Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 02-22-1999 . MINUTES CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 22, 1999 7:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Dennis Probst called to order the regular City Council meeting at 7:31 p.m. Present: Mayor Dennis Probst, Councilmembers Beverly Aplikowski, Gregg Larson, Paul Malone and Lois Rem. Absent: None. Also present were City Administrator, Brian Fritsinger; Assistant to the City Administrator, Kevin Ringwald; City Accountant, Terrance Post; Associate Planner, Nancy Randall; City Attorney, John Miller; and Recording Secretary, Lori Rolfson. ADOPT AGENDA Mayor Probst noted that a revised agenda had been received which postponed the Finance . Committee presentation, item B of Unfinished and New Business. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Malone seconded a motion to adopt the agenda for the February 22, 1999, regular City Council meeting, as revised. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes available. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Claims and Payroll B. Receive the 1998 Treasurers Report C. Probationary Appointment, Pamela Sweeney MOTION: Councilmember Malone moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar and authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). PUBLIC COMMENTS . Mayor Probst invited those present to come forward and address the Council on any items not already on the agenda. There were no public comments. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 22, 1999 2 UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. Resolution #99-10, Approving an Application for Authorization for an Exempt Gambling Permit Mr. Post explained that the City of Arden Hills received an application for an exempt gambling permit from St. John the Baptist Catholic Church of New Brighton. The organization is proposing to have a raffle and tipboard fund raising event at the Holiday Inn at 1201 West County Road E on March 19, 1999. The organization is also requesting the City of Arden Hills to waive the thirty day waiting period prior to the charitable gambling event. This type of activity is different from the "One-Day Off-Site" activity in that the one-day off-site opportunity exists only for organizations that have an active organization license and premises pemlit. The proposed form of charitable gambling, approved by the Stated Gambling Control Board, is applicable to nonprofit organizations who do not have an active charitable gambling license, but still wish to utilize charitable gambling events for fund raising purposes. These organizations are limited to five exempt permits per year and a total prize payout per year of $50,000. The applicant is within these limitations for the current year. Mr. Post indicated that a representative of the church had explained that the request for waiver from the thirty day waiting period had arisen because of a significant deposit at the hotel to book the event, and because of an administrative mix up. They had originally submitted the application package to the City of Shoreview on the mistaken impression that the Holiday Inn was in that community. By the time the mistake was realized, the organization was in a timing conflict. Mr. Post stated that a representative from the St. John the Baptist Catholic Church was available at the meeting to answer any questions. Mr. Post advised that Staffrecommends the City Council approve Resolution #99-10, Approving an Exempt Gambling Permit Application and Waiving the Thirty Day Waiting Period. Mr. Bob Mike, Parrish Administrator, St. John the Baptist Catholic Church, apologized for the late application. He explained he had been informed by the State of Minnesota that in order to obtain the permit by the scheduled date in March, the Church would need written documentation from the City of Arden Hills waiving the thirty day waiting period. MOTION: Councilmember Malone moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve Resolution #99-10, Approving an Exempt Gambling Permit Application and Waiving the Thirty Day Waiting Period. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 22, 1999 3 . B. Planning- Cases 1. Planning Case #98-30, Donald Wahlberg, 1451 Arden Place, Variance, Side Yard Setback Ms. Randall explained that the applicant is requesting approval of a corner side yard setback variance (19 feet 9 inches proposed, when 40 feet is required) for an attached garage addition/storage space to a single family lot zoned R-l. The applicant currently has a small two car attached garage 18 feet by 26 feet (468 square feet) that fronts on Arden Place. The home is angled slightly towards the corner of Arden Place and North Snelling Avenue. The applicant is proposing a 16-foot 8 inch by 33-foot 8 inch (562 square foot) garage addition to replace the storage space that was lost when a detached metal storage shed collapsed earlier this year. At the February 3,1999 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant stated a lean-to car port had existed attached to the current garage. This carport had been removed by the applicant last year. The applicant has evaluated other locations for the storage space, however, this is the only location they feel will work with the existing home. . Ms. Randall stated there had been updates to this Planning Case since the February 3, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant had supplied a picture depicting the attached carport, removed earlier in the season due to its dilapidated state. The applicant also brought up the fact tllat a chimney on the west side of the garage and the brick wall construction reduces the interior garage width to 15 feet 6 inches. The applicant had submitted to the City Council pictures of the carport and interior of the garage, as well as two views of the open space the applicant wishes to preserve. Ms. Randall advised that the Planning Commission recommends denial of Planning Case #98-30, Corner Side Yard Setback Variance (19 feet 9 inches proposed, when 40 feet is required) for an attached garage (storage space), based on the "Findings - Corner Side Yard Setback Variance (garage)" section of the Staff report dated February 3, 1999. Mr. Wahlberg, 1451 Arden Place, stated that he is involved in landscaping and has developed a Japanese garden in his back yard. He also has a hosta garden and a three season porch and he would prefer not to build a metal storage structure as this would affect the view of his backyard. He indicated that ifhe built the garage to the east, this would cause problems for his next-door neighbor. Mr. Wahlberg noted he had lost storage space when his shed collapsed. Additionally, the 20 year old carport was rotting and he had hoped to replace these structures with a permanent structure rather than a metal building. . Councilmember Larson noted that, according to the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting, the intent ofthe garage was uncertain. He asked Mr. Wahlberg if the purpose of the proposed garage is for storage or car parking. He also asked if Mr. Wahlberg is currently parking two vehicles in his attached garage. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 22,1999 4 Mr. Wahlberg explained that he currently has three vehicles, one is driven only in the summer time. In order to get one vehicle out of the garage, he must first remove the other vehicle. He considers the garage to be one and one-half car rather than two car. Mr. Wahlberg noted that the carport had been an original part of the property. This carport had been considered an asset as it had been used by two other families prior to him over the last 15 to 20 years. He removed this asset because he had assumed he would be able to replace it with a more substantial structure. Councilmember Aplikowski asked how much of a variance is being requested. Ms. Randall explained that the variance would be for 20 feet. Because the home is on a comer property, both corners require a 40-foot setback from the property line. She noted that the applicant did jog the proposal back slightly in order to stay in line with the property line. COlillcilmember Aplikowski asked if the proposal is to replace the existing garage or to add onto it. Ms. Randall explained the existing garage would stay in place. The new addition would be locatcd in the area of the old carport. Mayor Probst asked if historical information was available as to why the home was built in its current location. He wondered if it had been a function of re-platting. Ms. Randall stated that it had been a function of re-platting. She indicated that at one point the setback requirements in some areas had heen 20 feet and this had heen changed to 40 feet. Councilmember Aplikowski asked if there would be an opening between the existing garage and the new addition. Mr. Wahlberg stated that there would be a walk through exit door to the new addition. Councilmember Aplikowski confirmed that the purpose for the addition would be for parking a car in the front portion and storage in the rear. Mr. Wahlherg stated this was correct. Councilmember Aplikowski stated that she would prefer the proposed addition be built, rather than a metal storage unit be placed in the backyard. Councilmember Rem confirmed that approximately two-thirds of the existing home is hehind the current setback. Ms. Randall stated that this was correct and noted it is not an unusual situation for older homes. Councilmemher Rem noted that the proposed addition would not extend further into the sethack area. She indicated that she had driven past the home and she believes that the addition would not extend out any further than the home currently does. She concurred with Councilmember Aplikowski's concern that the Staffs suggestion of a metal storage shed is not a value adding option. Councilmember Malone stated that he can understand the argument that the addition would not encroach into the setback any further than the home. The problem is that the applicant must . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 22, 1999 5 demonstrate a unique situation with the property, the fact that there are no other options, and a hardship for the variance to be granted. The Council must consider the fact that there are other options available for the location of additional storage. He stated that the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship and he cannot support the variance request. Mayor Probst concurred with Councilmember Malone. He agreed that there are other places available where the structure could be located without creating a hardship. He expressed his concern that if the variance were granted, this may be setting a precedence and it would be difficult to maintain consistency. Mayor Probst noted that the Planning Commission had looked for a logical basis to approve the request, however, they were unable to come up with one. Because the applicant has not been able to prove a hardship, he would be inclined to endorse the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Councilmember Larson concurred with the Mayor's comments. He agreed that the proposed addition may be an aesthetically preferred solution, however, since there are other areas available for the structure, the City cannot grant variances for aesthetic reasons alone. Councilmember Rem noted that the applicant was hoping to replace the lost storage shed as well as the carport. She asked if just the carport could be replaced. Mr. Ringwald explained that, since the carport was a legal nonconforming use, if the structure is destroyed, it must meet the new setback requirements. Under the Code this would be the same situation for the home if it were at least 50% destroyed. Councilmember Aplikowski confirmed that ifthe addition were built behind the setback line, within the buildable area, the applicant would not need a variance. Ms. Randall stated this was correct. Councilmember Aplikowski asked if this option would be possible. Mr. Wahlberg explained that this option would not look right with the home. He noted that, ifhe had not removed the carport and had simply replaced some boards, he could have continued to use if for the next 15 years. He stated that the requirements of the Code do not support upgrades, rather it encourages the maintenance of shabby structures. Mayor Probst stated that it is not the position of the City Council to support the deterioration of the community. He stated there are Ordinance requirements which have to be met and he is not compelled to find a hardship in this case. Councilmember Malone noted that it is unknown whether the carport had been built with a building permit. Mr. Wahlberg stated the carport had been built approximately 20 years ago. Councilmember Malone asked if Mr. Wahlberg was the homeowner at that time. Mr. Wahlberg stated he was not. He has owned the home for approximately eight years. Councilmember Malone reiterated that the carport may have been built without a building permit, or it may have been when the 20-foot setback requirement had been in place. He stated ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 22 1999 , 6 . the City is often faced with situations where the Zoning Ordinance must be changed. When this occurs, the existing structures are allowed to remain as is. When the existing structures are replaced, they must meet the new Zoning Ordinance requirements. He noted that Mr. Wahlberg was correct in that he could have simply replaced the rotting boards and continued to utilize the carport. Mr. Ringwald stated that nonconforming uses are allowed routine maintenance. Any additional changes would require compliance with the Code. MOTION: Councilmember Malone moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to deny Planning Case #98-30, Corner Side Yard Setback Variance (19 feet 9 inches proposed, when 40 feet is required) for an attached garage (storage space), based on the "Findings - Corner Side Yard Setback Variance (garage)" section of the Staff report dated February 3,1999. The motion carried (3-2, Councilmembers Aplikowski and Rem opposed). 2. Planning Case #98-37, Thomas Delich, 3403 Lake Johanna Boulevard, Variance, Front and Side Yard Setbacks . Due to conflict of interest concerns, Mayor Probst did not participate in the discussion of this Planning Case. Councilmember Aplikowski filled in as Acting Mayor. Ms. Randall explained that the applicant is requesting approval of a side yard setback variance (five feet one inch proposed, when 10 feet is required) and a front yard setback variance (30 feet proposed, when 40 feet is required) for a house addition on a single family lot zoned R-2. The applicant currently has an 18 by 20-foot, two level (720 square feet) home with one bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and living room. The existing home is set very close to the Lake Johanna Boulevard right-of-way. In fact, the entire existing house is located within the required front yard setback. The deck on the front of the home is four feet from the Lake Johanna Boulevard right-of-way line and the house is ten feet from the right-of-way line, when 40 feet is required. The house is approximately five feet from both side yards when 10 feet is required on one of the side yards. The proposed house at 1,440 square feet is a reasonably sized home for the neighborhood in which it is located and modest for the community it is located in. However, the basic question in this request is not whether the home is reasonably sized, but given the extent to which the home is being modified, should the entire house be made to meet the current setback requirements. . The applicant has considered the Planning Commission comments pertaining to demolishing the existing home and building behind the 40-foot setback, thus eliminating the need for the front yard setback. The applicant staked the approximate location of a home behind the 40-foot setback. The applicant has submitted letters from himself, as well as his builder, expressing concerns with removing the existing home and building behind the 40-foot setback. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 22,1999 7 Ms. Randall advised the Planning Commission recommends denial of Planning Case #98-37, Side Yard Setback Variance (five feet one inch proposed, when 10 feet is required) and a Front Yard Setback Variance (30 feet proposed, when 40 feet is required) for a house addition, based on the "Findings - Front and Side Yard Setback Variance" section of the Staff report dated February 3,1999. Councilmember Rem asked if a map or diagram was available depicting the topography of the site. Ms. Randall stated the topography map was included as the last page of the Planning Case packet. Mr. Tom Delich, 3403 Lake Johanna Boulevard, stated he had considered the Planning Commission's suggestion to remove the existing home. He stated this would cause a great financial difficulty for him as this would require an additional $25,000 to $100,000 be spent on a new home plus the removal of the old home. He indicated that the proposed addition is small request. Mr. Delich noted the applicant in the previous Planning Case had not been asked to tear down his existing home, even though it was nonconforming. He indicated his home is a strong, sound structure and he would prefer to not remove it. Councilmember Malone stated he appreciates the dilemma of the applicant, however, this request causes a dilemma for the City Council as well since the property is so narrow. He agreed that Mr. Wahlberg was not requested to remove his home, however, Mr. Wahlberg was not proposing a major change or addition to the home. Councilmember Malone also noted that Mr. Wahlberg was asked not to build the structure due to Code requirements. Councilmember Malone stated that in this Planning Case the entire home is outside the setback requirements and noted it too may have been built prior to zoning Codes being established. He indicated that the City may not have platted the area and the existing situation had been grandfathered in. The Code allows the existing structure to remain until major changes are proposed. With any major changes, the structure would be required to meet the current setback requirements. Councilmember Malone stated he would be hard pressed to allow the applicant to invest a great deal of money as the City would prefer for a lot of this size be merged with the neighboring lot. He indicated that it would be difficult to grant a variance when doing so would make a bad situation even worse. He stated that he could find no grounds to disagree with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Councilmember Larson asked if the applicant owns the property or if the purchase was contingent upon the approval of the variance request. Mr. Delich stated he currently owns the property. Coullcilmember Larson stated tbat he concurred with Councilmember Malone in that this would be a significant infringement into the setback along Lake Johanna Boulevard. He stated he had . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 22,1999 8 reviewed the pictures of the proposed building area of the home if it were moved back. He noted that the Planning Commission meeting minutes had indicated the applicant felt there would be problems with this option due to the location ofthe driveway. He stated that it was not clear to him that this could not be done. He noted, however, he did understand the financial difficulties of this option for the applicant. Mr. Delich stated that a number of other points had been brought up in the letters from himself and the builder. He indicated that, due to the problems with water runoff and the unusual lot shape, the property calls for a variance. Any changes in the location of the home may result in a pool of water in front of the home. Additionally, four out of the six mature trees on the lot would need to be removed. Mr. Delich stated that he had researched the requirements for granting a variance and he feels his circumstances meet these requirements. He indicated that he had been attempting to construct a minimum amount of additional living space and a bedroom. He noted the Planning Commission had been concerned that he would want to build additional structures to the rear of the home in the buildable area and he stated that this was not his intent. Mr. Delich stated that he understands that the City would prefer for the lot to be merged with another, however, he has an amount of money invested into the property and he does not want to lose this investment. He reiterated that he is not proposing a huge home, he is only hoping for a reasonable amount of living space. He indicated that, although the drawings appear to depict large rooms, the location of the stairwells limit the amount ofliving space in the home. Mrs. Delich pointed out that there is currently no closet space or laundry area in the home. Mr. Delich stated that he and his wife are just starting out and they do not need alot of room and he had attempted to limit the size of the addition. He reiterated that the suggested option by the Planning Commission is not reasonable due to the size and sbape of the lot and his financial situation. He indicated he had worked with the Staff in order to come up with other options and was not successful. He feels that this creates a hardship to justify the variance. Councilmember Rem stated that she had driven past the home and the topography of the property would suggest that the existing home had been built on the only buildable area on the lot. She agreed that there may be a drainage issue with the relocation of the home. She expressed her beliefthat, if the City wants these smaller lots to be merged with others, the City should prevent the sale of them. She felt is was not acceptable for the City to allow the property to be bought and then require the home to be torn down. Ms. Denise Probst, 3395 Lake Johanna Blvd, stated she is a neighbor ofthe applicant and she was concerned that the applicant had suggested this was a starter home and may not live there permanently. She expressed her concern that ifthe variance were granted and the home was sold, the new homeowner may want to add onto the building to the rear. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 22, 1999 9 . Ms. Probst stated the history of the property is that the area had been a lodge with cabins. She indicated that when the property had been developed with new homes, some of the cabins had been removed to make way for the new homes. The home in question was one which had remained. She noted the neighbor to south of the applicant has a similar situation and has not requested variances for new construction. If this variance is granted, the neighboring homeowner may wish to add on to her home as well which will only extend the life of the small cabins. Ms. Probst stated the applicant purchased the home as is and wondered if a home should be purchased expecting a variance, or should the purchase be contingent on the approval of a variance. Mr. Delich stated that he had spoken with his neighbor to the south and she had indicated that she had applied for a variance for a garage. However, since her home is situated over the property line the variance was not granted and she did build a carport. Mr. Delich explained that, when he had used the term starter home, he did not mean that he had plans to sell the home. . Acting Mayor Aplikowski asked if the home is large enough to live in comfortably at this time. Mr. Delich stated it was not. He pointed out that the home had been a rental unit over the years and had not been well maintained. He indicated that when he purchased the home his intent was to take care of the property and improve it. He stated that he has already done some work on the inside and had hoped to be a good neighbor. If the he is forced to sell or rent out the home, it may not be well taken care of. Mr. Delich stated that he lives in a rough part of Saint Paul and he and his wife were hoping to improve their living situation. Acting Mayor Aplikowski expresscd her understanding of the applicant's wish to improve the existing home. She stated that she wished she could approve the variance request, however, it would not be safe for the neighborhood. Councilmember Malone stated that the intent of the City Council is not to give the applicant a difficult time. He indicated that for the City to allow these nonconforming structures to get bigger would not be acceptable and the rules ofthe variance would not allow it. Councilmember Malone stated that he wished the applicant had requested the variance prior to purchasing the home in order to have been informed of the situation before making a financial investment. He reiterated that the City Council is not trying to be difficult and he does sympathize with the applicant's situation. However, the applicant had not met the grounds for granting a variance. . MOTION: Councilmember Malone moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to deny Planning Case #98-37, Side Yard Setback Variance (five feet one inch proposed, when 10 teet is required) and Front Yard Setback Variance (30 feet ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 22 1999 , IO . proposed, when 40 feet is required) for a house addition, based on the "Findings - Front and Side Yard Setback Variance" section of the Staff report dated February 3, 1999. The motion carried (3-1, Councilmember Rem opposed). Acting Mayor Aplikowski noted that there may be other options for adding living space other than relocating the home. She suggested the applicant explore any other possibilities. Mr. Delich stated he had looked into every other option he could think of and asked if the City Council had any suggestions. Councilmember Larson stated that the only suggestion he had would be to secure the fmancing to build behind the setback line. He noted, with relation to the other properties in the area, this home sticks out like a sore thumb. He pointed out that, if Lake Johanna Boulevard were widened in the future, it would bring the road very close to the house. He indicated that the intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to bring any structures which are not in compliance with the zoning Code into conformance. If the variance were granted as proposed this would be allowing an addition onto a home which is substantially out of compliance. . Mr. Delich referred to Acting Mayor Aplikowski's comment that the proposed addition would not be safe for the neighborhood and noted, if the house were relocated as proposed, it would be located within 10 feet of the alley which is not safe. He stated that he could not understand how he could be denied the variance when there are no other options available. Councilmember Malone stated it is not the responsibility ofthe City Council to provide other options. He indicated that the Code requirements are in place to ensure the general welfare and public safety of the City. When an applicant requests approval for a variance, they must demonstrate an extreme hardship in order for the variance to be supported. Mr. Delich expressed his belief that the research information he had submitted had not been reviewed. He stated that he did not understand the objections and felt there would be no objections had the research been read. He stated that he must accept the idea that he was being asked to relocate his home to within 10 feet of the alley. Councilmember Larson stated he had read the information supplied by the applicant and he drives past the home everyday. He agreed that the size of the lot creates a difficulty and this is one condition which must be met for the granting of a variance. However, there are other conditions which must be met as well. He stated that no one is automatically entitled to a variance and there are other alternatives to the proposal. He expressed his understanding that the other options may not be financially viable at this time and suggested the applicant may have to delay the project for however long it takes to save enough money. . Mr. Delich noted that the Planning Commission had a difficult time in denying the request and had suggested he look into another option prior to having the City Council consider the proposal. He indicated that he had done as he was asked and the financial issues are not the only reasons why the relocating the home is not reasonable. A number of trees would have to be removed and he would prefer for these to be preserved. He noted, if the mature trees were removed it may . . e ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 22,1999 11 undermine the root system of the hill. The builder who reviewed the property agreed that it would be difficult to construct a new home due to the lot size and configuration hardship. Councilmember Larson agreed that it had not been an easy decision for the Planning Commission and noted it was not an easy one for the City Council to make either. 3. Planning Case #98-36, City of Arden Hills, Adult Use Ordinance Discussion Mr. Ringwald presented the City Council with a bench handout depicting a minor modification to the Ordinance included in the agenda packet. The modification specifies the place in which the Ordinance is to be located within the City Code. Mr. Ringwald stated that the Planning Commission and City Staff have spent a great deal of time creating the proposed Ordinance #311 which would restrict adult uses within the City. The City Council on March 9,1998, adopted Ordinance #305 placing a one year moratorium on the siting of adult use establishments within the City of Arden Hills. This was to allow Staff to conduct a study and forward the conclusions of that study to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. The Staff previously provided the Planning Commission and City Council with studies completed by other cities and other information sources related to the regulation of Sexually Oriented Businesses. This information was the basis for how the Ordinance was developed. The Staff finds the characteristics of Arden Hills are substantially similar to those of the cities cited by the report when considering the affects of adult uses. The Staff finds that adult uses may have adverse secondary affects and these will diminish by the adoption of the regulations and allowing a reasonable opportunity for these uses to occur within the City. The Supreme Court ofthe United States, based on freedom of speech, prohibits municipalities from eliminating these uses from any community. Although these businesses have the right to locate within a community, the City has the right to dictate the time, manner and location in which they exist. The Planning Commission has stated that the adverse secondary affects are probable to occur and it would be in the City's best interest to adopt the resolution limiting them. At the January, 1999 Workshop, the Planning Commission had presented Staff with a number of questions which the Staff addressed at the February 3, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. At the Planning Commission public hearing in February the Planning Commission adopted two general modifications to the Ordinance. One was that the Bethel College B-1 Zoning District be eliminated on the reliance that the B-4 Zoning District would meet the judicial requirements of providing a reasonable opportunity for these to locate. One of the basis's for this decision was the City of Crystal case in which a lower percentage of available space passed judicial review. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 22,1999 12 . The City of Arden Hills has very limited Business Districts within the community which allows a very limited area within the community in which these uses could locate. Since the Business District is the most appropriate place to locate these uses, the Planning Commission and Staff are proposing to regulate them to the extent that they would be located in 6.3% of the Business Zoning District. The B-4 Zoning District is located on either side of Dunlop Street, south of Red Fox Road and north of Grey Fox Road. The other modification requested by the Planning Commission was an enhancement to the definition of corporations. It was requested that this definition be expanded to include partnerships, limited liability corporations, trusts, and other business entities. The intent of this was to ensure it was clear that any sort of business may fall under this regulation. The Staff has made these modifications and presented the Ordinance to the City Council in its agenda packet. Mr. Ringwald advised that, based upon the evidence findings in this and other previously supplied reports, related to the atl-ects that Sexually Oriented Businesses would have on the City of Arden Hills, the Planning Commission recommends approval of Ordinance #311 and to direct the publication of an Ordinance summary in the City's Official newspaper. . Mr. Ringwald notcd that a four-fifths majority of the full Council is required for action to amend the Zoning Ordinance. Councilmember Larson asked where the specific change was located in the bench handout. Mr. Ringwald explained it was on the first page, third paragraph from the top, which began, in bold letters, "Section 13.6-1." He noted this is creating a section 13.6 in the City Code. Mr. Ringwald stated that the licensing section of the Ordinance only allows the issuance of one license per building or parcel and that no more than three licenses be issued at anyone time. He noted that the City needs to determine a license fee. This will be accomplished through discussions with the Ramsey County Sheriff Department. He indicated that the fee typically ranges from $5,000 to $10,000 and would be based upon the investigation costs incurred by the City. Mayor Probst noted that the update of these regulations have been in the process for a long time. He stated the area of adult uses requires a rigorous etlort to follow the appropriate steps and the City is not to adopt standards above those of other previously accepted Ordinances. He asked if the Staff is confident that these standards have been met. Mr. Miller stated that, when the project begun, he had reviewed with the Staff various city Ordinances from approximately a dozen different cities. The Staff also reviewed case laws and attempted to develop an Ordinance which would withstand judicial scrutiny as the subject . continues to evolve. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 22, 1999 13 . Mr. Miller stated he used the basic core of an Ordinance and include bits and pieces from other City Ordinances. He noted that approximately 90% ofthe City Ordinances are essentially identical. The creation of the Ordinance involved the copying of other Ordinances as it had been determined that if the Ordinances are working for other communities they would work for the City of Arden Hills as well. Mr. Miller stated there is no guarantee that any Ordinance will withstand judicial scrutiny, particularly when it involves the First Amendment. The attempt by Staff was to make a reasonable determination of how much land must be allowed for these uses. The Staff had to consider how much area in Arden Hills is dedicated to industrial and business uses. Another consideration is for an area which is easily butTered from sensitive uses. Mayor Probst asked if Staff had any concerns for providing an attractive location for these uses to locate. Mr. Ringwald stated that the proposed location is not attractive for these types of uses. Arden Hills in general is not attractive as it does not have much commercial area. The major commercial area is Lexington Avenue and Country Road E which does not carry a great deal of regional traffic through it. These uses tend to prefer to locate along high volume roadways and the proposed location does not provide this. This is a result of having to buffer the adult establishments from sensitive areas. Since there is a great deal residential area in Arden Hills it would be difficult for this type of use to locate within the City. . Mr. Miller stated that one concern which had been raised by the Planning Commission had been to not allow the area to become a red-light district. This was addressed by a modification to allow only one use per building or parcel. He noted the Courts do not require a City to have adult use establishments and whether or not they locate in the City would be a function of the market place. This was the reason for eliminating the Bethel College B-1 Zoning District. It was determined that the market would not support this type of use being located on the campus. Mayor Probst referred to the summary which will be published in the official newspaper and asked how explicit this summary will be. Mr. Ringwald stated the summary was included on the last page of the agenda packet and it had been published for the public hearing. Councilmember Malone stated that some may wonder why this Ordinance needs to be adopted. He noted that the City must be concerned with the general welfare of the community. He pointed out that other businesses are restricted, such as fast food establishments not being allowed to be within a certain distance of each other. Councilmember Malone stated that, in reading the research, he too came to the conclusion that these uses could have a negative affect on the community. He agreed that it would be appropriate to adopt an Ordinance which would limit the impact. He expressed his belief that the Ordinance would not be unduly restrictive. . Councilmember Larson asked, for example, if a Home Depot wished to develop a big box establishment within the B-4 Zoning District, is the City required to keep available a certain amount of space for adult uses. Mr. Ringwald stated these businesses must compete in the . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 22, 1999 14 market as any other business would. The City must only provide the opportunity for them to compete to locate within it. He concurred with Councilmember Malone's comment that the City restricts other businesses from being located within certain distance from each other. Councilmember Larson asked what the basis had been to limit the number of licenses to three. Mr. Ringwald stated it had been an issue of balancing the amount of area within the community and the reasonable amount of space within the community as a whole. Councilmember Larson suggested, when determining the fee for the business license, it should take into consideration enforcement costs associated with policing this sort of use. Mr. Ringwald stated there would be two different fees. One for the investigation and another for the license. This is similar to the fee set for massage parlors. MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Malone seconded a motion to adopt Ordinance #311 and to direct the publication of an Ordinance summary in the City's Official Newspaper. The motion carried unanimously (5- 0). ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS Mr. Fritsinger stated that the reason Staff had postponed the EDA's consideration of the Indykiewicz property was largely due to the fact that the family's attorney was not available and has not reviewed the changes to the purchase agreement. Attorney Filla had discussed these changes with Staff on February 19, 1999 and at this time the Staff has not reviewed the revised document either. Mr. Fritsinger stated that this may lead to the need for the EDA to hold a special meeting between now and March 8, 1999. He suggested this meeting could be held at the end of a work day. Mayor Probst asked what the publication time is to announce a special meeting. Mr. Fritsinger stated that it would be three days. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Larson commended the Planning Commission and Staff for their efforts on the Adult Business Ordinance and their previous work on the Pawn Shop Ordinance. Mayor Probst concurred and stated it had been a rigorous effort. Councilmember Malone stated the Fire Department Benefit Association will be meeting Tuesday, February 23, 1999. He indicated one issue is the stautory pension limits. The pension pays $25 per month, per year of service, with an upper limit ono years of service. He indicated that this time limit may be amended by legislation. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 22. 1999 15 . Councilmember Aplikowski requested a Workshop be held to discuss the number of Ordinance variances being requested. She indicated these requests are difficult to handle and she thanked the Staff for the effort put into researching the applications. On the topic of the number of variances being requested, Councilmember Rem suggested the City of Arden Hills consider an overlay of special provisions for particular neighborhoods within the City. Mr. Ringwald stated that the Planning Commission had discussed this issue and noted that, with the new GIS system, all the previous Planning Cases are being entered into a data base. Once this is accomplished it may be possible to map out particular problem areas and determine if it may make sense to do an overlay of the Ordinance. He noted the process is difficult for the Staff as well as the City Council and, if there is a different process which would meet the same objectives, it may be worth considering. Mr. Ringwald noted the issue in the first Planning Case this evening, in which the corner yard setback had been changed from 20 feet to 40 feet, is one which is presented often. He suggested it may make sense to map these areas out to determine what changes may need to be made. He noted most of the lots in these areas are large enough that they would not need to be combined. Councilmember Rem suggested reviewing how other older communities deal with these sort of issues within their Ordinances. . Mayor Probst noted that there are several communities within the Twin Cities which have adopted procedures related to the issues which were in front of the Council this evening. These range from design manuals which provide ideas on how to update the older bungalow style homes, to the extreme that the City of Richfield is buying property with small lots and using creative ways to make one out oftwo lots, or two out of three lots. This makes available more current lot sizes for new construction. He noted the issue of variances had been discussed by the City Council on several occasions. Councilmember Larson stated that it seems at least one-half of the Planning Cases being considered by the Planning Commission are similar to those considered this evening in the sense that people bought property without exploring what type of alternatives would be available to improve the property. He suggested the City could be involved with the disclosure statement the real-estate agent must make to the buyer. Although the disclosure often indicates the zoning, it could include information regarding what would be required in order to improve the property. . Mr. Ringwald pointed out that surveys were not required for properties until the mid 1980' sand it is the older homes which tend to be the most difficult. He noted that, when Code enforcement actions are occurring, the City does inform the real-estate agents in order for them to pass the information on to a potential buyer. Many times homes are for sale for such a short period of time it is difficult to catch up with them. If a potential buyer calls the City for information Staff would make them aware of any possible issues with the property. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 22, 1999 16 Mayor Probst stated that the City of Roseville will be conducting a grand opening on Wednesday, March 24, 1999, from 6:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. for their skating rink expansion. He indicated he would not be able to attend and invited anyone from the Council who may be interested in attending to do so. Mayor Probst stated that two Town Hall meetings are scheduled for Monday, March I, 1999 and Wednesday, March 3, 1999. He stated he will try to attend the meeting on Wednesday. Mayor Probst stated that he had received an invitation for an all day Workshop with Metro Transit on Saturday, March 6, 1999. This Workshop is to discuss the transit planning activities for the area. He invited anyone on the Council who may be interested in attending to do so. Mayor Probst stated that he had spoken with General LeBlanc to discuss the status of the activity north of Highway 96. While General LeBlanc did not have a firm date, he did indicate that the expectation is still to hold a transfer ceremony by March 15, 1999. Mayor Probst stated he will be on vacation at this time and asked that if any Councilmembers are called to attend the ceremony they do so. He indicated he had also discussed the lease issue and General LeBlanc had made it clear that the National Guard will do whatever it takes to ensure that this happens. ADJOURN MOTION: Councilmember Malone moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:07 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5- 0). ~ / Brian Fritsinger City Administrator NOTICE OF MEETINGS The next regular City Council meeting will be held Monday, March 8, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. at the Arden Hills Council Chambers.