density and the units per acre would appear . to be appropriate for an R-l district, However, with the new plans submitted at the time of the meeting the correct zoning has not been determined. . Mr. Dan Ogren, the applicant indicated he would like to keep the plantings in the cul-de-sac or the island as referred to. He felt with a large turning radius there should be no problems or .. concerns. . . ee, '\ f""1 .. ., 1" .': : ,2.'~,;, -'~'~) r ' .' t.; "'.'..1 .t!.' Planninl! Commission Minutes Pal!e4 2/01/95 . Mr. Ogren noted the designs of the townhomes, with the potential of finished living space up to . 2,600 square feet. . Carlson inquired as to the extra garage located between units eight and nine. Mr. Ogren noted this would be for the home owner of unit eight. . Sand inquired if this would be available for every home owner to request an additional detached garage. Mr. Ogren noted this would not be the case, it would be for unit eight only, . Sand inquired how the location of this detached garage followed the requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Fritsinger indicated it fell within the boundaries of the ordinance as an accessory structure. . Chair Erickson asked if the applicant had read the City engineer's report. Mr. Ogren indicated he had. . Chair Erickson inquired if the applicant had any difficulty in following the recommendations of .- the engineer. Mr. Ogren felt there were no outstanding issues that could not be resolved. Chair Erickson inquired as to the location of the 66 foot easement on the plans. Mr. Ogren noted . on the map and indicated they still had reservations as to the exact location of the sewer. Chair Erickson asked if the easement could possibly be in the wrong place. Mr. Fritsinger indicated this would need to be reviewed further. . Nelson inquired if the units have basements, Mr. Ogren indicated the units do have basements and some are walk outs. . Piotrowski inquired if the developer would maintain the walking path that would fall on the property. Mr. Ogren indicated they would maintain the path, following any instructions of the . City. Chair Erickson inquired if the land to the North would be cleared. Mr. Ogren indicated they . would like to leave the site as close to its natural state as possible. Rye indicated he would like to reiterate the concern for landscaping the cul-de-sac. . Chair Erickson inquired as to the action Staff would like the Commission to take tonight. Mr. . Fritsinger indicated a request for an informal opinion of the development of the Commission is asked, then the proposal will go before the Council and any public hearings required for the .. formal PUD will be held at a future meeting. . -...---.. ---------- I ~~\ ~T ~"., .. I. f_ .', ,'- -, "n . . . '. ,"~"'~~ J ) Plannin2C Commission 1y.!inutes Pa2Ce 5 2/01/95 I Piotrowski noted a few concerns, first, she did not feel the detached garage indicated continuity I in the development. Second, she indicated she was glad to see townhomes being proposed instead of single family homes to help preserve additional trees on the site. Third, Piotrowski indicated I concern that if the pond should rise, units one, two and three would have flooded basements. Mr. Ogren indicated the pond has an outlet to Valentine Lake, under Highway 10. I Carlson directed the applicant to review the issue of the trail maintenance and check on drainage issues and levels. I Rye also indicated concern for flooding. I Chair Erickson encouraged Mr. Ogren to continue communications with Staff. Rye inquired if a wetland delineation had been done. Mr. Ogren indicated a delineation of the I wetland had been done this past fall and a soil composition was taken and there is not a wetland present in the northeast corner of the lot. I- Nelson indicated overall approval of the development, but felt too many homes were still proposed. I Sand indicated that he liked the overall look of the development. He indicated concern also for the detached garage and felt it to be inconsistent with the overall development. Sand encouraged I the developer to resolve the trail issue. He commented that he would like to see a landscape plan regarding a buffer to County road E2, Sand also stated he would like to see a letter from the city engineer regarding the revised plans. Sand noted he did like the look of the island in the cuI-de- I sac. Chair Erickson inquired if there should be a need for rezoning. Mr. Fritsinger indicated after I review of the definitions included in the ordinance, staff believes the R-1 designation to be the most appropriate due to the density and type of development. I Nelson inquired if there are three units per acre, could any townhome development go into an R-1 district. Mr. Fritsinger indicated no, there are variables regarding the density and type of development. Mr. Fritsinger indicated definitions found in Section II, page four, regarding I density zoning were applied in this case. I Sand inquired as to lot lines. Mr" F ritsinger indicated there are no lot lines, although each building will have 24 feet separating each building. I. I . .. '!"'......, ~. ?"' 1 ~ . .-(;', ,_ "'3 , !,-,.. ~ ~ .".......J Plannine: Commission Minutes Pal!e 6 2/01/95 . Sand inquired if the POD should be better defined between the Zoning Ordinance and Municipal . Code Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Fritsinger indicated that recodification of the municipal code is underway and will attempt to address this problem. . Chair Erickson indicated this case would be reviewed by Arden Hills City Council at their February 27, 1995 meeting, . CASE #95-2 LOT SPLIT /V ARIANCE AT 4365 LEXINGTON A VENUE-APPLICANT- DWIGHT AND PENNI JO CHESTNUT . Mr. Fritsinger indicated discussion of this case by the Planning Commission on January 4, 1995 indicated a general acceptance of the reasonableness of the proposed lot division and a variance . to allow construction within the required 150 feet setback area. However, the requested 75 foot variance was felt to be substantially more than would actually be needed without a plan detailing the location of the homes to be constructed. . Mr. Fritsinger noted Staff indicated that pre-determined building envelopes in which reasonable .- homes could be constructed, leaving some flexibility in the precise building footprints. Mr. F ritsinger indicated Staff made this decision based on the following: . 1. This approach would allow the City to take final action on this lot split/variance case without further delay; 2. would give reasonable development parameters for the applicant; and . 3. would allow the applicant flexibility in designing appropriate homes for these unique sites without the likelihood of needing to adjust the variance at some later date. . Mr. Fritsinger stated the revised request for lakeshore setback variances determined by Planning Consultant Bergly are: 50 feet for tract A (150 required and 100 feet proposed) and 25 feet for . Tract B (150 feet required and 125 proposed). Mr. Fritsinger noted consultant Bergly recommends approval of Application 95-2, proposed lot . split, with 50 foot lakeshore setback variance for tract A and 25 foot lakeshore setback variance for tract B. He noted the following findings for the variances. . 1. The Karth Lake area was developed without consideration of the 150 foot OHW setback and will never be redeveloped with the intent of making all homes conform . to the lake setback regulation. .. . I I. r~>.,; ~,i.? &~\ r= "!: w..:.;."'" ij'Q..,?.......tt U Plannin~ Commission Minutes Pal!e 7 2/01/95 I 2. Since the purpose of this lakeshore setback regulation is to protect the lake I environment and views from the lake and since the lakeshore is totally developed with homes that do not conform, development on the two proposed lots will conform to I the generally accepted standard of development abutting the lake. 3. The recommended setbacks on the proposed two lots are greater than on most other I lots abutting the lake. 4. The new homes with recommended setbacks will be placed on the relatively level, I upper portion of the lots. Mr. Fritsinger then indicated the approval would be subject to the following conditions: I 1. That a shared driveway and on-site turn-arounds be constructed to minimize traffic conflict on Lexington Avenue. I 2. That the applicant make the required revisions on any documents to be filed with the I- County with the intent of alerting future owners of the property that a variance has been granted. 3. That the City notify the DNR of the City action approving the amended variance I request. I Sand indicated during review of the documents received, the proposed buildings would overlap the building envelopes. Me. Fritsinger indicated the intent of the request and plans prepared by Me. Bergly was the homes would be built within the building envelopes. I Chair Erickson indicated after reviewing and overlapping the two maps he also came to the same conclusion as Commissioner Sand. I Sand questioned if the 75 foot was more appropriate. Me. Fritsinger indicated that it does appear that the building envelope may be inadequate depending on the type of home constructed and the I Commission had previously found some support for the 75 foot variance. Chair Erickson indicated during last month's meeting the concern was that on the northern lot . there would be buildable area without the variance, but that would leave no buildable area on the second lot. Chair Erickson indicated concern if a variance for 50 feet was given to one lot and . only 25 feet to the other lot, there would be problems in the future. Sand inquired if originally, did Staff support the 75 foot variance request. Mr. Fritsinger indicated .. this to be correct. . - . I. i Plannin2C Commission Minutes Pa2'e 8 2/01/95 I Rye indicated concern that a deck could be added later and encroach on any variance given. He I would like to add specific language so this would not occur. Sand moved, seconded by Nelson, a motion to approve Lot Split at 4365 Lexington . Avenue. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). I Sand moved, seconded by Carlson, a motion to approve a 75 foot OHW Lakeshore setback for both lot A and B at 4365 Lexington Avenue for primary buildings and including any additions or extensions such as decks, or porches. The motion carried I unanimously (6-0). Chair Erickson indicated this case would be reviewed by Arden Hills City Council at their I February 27, 1995 meeting. Rye inquired if with the number of lakes in Arden Hills the setback requirements should be I reviewed and reflect the existing developments rather than requiring residents to continually apply for variances that aren't needed. Mr. Fritsinger indicated a review of the ordinance would .e be appropriate. Chair Erickson indicated concern for the DNR requirements. Rye indicated there is flexibility regarding DNR requirements if just cause is shown. I CASE #95-6 FRONT/REAR YARD SETBACK AND NONCONFORMING USE I V ARIANCE AT 1516 LAKE JOHANNA BLVD. - APPLICANT. WARREN MCGUIRE Mr" Fri1:singer indicated the applicant is requesting several variances to reconstruct their home at . 1516 Arden Place which was damaged by fire this past falL He noted specifically these variances as: I . 27.9 foot Front Yard Setback . 33 foot Lakeshore Setback . Section IX, Nonconforming Uses I Mr. Fritsinger indicated in late 1994, the applicants home was severely damaged by fire. The City building official estimated that the value of the damage did not exceed 50% of the fair market I value. Mr. Fritsinger noted the home was built in 1954 and the garage was added in 1968. He stated a I Lakeshore Setback Variance was approved as pan of Planning Case #80-17 for the construction of a deck. Ie I I ff , I. ~: I'lannin2: Commission Minutes Pa2:e 9 2/01/95 I Mr. Fritsinger indicated the contractor has stated the costs to rebuild the home are approximately I the same if the home were to be repaired. Mr. Fritsinger indicated the applicant is proposing to rebuild the home on the same footprint. He added, by building on the same footprint it allows I the construction to begin immediately and also eliminates additional encroachments into the setback. I Mr. Frirsinger noted two small additions are proposed on the north and south sides of the home. These additions will not encroach further into the existing setbacks of the home. I Mr. Fritsinger indicated the current setbacks of the existing home would categorize this home as nonconforming. As a nonconforming building this application needs to be evaluated under Section IX of the Zoning Ordinance. I Mr. Fritsinger reviewed Section IX, D, the ordinance states; "No nonconforming use shall be enlarged, intensified, increased, extended to occupy a greater area on the lot on which it is I located... " ,e Mr. Fritsinger indicated Section IX, F states; " A building strucrure constituting or containing a nonconforming use here after damaged or destroyed by any cause may be restored if the fair market cost of such restoration would be less than 50 percent of Fair Market Value..." , Mr. Fritsinger continued with Section IX, J states; "In the event a nonconforming building is hereafter destroyed by any cause, it shall not be restored or reconstructed except in conformity I with the applicable requirements of the ordinance." Mr. Fritsinger indicated further issues regarding Section IX, A, 2. This section specifically states I that if the nonconformity is due to the height, setbacks and/or lot area, the nonconformity is merely technical in nature and it shall be exempr from he provisions of this secrion. He noted the Commission and Council agreed wirh Staff thar rhis issue needed further auention and until I it is amended, voided the nonconforming use section of the ordinance as it applied in cases wirh an existing building. , Mr. Frirsinger indicared because the home is being demolished and rebuilr Sr~ff would contend rhar this "loop hole" can not be applied to this case. I Mr. Fritsinger indicated if this lot was vacant, the lot is unbuildable with current setback reqUlrements. I Mr. Fritsinger indicated much of this neighborhood was developed prior to present zoning standards, so most homes do not conform to present standards in one manner or another. ,e I I -("'''',':~ J.\ ;~...;-.. , .I(~,~, , .J,__ ,.";' ,I I. s..-:; J II J ;a Plannin2: Commission Minutes Pa2:e 10 2/01/95 I Mr. Fritsinger noted Arden Hills has numerous nonconforming lots and buildings around its I lakes. It is highly unlikely that the City plans on redeveloping these lakeshore areas with the intention of making all homes conform to the lakeshore setback regulations. I Mr. Fritsinger indicated Staff recommends that the Planning Commission table the request and direct Staff to review the Zoning Ordinance for potential amendments which adequately address I the property abutting lakes. Mr. Fritsinger stated in reviewing this request, Staff has made its recommendations based on the , technical interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. However, if the nonconforming use portion of this ordinance had not applied, Staff would recommend approval of the Front Yard and Lakeshore setback variances. I Piotrowski indicated as a participant in writing the Zoning Ordinance, the intent of the commiuee was not to single out residential home owners under the nonconforming use section I of the ordinance, but was in regards to commercially owned properties. ,- Carlson indicated although he would not like to set a precedent, he would encourage an approval of the variances and review the nonconforming use at a later date, so the McGuires could move forward with rebuilding. I Chair Erickson inquired as to the variance approval for the deck. Mr. Fritsinger indicated reviewing the minutes from that case in 1980, the variance was granted due to the drop in the I land, no visual impact to neighbors and the inability to view the lake from the home. Chair Erickson inquired as to the variance granted in 1980 regarding the deck. Mr. Fritsinger I indicated a 40 foot Iakeshore setback was granted. Nelson inquired as to the size of the deck. Mr. Warren McGuire, the applicant, indicated he I believed the deck to be approximately 10 feet in width. Nelson indicated if the deck is actually 10 feet in width it would be encroaching by three feet onto the variance requirement. I Carlson indicated concern that the debates of the City would prolong the anguish of the McGuires. He encouraged approval of the variances and find appropriate wording for nonconforming use at a later date. I Nelson indicated if the deck encroaches by three feet, either the deck should be adjusted when reattached to the rebuilt home or the variance should be adjusted to reflect the difference. I Tim Mogdck, Engineer\Contractor for the applicant, assured the Commission the deck will be I - reset to comply with the 40 foot setback. I I . I. "0' j Plannin2: Commission Minutes Pa2:e 11 2/01/95 I Chair Erickson inquired if with allowing the variances, is the Commission changing the property I to conforming. Mt. Fritsinger indicated this is essentially correct, but with the building being demolished new problems arise with the ordinance. I Carlson inquired if the Commission could approve the variances and make a second motion regarding the nonconformity issue. Mr. Fritsinger was concerned with setting a precedent, and I indicated the time frame is uncertain as to how long it would take to resolve issues regarding the ordinance. He indicated the only criteria they have to go by is residential versus commercial. I Sand inquired as to the opinion of City Attorney Filla. Mr. Fritsinger indicated Mr. Filla would deny the variances based on the technical aspects of the ordinance. Mr. Filla noted there may be possible cause for the variances, if under the conditions to grant a variance reasonable use issues I were adequately addressed. Carlson inquired of the applicant how long it would take to rebuild. The engineer for the I applicant indicated 95 to 110 days. ,- Carlson indicated if the variances would be approved, the issue would be before Council on February 27. If the issue was tabled, the earliest the Council would be able to review the case would be the end of March. I Chair Erickson indicated the only way to approve the variances tonight is to add language regarding residential property. I Mr. Fritsinger indicawd Staff has reviewed various options to this dilemma and due to the demolishing of the building the nonconforming use ordinance then takes precedent. I Sand indicated Section IX paragraph B, states if the property is declared unsafe by the City inspector it would allow the City to move in favor of restoration. I Chair Erickson indicated the problem is the entire nonconforming use section of the ordinance has to be reviewed and applied. I Piotrowski indicated the Commission can not deny the applicant reasonable use of his land. I Carlson moved, seconded by Sand, a motion to approve the variances requested in Case #95-6. The location of the salvaged deck and previous house footprint, along with the proposed new additions will establish setbacks at 1516 Arden Place. Any proposed future I expansions beyond the limits described previously will require additional variances. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). I- I I ," I. Elannin2: Commission Minutes Pa2:e 12 2/01/95 I Extensive discussion regarding the language for the second motion was held. I Erickson moved, seconded by Piotrowski, a motion to address the rationale for allowing the variances: 1) there has been an established history of single family dwelling use on the I land; 2) circumstances beyond the control of the resident which displaced them from their home; 3) It is reasonable to assume that the City would allow this lot to be used for I residential purposes; 4) It is unlikely the City intends to require the development of the homes in the area to conform to the lakeshore setback regulation; 5) The development of the lot conforms to the generally accepted standard of development abutting the lake; 6) I the intent of the nonconforming use section IX, J of the Zoning Ordinance was written to address issues regarding commercial property or nonconforming use, not residential homeowners. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). I Sand indicated in reviewing Section IX, of the Zoning Ordinance, there are two different concepts: 1) nonconforming use and 2) nonconforming building. Sand indicated the issue is the I nonconforming building, not use and any sub paragraphs regarding use are irrelevant. I- Sand noted A-2 of the Zoning Ordinance notes nonconforming buildings and paragraph B of Section IX indicates if the building is deemed unsafe by the City inspector, it possible the building could be restored. I Sand indicated in reviewing paragraphs I and J, the building would not be augmenting the variances and the applicable requirements of the ordinance could be followed. I Piotrowski noted that perhaps the interpretation of the ordinance by Mr. Filla is not correct and would like Mr. Filla to review the ordinance with those who wrote it. I Sand moved, seconded by Nelson, a motion to address the issue of nonconforming use or building at 1516 Arden Place. Based on fact the issue is a nonconforming building and I property to be reconstructed as in conformity with the ordinance assuming A2, Section IX, I, and J allow reconstruction. I Discussion was held on the definitions of buildings and the Zoning Ordinance. Chair Erickson indicated the motion leaves the applicant with vague. direction. Mr. Fritsinger I indicated legal interpretations will have to be made. The motion carried (5-1), with Chair Erickson opposing. I I- I I . DR}-\fT ,-'- I. ~lannin2: Commission Minutes Pal!e 13 2/01195 I COUNCIL REPORT. I Councilmember Hicks announced to the Commission the new City Administrator Mr. Brian Fritsinger, once again congratulating him on his new position. I Councilmember Hicks noted the memo from Dave Kriesel regarding 1994 construction was for Commission information. I Councilmember Hicks indicated regarding Case #95-5, concern that a detached garage would not I compliment the development and provide for furure requests for detached garages. He suggested the applicant could perhaps take unit eight and add a third stall to the current garage. I Councilmember Hicks noted Planning Cases that were before the Council at the January 30, 1995 meetmg: I Case #95-1; One Comm antenna on water tower; approved. Case #95-3; Fence at Eastside Beverage; approved with barbed wire. I- Case #95-4; Bethel College Expansion; approved. Councilmember Hicks noted County Road F has been taken back by the City and preparations for rebuilding the section from Old Highway 10 going west, are slated for this year. I Councilmember Hicks indicated four finalists have been chosen for TCAAP RFQ and proposals I are forthcoming. Councilmember Hicks noted T.H. 96 has now been turned back to the County, work is being I done east of Arden Hills and will move west. COMMISSION COMMENTS I Nelson indicated he has received 12 discs containing maps of the arsenal property. He indicated it is basically a contour map, but still will be helpful. I Rye noted he is an employee of a company that is a finalist for RFQ and inquired if this would be conflict. Mr. Fritsinger indicated this issue has been reviewed, but it,is felt that since Mr. Rye I will not financially benefit from this, there would be no conflict of interest. Sand inquired regarding TCAAP property, if there was a way to prevent "piece meal" I development. Mr. Fritsinger indicated until the Federal government releases control, the City has no'ability to deny purchases or land development. ,- , I . ~, ~ I. u!~\ .'-,' i Planninl! Commission Minutes Pal!e 14 2/01/95 I Nelson indicated a brochure he received regarding government training services. Mr. Fritsinger I encouraged Commission to review and notify him of any interest. Mr. Fritsinger indicated the City Council will be holding a joint meeting with all commissions I and committees on February 16, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Army Reserve. He noted the Mayor would like all members to attend. I ADJOURNMENT I Carlson motioned, seconded by Nelson, to adjourn the meeting at 10:53 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. (6-0) I I I- I I I I I I I Ie I