Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 08-04-2004 . ~ ~~HILLS MEETING MINUTES Approved by Council: September 27, 2004 Approved by the PlanninR Commission: October 20, 2004 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION / CITY COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2004, 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1245 WEST HIGHWAY 96 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Mayor Aplikowski called the meeting to order at 7: 12 p.m. Present: Mayor Aplikowski, Councilmembers: Brenda Holden, Gregg Larson, and Lois Rem. Excused absence: Councilmember David Grant . Planning Commissioners Present: Chair David Sand, Commissioners: Ken Bezdicek, Fran Holmes, Clayton Larson, Liz Modesette, Megan Ricke, and Clayton Zimmerman. Staff present: Administrator, Michelle Wolfe; Community Development Director, Scott Clark; City Planner, Peter Hellegers 1. Thoul!hts on Lake Johanna Bonlevard / New Bril!hton Road Development Scott Clark began the discussion stating that the Presbyterian Homes development which had been proposed for the triangular property at Lake Johanna Boulevard and New Brighton Road emphasized the need for the Plalll1ing Commission and the Council to discuss what development would be acceptable at that location. Commissioner Bezdicek indicated that he would like to see a park at that location. Commissioner Holmes stated that the comer could be converted to a lot for a single family home. Commissioner Larson stated that the magnitude of the project proposed by Presbyterian Homes was not right for the comer. Commissioner Ricke stated turning the property into a park could set a precedent for other eyesore properties in the City. Commissioner Modesette indicated that the single family home on the development would've been too constrained. . Councilmemeber Holden posed the question if the property directly north of the triangular property were rezoned to be Neighborhood Business then what would prevent that from happening to the next property and the next after that? Councilmember Holden also said there could have been as many as 36 people living there if the building had contained 9 apartment units. . . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION / COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 4, 2004 2 Commissioner Bezdicek stated the neighborhood wants tastefui development that fits the site. Mayor Aplikowski stated that the site may not be viable for a business use. Councilmember Larson agreed that the site may not be large enough, however the property was in need of redevelopment. He indicated that it would be a benefit to the City to have a nice development at that location. He also stated that the property should not be a park. Several Commissioners and Councilmember asked the question if the site was too small to develop and if so does rezoning the property directly to the north of the triangular property make sense. Commissioner Modesette asked if there were restrictions on the property because it was an old gas station site. She asked if Presbyterian Homes had done a Phase I for the site? Commissioners Larson indicated that it's important for the City to have a vision for these redevelopment areas. Commissioner Modesette asked what sorts of development the neighbors would be favorable to. Councilmember Larson stated that the City had recently had success developing lots that had previously sat vacant. He indicated that development at this location should be of the caliber of the Cox Insurance Building at County Road D and Fairview in Roseville. Commissioner Larson said that while the City could wait for the next proposal, the other side of the issue is that if the property to the north of the triangular property were rezoned it could help drive redevelopment of the comer. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if the City should go back to Presbyterian Homes and tell them what the City would like to see at that location. Planning Commission Chair Sand stated that the triangle property in its current form is not what the City would like to see. He indicated that the Cox Insurance Building is the type and scale of development that he would like to see at that location. Community Development Director Clark swnmarized many of the key points from the discussion. There was a consensus to explore rezoning one additional parcel to make the triangle property more viable and to engage in immediate discussions with Presbyterian Homes regarding their future plans. 2. Perspectives on Variances Mayor Aplikowski started the discussion by stating her view on variances. . . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION / COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 4, 2004 3 Commissioners Ricke and Zimmerman both indicated that sometimes it is difficult to tell if what the applicants are representing as their only option for development is in fact their only option. The Commissioners and Councilmembers asked to receive their Planning Commission packets at least one week prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Chair Sand asked staff to be more stringent with potential variance applicants. Commissioners Larson and Ricke indicated that often the hardship criteria stating "whether the hardship was caused by the property owner" are almost always listed as no in the staff report. The Commissioners indicated they think that even if it is the second or third owner, the current owner is still responsible for conditions created by prior property owners. Researching these conditions is part of the due diligence in purchasing a property. Commissioner Sand said that if an application doesn't meet the criteria for a variance it is staffs role to make a recommendation to deny and then the Planning Commission (and Council) can agrce or disagree. Commissioner Larson recommended that staff track variances to determine if there's a problem with a particular part of the Zoning Ordinance and if so, staff and the Planning Commission will know what needs to be fixed. Mayor Aplikowski indicated that some variances deserve a little more leniency; i.e. constructing two-car garages that are 4-5 feet from property lines, workshop spaces for garages, decks to be closer to property lines. Commissioners and Councilmembers discussed whether staff should include recommendations on staff reports or just analyze the infonnation and not include a recommendation. Community Development Director Clark stated that applicants routinely ask staff what their chances are for getting an item approved, so whether or not staff makes a recommendation there is an expectation by the applicant that staffwi11 communicate precedents of the reviewing bodies. Councilmember Holden asked staff what percentage of potential variance cases go before the Planning Commission and Council. City Planner Hellegers stated that he did not know the exact percentage but many cases never reach a fonnal application after staff informs the applicant of the Ordinance language and the likelihood of the application receiving denial. 3. Buildinl!: Materials Councilmember Larson stated that he thought Planned Unit Developments (PUD's) were more of a negotiation. The developers always know what they want from the City when they make an application, so the City should know what they want from the developer as well. He stated that ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION / COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 4, 2004 4 . the City needs to ask more of the developers when they make applications for development. Councilmember Larson offered the following examples of building design: Cub Foods, with additional design requirements requested by the Council the building was made to look much better; Concrete tip-up buildings in Round Lake Park, the developer said that was the best they could do and they are very unattractive buildings; D and Cleveland, the building looks very cheap and should have used brick instead of the block and looked more like the Cox Insurance building. Councilmember Larson also stated that PUD process should include some reasonable expectations built into the process about the developers' intent to perform development within a reasonable period of time. Community Development Director Clark stated that one of the things that the City could do is have an architect review plans on an escrow basis, similar to what the City Engineer does now, to review the design aspects of a development. Planning Commission Chair Sand said that there had been some discussion about design guidelines before. Design guidelines will need to be done for TCAAP development. He suggested that perhaps the Visual Preference Survey performed by DSU could be a first baseline for design guidelines in the City. 4. Current Council Discussions: . Community Development Director Clark summarized some recent Council discussions for the group: . Redevelopment Objectives I. Indy property - a gas station / c-store type use would be an acceptable development 11. City Hall site - should be developed for some limited retail, clinic but not townhouses. lll. Chesapeake - will return to the Council in September for an extension on their PUD. . Time Extensions i. Council discussed a way to cap time extensions. 11. The City Attorney would prepare a draft for applicants to sign which stated that certain aspects of a development would be reviewed at the time on an extension. . TCAAP I. Centex withdrew from the development team. 11. The development team currently is working on amending the interim agreement. . . . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION / COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 4, 2004 5 1IJ. The City has taken the lead role for the development process. IV. The next Phase 3 Advisory Panel meeting is set for August 26th at 7:00 p.m. v. The City has asked the National Guard to set up a simulation of what training activities would take place on the site. · Economic Development Commission I. The EDC was established by the Council earlier this year, currently seeking people to be part of the Commission. 5. Interest for a Development Tour The Planning Commission and Council discussed a tour of development or redevelopment projects in the Twin Cities. Since there was sufficient interest all were asked to get back to staff with Saturday dates that will or won't work from late October to late November. 6. Current Issues/Direction Councilmember Rem discussed what a PUD means and what it becomes III process. It is important to establish objectives for PUD's. Councilmember Rem also stated that the joint meeting has been very productive and should take place more frequently. Perhaps a next meeting could be a learning session on how to redesign certain blocks. Commissioner Bezdicek asked about the status of the Property Maintenance Ordinance. Planning Commission Chair Sand said that they had reviewed the International Property Maintenance Ordinance a few years ago and weren't thrilled with it. He said that they were looking for something a little different. Commissioner Larson stated that Coon Rapids has an example of a Building Maintenance Ordinance which the Planning Commission may want to review. 7. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 9:55p.m. Respectfully submitted, Peter Hellegers - City Planner