Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-05-24 PC Minutes Approved: July 10, 2024 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 2024 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Vice Chair Joshua Collins called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Vice Chair Joshua Collins, Commissioners Brad Bjorklund, Shelley Blilie, Arlene Mitchell, and Jonathan Wicklund. Absent: Chair Kurtis Weber and Commissioner Stephen Erler. Also present were: Community Development Director Jessica Jagoe and Senior Planner Elena Fransen. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – JUNE 5, 2024 Commissioner Mitchell moved, seconded by Commissioner Wicklund, to approve the June 5, 2024, agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 8, 2024 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Mitchell moved, seconded by Commissioner Wicklund, to approve the May 8, 2024, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 24-011; Zoning Code Amendment to Chapter 13, Section 1325.07, Subd. 6.A. – Location of Buildings Housing Farm Animals – Public Hearing Community Development Director Jagoe stated earlier this year, the Applicant contacted the City to verify if the keeping of bees would be allowed on his property at 3759 New Brighton Road (“Subject Property”). Staff conveyed that, at present, the City Code requires that “Any building in which farm animals are kept shall be located a distance of two hundred (200) feet or more from any lot line. Any open structure in which farm animals are kept shall be a distance of ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 5, 2024 2 four hundred (400) feet or more from any lot line, except for chicken coops in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Districts.” Farm animals are defined as “Animals traditionally kept or raised on a farm for the purpose of providing food or products for sale or use, such as cattle, horses, goats, sheep, swine, fowl, bees, and animals raised for fur.” In review of the Subject Property, city staff determined that the property did not have the lot width required to meet the distance requirements from any lot line for placement of the bee hive(s). Community Development Director Jagoe explained based on that evaluation, the Applicant submitted a land use application for a Zoning Code Amendment to add language to the Zoning Code for residential zoning districts that would exempt the keeping of bees under Section 1325.07, Subd. 6.A – Location of Buildings Housing Farm Animals. The following is the zoning code language proposed by the Applicant for consideration: a. The number of hives on residential lots is not to exceed: i. 1 acre or larger: 8 ii. 1 acre – ¾ Acre: 6 iii. ¾ Acre to ½ Acre: 4 iv. ½ acre or less: 2 b. The beehive(s) must not be located in the front of a property or a side yard that abuts a street. c. They may be no closer than twenty‐five (25) feet to an occupied building on another lot and/or any public trail or walkway. d. The hives shall be located at least ten (10) feet from a property line. e. Any property owner who keeps bees shall provide and maintain a nearby, designated water source. Community Development Director Jagoe provided an overview of the ordinance amendments and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. Joe Kimbell, the Applicant, is proposing amendments to the language of Chapter 13 – Zoning Code of the City Code. 2. Under the City’s Zoning Code Section 1325.07, Subd. 6.A, the City does allow Buildings Housing Farm Animals as a permitted accessory use in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Residential Zoning Districts subject to distance requirements from any lot line. 3. The Applicant is proposing an amendment to allow for an exception for the location of bee hive(s) that would reduce the distance from the property line in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Residential Zoning Districts. 4. The Applicant is proposing additional criteria in the ordinance language that would be used to regulate the keeping of bee hive(s) such as a maximum number of bee hives that would be allowed based on the residential lot size, minimum distance the hive may be located to a dwelling or trail, a water source must be provided, and that the bee hive(s) may not be located in the front or side yard of a residential lot. 5. Of local communities surveyed, a majority allow for the keeping of bees as a permitted accessory use in residential districts without a City license. 6. Amendments to the Zoning Code regulations require a public hearing prior to action by the City Council Community Development Director Jagoe reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission for Planning Case 24-011 for a Zoning Code Amendment to Chapter 13, Section 1325.07, Subd. 6.A of the Arden Hills City Code to allow an exception for the Location for ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 5, 2024 3 Buildings Housing Farm Animals to include bee hives in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Residential Zoning Districts, based on the findings of fact and the submitted materials: 1. Recommend Approval as Submitted 2. Recommend Approval with Amendments 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Vice Chair Collins opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Mitchell stated she had done some reading and asked if a row of hedges could be used to create a barrier, in lieu of a fence or wall. Community Development Director Jagoe reported the language was pulled from another ordinance and explained if the Commission supported landscaping being used as a barrier, the language could be amended. Commissioner Blilie asked if the other communities that allow beekeeping reported any problems or concerns. Community Development Director Jagoe explained she had not reached out to other staff members and reviewed these ordinances online, but she was not aware of any concerns in other communities. Commissioner Blilie inquired about the written comment received on the competition between wild bees and honey bees and asked if the University of Minnesota had any recommendations regarding the keeping of bees. Community Development Director Jagoe indicated she would have to reach out to them to pursue their recommendations on wild bees versus honey bees. Commissioner Wicklund questioned if other Arden Hills ordinances required adjacent property owners to be notified. Community Development Director Jagoe stated the keeping of chickens required adjacent property owners to be notified. She explained this was a one-time notification process. Vice Chair Collins asked if a licensure or permit was required for the keeping of other animals. Community Development Director Jagoe reported the City required a license for keeping chickens, dogs, and cats. Vice Chair Collins inquired if any properties in the City could meet the 200 foot setback requirement for farm animals. Community Development Director Jagoe stated this would be limited, but there were a few properties in the City that may meet this separation requirement. Vice Chair Collins questioned how many residents were keeping bees in neighboring communities. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 5, 2024 4 Community Development Director Jagoe stated she could reach out to these communities and could report back to the Commission. Joe Kimbell, 3759 New Brighton Road, explained he was new to Arden Hills. He reported his son, Elias, received a scholarship through the University of Minnesota where he participated in the keeping of bees. He noted their hive was currently being kept at a farm in Mahtomedi. He stated a small amount of space is needed to keep bees. He discussed the benefits of keeping bees and encouraged the Planning Commission to support his request. Commissioner Wicklund indicated he was fully supportive of this request. He suggested another item be added to the code to require adjacent neighbors to be informed of the bee keeping. Vice Chair Collins opened the public hearing at 6:48 p.m. Vice Chair Collins invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. Frank Cupery, 1397 Indian Oaks Court, reported he has worked for the City of Shoreview for five years and for four of those years he managed the bee licenses. He estimated there were only seven to ten licenses per year. He noted there were no complaints during his time with the City of Shoreview. Commissioner Bjorklund thanked Mr. Cupery for sharing his insights with the Commission. There being no additional comment Vice Chair Collins closed the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. Commissioner Mitchell stated she supported the proposed zoning code amendment to allow for the keeping of bees. Commissioner Blilie indicated she supported beekeeping as well. She stated she supported adjacent properties owners to be notified. Commissioner Bjorklund moved and Commissioner Wicklund seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 24-011 for a Zoning Code Amendment to Chapter 13, Section 1325.07, Subd. 6.A of the Arden Hills City Code to allow an exception for the Location for Buildings Housing Farm Animals to include bee hives in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Residential Zoning Districts, based on the findings of fact and the submitted materials, with an Amendment to add Item 6: Prior to the installation of the bee hive(s), the property owner shall provide written notice to the neighbors immediately adjacent of their intent to keep bees. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). B. Planning Case 24-010; 1784 Gramsie Road - Variance – Public Hearing Not Required Senior Planner Fransen stated Nancy Hedin and Tracy Roeder have requested a variance to construct an addition to the east elevation of an existing attached garage on the property located at 1784 Gramsie Road. The variance would decrease the required side yard setback for corner lots from the minimum requirement of 40 feet to 23.33 feet. 1784 Gramsie Road, the Subject ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 5, 2024 5 Property, is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District. It is designated for Low Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Subject Property is the site of a single-family dwelling owned by the Applicant. All surrounding parcels are also zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District and designated for Low Density Residential Uses in the Land Use Plan. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the site data, 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 side yard setback for corner lots at the Subject Property 1784 Gramsie Road. 2. A single-family dwelling is a permitted use within the R-1 Zoning District. 3. The proposed addition would have a decreased side yard setback for a corner lot of 23.33 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 addition would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because the proposed design will look and feel consistent with the existing structure. 3. The variance request is not based on economic considerations alone Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission for Planning Case 24-010 for a Variance to construct an attached garage addition with a 23.33 side yard setback on a corner lot at 1784 Gramsie Road: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. 2. The proposed building addition shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Vice Chair Collins opened the floor to Commissioner comments. There were none. Vice Chair Collins invited the applicant forward at this time. Nancy Hedin, 1784 Gramsie Road, requested the Commission support her addition as her property currently only had a one stall garage. Tracy Roeder, 1784 Gramsie Road, stated she thoroughly enjoyed living in Arden Hills, but indicated her home only had a single car garage. She explained she was now in a place to put on an addition and she would appreciate the Commission’s support. Commissioner Bjorklund indicated he supported the proposed request. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 5, 2024 6 Vice Chair Collins moved and Commissioner Wicklund seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 24-010 for a Variance to construct an attached garage addition with a 23.33 side yard setback on a corner lot at 1784 Gramsie Road, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the June 5, 2024, Report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). C. Planning Case 24-012; 4061 Lexington Avenue North – Site Plan Review – Public Hearing Not Required Senior Planner Fransen stated the Applicant has submitted a land use application for a Site Plan Review, seeking flexibility on the height, sign area, and quantity of signs allowed for the Subject Property. The Subject Property has road frontage along County Road F West and Lexington Avenue. The Primrose School of Arden Hills and Shoreview opened in October of 2019 and is part of a national system of accredited private preschools that provide child care and early education. The Applicant is seeking flexibility to install signage on an existing freestanding structure along Lexington Avenue. The existing freestanding structure does not conform with sign standards and requirements for freestanding signs in Sign District 6 due to height, sign area (i.e. sign cabinet), and sign quantity. The City is asked to consider the request for a sign standard adjustment through the Site Plan Review process. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the background, site data, Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The Subject Property is located in the I-1 Zoning District and is guided as Light Industrial and Office in the Land Use Plan. 2. The Applicant has submitted an application for Site Plan Review to install signage on an existing freestanding structure for the Subject Property. 3. Sign Standard Adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area, and/or location of a sign or signs established by this Chapter may be approved with a Site Plan Review or a Planned Unit Development process as described for in Section 1320 and 1355 of the Zoning Code. 4. Flexibility through the Site Plan Review process has been requested for the height, sign area, and sign face quantity for a freestanding sign on the Subject Property. 5. The proposed signage plan does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the I-1 Zoning District or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. 6. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 7. The proposed plan will not produce any permanent noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid, or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics. 8. A public hearing is not required for Site Plan Review. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission for Planning Case 24-012 for a Site Plan Review at 4061 Lexington Avenue N.: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 1) The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 5, 2024 7 2) A sign permit shall be required for all proposed signage. 3) All signage shall meet all other requirements of Sign District 6. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Vice Chair Collins opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Wicklund asked if the landscaping that was included for the sign across the street was an element that could be added to this variance request, because these were larger than normal signs. Community Development Director Jagoe reported the Applicant could be asked to come back with landscaping if this was requested from the Commission. She indicated her only concern with this requirement, was the fact the sign was approximately five feet from the property line and making sure that landscaping did not extend into the right-of-way. Commissioner Bjorklund explained he visited the site and he also noticed the sign to the north. He explained the proposed sign was significantly closer to Lexington Avenue than the sign to the north. Commissioner Mitchell discussed how the pandemic had impacted a lot of things. She indicated she was struggling to do business with businesses that have been struggling to do business. She understood staffing was getting better, but she had sympathy for those businesses that were still working their way back. She was pleased to learn the Applicant had found someone to help them with this project. Vice Chair Collins asked if the Bremer Bank sign formally conformed with the existing sign standards. Senior Planner Fransen reported Bremer Bank had gone through a redevelopment process for the Primrose School in 2018 and the sign was reviewed at that time. She stated the sign was found to be non-conforming and there was a request to continue using the sign. Vice Chair Collins requested further information regarding sign area and copy area. Senior Planner Fransen discussed the differences between sign copy area and sign area, noting sign copy area does not include any blank space. Vice Chair Collins asked if the proposed sign would conform with the City’s sign standards. Senior Planner Fransen reported the proposed sign copy area would conform. She indicated the overall sign area of the cabinet does not conform with the sign standards. Vice Chair Collins invited the Applicant forward at this time. Saleem Grimaliani, Primrose School representative, provided background information on Primrose School and explained the school came into Arden Hills in 2018. He discussed how the existing building was restructured. It was his understanding the sign would also be restructured ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 5, 2024 8 and later learned the sign was non-conforming. He commented on how things got put on hold due to COVID. He requested the City consider sign flexibility, due to the fact the sign was not completed within the first year due to extenuating circumstances. Commissioner Bjorklund requested further information on the Primrose School. Mr. Grimaliani explained Primrose School was an early childhood (daycare) program that caters to children from six weeks of age to six years. He noted this was a private for-profit Montessori type school. He indicated there were 550 Primrose Schools nationwide and 21 locations in the Twin Cities. Commissioner Blilie stated she was in favor of this proposal but did not support extra landscaping requirements as a required condition. Commissioner Mitchell agreed. Commissioner Bjorklund indicated he had a number of concerns. He stated the structure has been unused for four and a half years. He explained the total sign copy allowed was 45 feet and the Applicant was requesting 87 feet. He reported the maximum height allowed was 12 feet and this sign would be 27.7 feet high. He commented this sign was very tall and the overhang was unclear. It was his understanding this sign was very close to the property line. He reported non- conforming signs were not to be enlarged or expanded. He stated this was clearly a non- conforming sign. In addition, non-conforming signs were to be discontinued after a year of non- use. He did not support the City violating these portions of the sign ordinance. He reported he did not like this sign because it was too big and too close to the property line. He supported this property moving forward with a ground mounted monument sign in conformance with the sign code. Commissioner Wicklund stated he appreciated how the applicant was working to maximize an existing asset. He understood Sign Art was a great company to work with. He shared an image of the sign that was across the street to the north, noting he would like the Commission to consider an additional condition to read: Applicant shall work with City staff and provide appropriate and feasible landscaping around the existing sign. He stated he was in favor of the request before the Commission with the additional condition. Commissioner Blilie indicated she supported the Applicant being allowed to use the existing sign versus requiring them to tear it down. She indicated she accepted the additional condition regarding the landscaping. Commissioner Mitchell reported she also supported the existing sign being used, versus wasting money on tearing it down. She believed the proposed sign was a reasonable alternative given the situation and makes the best use of the property. In addition, she supported the sign having landscaping around it. Vice Chair Collins explained he was in favor of keeping the sign as well. He questioned how the City was to determine what was “appropriate landscaping”. Commissioner Wicklund stated he would be amenable to other language for his condition that would better reflect or provide clarity to staff. He was of the opinion staff could determine what type of landscaping would be appropriate at the base of the sign. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 5, 2024 9 Community Development Director Jagoe suggested if this was an item from the Planning Commission that the Applicant be strongly encouraged to have landscaping included in their plan prior to this item being reviewed by the City Council. Mr. Grimaliani indicated he supported the proposed landscaping request and could amend his plans prior to this item being reviewed by the City Council. He stated similar action was taken in Savage where annuals and perennials were added to the base of the sign to soften its appearance. Commissioner Wicklund thanked the Applicant for being willing to amend his plans. Commissioner Wicklund moved and Commissioner Blilie seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 24-012 for Site Plan Review at 4061 Lexington Avenue North, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the June 5, 2024, Report to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Bjorklund spoke against the motion noting this sign was non-conforming and should not be allowed to continue per the City’s sign ordinance. The motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Bjorklund opposed). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. Sign Code Discussion Senior Planner Fransen stated at their April 17, 2023 meeting, the City Council reviewed a list of staff-identified code amendments for further discussion. Signage was added to this list as a task for the Economic Development Commission. Direction was given to review the current sign code to ensure the standards are consistent with current technology and community needs. At the August 23, 2023 Economic Development Commission meeting, staff presented an introduction to the sign code, with a focus on non-residential, permanent commercial message signage, covering the current format and content of the code with sign standards by sign district and sign type. At subsequent meetings, the EDC reviewed standards for different sign types with an awareness of recent requests for sign standard flexibility through planned unit developments and sign standard adjustments. The group considered wall signage, freestanding signage, and dynamic display signs. The review also included a comparison of the sign codes for the Cities of Shoreview and New Brighton. Senior Planner Fransen provided the Planning Commission with a summary of the EDC’s comments and invited the Planning Commission to review the comment summary provided and ask questions and offer feedback to the EDC based on the provided information. Commissioners may also make additional comments to be considered prior to the summary document going before the City Council. Commissioner Mitchell stated she was delighted to see the City was addressing the sign code. She recommended considering the speed limits set around the City and the science behind sign size and lettering be considered within the sign code. She understood that signs are useful, and well done signs are more useful. She supported the City having appropriately sized signs for safety purposes. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 5, 2024 10 Commissioner Blilie agreed with the recommendations from Commissioner Mitchell. She liked the idea of scaling signs to the size of a building’s frontage. She anticipated the City has erred to the side of caution too much. Commissioner Wicklund asked if there was a way to add a paragraph into the sign code that would require non-conforming signs to be brought up to new standards if requesting a change. Community Development Director Jagoe explained State Statute language was pretty clear when addressing non-conforming provisions. She reported staff was following these provisions. She stated the City would not be able to write something that says it’s conforming, rather the sign would remain non-conforming. Commissioner Wicklund questioned if the language within code would move towards adopting the greatest possible sign size or does the proposed language shrink the signs. Senior Planner Fransen stated previous flexibilities that were granted by the City were taken into consideration within the proposed sign code language. She noted this language could be further reviewed if direction was given from the Council. Commissioner Wicklund believed it appeared the broad recommendations would simplify the sign code. Commissioner Bjorklund indicated he supported the percentage of building elevation concept for wall signage. However, he wanted to see examples of what these percentages would look like. He requested further information on the EDC. EDC Commissioner Julie Gronquist introduced herself to the EDC stating members have to be a resident of Arden Hills, or a business representative in the community. She explained the EDC did not meet during COVID and began meeting again in August of 2023. She reported she owns a business in Arden Hills and has lived in the community for the past 24 years. EDC Commissioner Ted Brausen reported he has been part of the community since 1969, when his father opened a store. He explained he has been through many sign issues, some good and some bad, which was how he ended up on the EDC. He indicated he has worked with many staff members over the years and stated Community Development Director Jagoe and Senior Planner Fransen were wonderful to work with. EDC Commissioner Frank Cupery stated he was the Chair of the EDC. He reported he runs a business out of his home in addition to working as a building inspector for the City of Shoreview for the past five years. He explained he has helped with the sign code planning given his experience as a building inspector. Bob Sherlock, Sign Art, encouraged the Commission to review West St. Paul’s sign code as it was recently updated. He was of the opinion the changes that were made were very well done. Commissioner Bjorklund thanked Mr. Sherlock for this feedback. He understood signs can be very informative, but he also believed signs could be gaudy and do not properly fit into the natural environment. He did not want to see larger and larger signs in the community. He was reluctant to allow huge increases in signage. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 5, 2024 11 Vice Chair Collins asked if the new code was adopted, has the City considered the fact current signage would become non-conforming, or would all new signage be larger. He feared how the new language would alienate existing business owners and their signage. Senior Planner Fransen indicated the comment regarding equity, fairness, and not creating barriers has been a concern for the EDC as well. She believed the percentage would assist with setting the right spot for sign size in order to not create non-conformities, or keeping the number of non-conforming signs as small as possible. Vice Chair Collins discussed how building sizes and proportionality would be addressed for businesses along Lexington Avenue. Senior Planner Fransen commented the EDC discussed having minimums in place to ensure no businesses were cast out. On the flip side, there could also be a maximum sign size that would be allowed. Commissioner Wicklund suggested the audio coming from dynamic display signs be considered within the sign code revisions. Vice Chair Collins thanked staff for all of their efforts on the sign code revisions. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Community Development Director Jagoe provided the Commission with an update from the City Council. She reported HKGi was hired by the City to assist with the ordinance review updates. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests Commissioner Bjorklund commented on how he was looking to find more ways for the City to have affordable housing. He discussed how accessory dwelling units would be one way to meet this need. He supported the City allowing ADU’s in the R-1 zoning district. Community Development Director Jagoe stated this could be considered through the ordinance review work or to make a comment to the City Council at a Council meeting during Public Inquiries. ADJOURN Vice Chair Collins moved, seconded by Commissioner Wicklund, to adjourn the June 5, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting at 8:41 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0).