HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 10-25-1999
MINUTES
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
. OCTOBER 25, 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 7:33 p,m,
Present: Mayor Dennis Probst, Councilmembers Beverly Aplikowski, Gregg
Larson, and Lois Rem.
Absent: Cowlcilmember Paul Malone.
Also present were Interim City Administrator, Terrance Post; Associate Planner, Nancy
Randall; and Recording Secretary, Lori Rolfson,
ADOPT AGENDA
MOTION: Councilmember Rem moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion
to adopt the agenda for the October 25, 1999, regular City Council meeting. The
. motion carried unanimously (4-0).
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A October 12, 1999 Regular Council Meeting
B. October 18, 1999 Council Worksession
Mr. Post requested the following changes to the October 12, 1999 minutes: On page four, in the
Motion, the Resolution number should be changed to "#99-35". On page five, second paragraph
under item C, the order of the second and third sentences should be switched, On page nine,
third paragraph, the word "Conference" should be changed to "meeting." On page nine, fifth
paragraph, the last sentence should be changed to read, "...will be held on Thursdav, October 14,
1999 at the Irondale High SchooL"
Councilmember Larson requested the following change to the October 12, 1999 minutes: On
page one, last paragraph, the first sentence should read, "...had expressed gn interesL."
With regard to the October 12, 1999 minutes, pages one and two, Mayor Probst requested that, in
the future, items of information such as this be pared down somewhat. He was not sure that all
the information in the Mayor's Update on City Administrator Search section was pertinent to the
record.
. Mayor Probst requested the following changes to the October 12, 1999 minutes: On page seven,
fourth paragraph, last sentence, thc word "if' should be changed to "it" With regard to this
discussion regarding the Corridor Coalition, Mayor Probst suggested that this type of
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL. OCTOBER 25, 1999 2
infomlation be pared down as welL On page nine, fourth paragraph from the bottom, the first
. sentence should read, "".was handed out after the meeting to allow the audience to have a
follow-up piece from the presentation," On page 10, third paragraph from the bottom, the second
sentence should read, "He indicated that we have had discussions with the Sheriff's Department
and was not sure where the City of Arden Hills was headed with community policing."
Mayor Probst requested the following change to the October 18, 1999 minutes: On page five, the
first paragraph should read, ",,,has a good working relationship with MnDOT as a result of the
proposed construction of Highwav 12 through the City of Long Lake.
MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a
motion to approve the minutes of the October 12, 1999 Regular Council Meeting
and the October 18, 1999 Council Worksession, as amended. The motion carried
unanimously (4-0).
CONSENT CALENDAR
A, Claims and Payroll
B. Resolution #99-39, Adopting and Confirming Annual Special Assessments for
Delinquent Utilities
C. Approval of Agreement and Probationary Appointment, Joseph P. Lynch, City
Administrator
. D. Approval of Year 2000 City Council/Planning Commission Meeting Dates
E. Authorize Interim City Administrator to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding with
the Department of Army for Land Conveyance
With regard to item E of the Consent Calendar, Mr. Post noted that the City subcontractor with
respect to the TCAAP Land Conveyance, Mr. Ken Nimmer ofImpact Planning, was available at
the meeting to answer any questions. Mayor Probst stated that he would have questions for Mr.
Nimmer and suggested action be taken on the Consent Calendar first
With regard to item B of the Consent Calendar, Councilmember Larson asked if it was still
acceptable to take action on this item as part ofthe Consent Calendar. Mayor Probst suggested
this item be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered under Unfinished and New
Business as item A.
MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a
motion to approve items A, C, D and E of the Consent Calendar and authorize
execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried
unanimously (4-0).
With regard to the positioning from the Minnesota Army National Guard, Mayor Probst asked
Mr. Nimmer if the City of Arden Hills was where it needs to be and if there was anything
. unusual happening with the land conveyance that would cause concern. Mr. Nimmer stated he
had spoken with the TCAAP Representative, Mike Fix, who had indicated he was amenable to
working with the City to move the process through. Mr. Fix had stated that the decision must be
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 3
forwarded to Headquarters for review. Having the proposed Memorandum of Understanding
. (MOU) in place would streamline the process.
Mayor Probst asked if it was realistic to plan for a spring ground breaking for the new City Hall.
Mr. Nimmer stated this was the goal he was working towards.
With regard to the statement that the decision must be moved up to Headquarters,
Councilmember Larson asked if Mr. Nimmer was referring to Rock Island or Washington D,C,
Mr. Nimmer stated that Rock Island has the agreement for review and the agreement will then be
sent to Washington D,C, and then to the Army Corp. of Engineers. He indicated that the
Memorandum of Understanding was the first step in the process and, in order to meet a spring
grOlmd breaking, it would be wise to begin the process now.
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,
UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
A. Resolution #99-39, Adopting and Confirming Annual Special Assessments for
Delinquent Utilities
. Councilmember Larson stated he wanted to pursue the manner in which the City of Arden Hills
deals with delinquent utilities and the language of the Resolution, The thing that he found
disturbing in the staff report was the number of people who are continuously delinquent on an
annual basis, He felt that one thing that makes it attractive to continue not paying utility bills,
and allow the rest of the City residents subsidize them, was the fact that the City is only charging
a penalty of eight percent on the money that is due the City. He suggested that the City consider
raising this penalty to a higher figure as an incentive for residents to pay their utility bills
regularly.
Mr. Post pointed out that there were actually two penalties on delinquent accounts. One is an
eight percent past-due penalty and the other is an additional eight percent certification penalty
when the account is certified to the tax rolls, Therefore, the penalty is 16 percent on the past-due
balance, not eight percent
Councilmember Larson stated that this had not been obvious in the Resolution. He asked if the
residents of Arden Hills are aware that the penalty is this high. Mr. Post stated that those
residents faced with certification are aware of the penalty, He added that, as part of the
recodification efforts by the City Council last spring, staff had recommended a streamlining of
the City's ability to turn water off. At this time, the City must go through an extended public
hearing process. The recodification allows the City to be much more reactive to past due
. accounts by turning off the water.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 4
. Councilmember Aplikowski stated that she could see no reason to change the current penalty as
she feels the amount is adequate. She indicated that there may be some residents who cannot pay
their utility bills any other way. She believed that if a resident had a real problem and were
petitioning not to pay, the City would hear from them in a different manner. Councilmember
Larson stated that he was satisfied with the current penalty anlount.
MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a
motion to approve Resolution #99-39, Adopting and Confirming Annual Special
Assessments for Delinquent Accounts, The motion carried unanimously (4-0).
B. Planning Cases
1. Case #99-12, Midway National Bank, 1315 Red Fox Road, Variance/Site Plan
Review
Ms, Randall explained that the petitioner was requesting approval of a variance (37 feet
proposed, when 50 feet is required) and site plan to allow for a 5 foot 6 inch by 13 foot 6 inch
generator and screening for their facility. The site has a unique setback configuration. The lot is
bordered by public right-of-way on three sides, thus requiring a 50 foot setback on three sides.
This causes the petitioner difficulties with placing any additional equipment on the site. Ms.
Randall presented a drawing of the site and noted that the building takes up the majority ofthe
building site,
. The applicant is looking to have the generator in place as soon as possible due to government
regulations, They currently have a temporary generator on a trailer to meet these requirements,
Statfhad agreed to allow the applicant to hook up the generator tcmporarily, as they were going
through the process, as long as there were no complaints and the applicant was moving forward
with a permanent solution,
The applicant had considered several locations for the generator. Other locations are limited due
to the unique location of this lot. One option would be on the north side of the parking area,
however, the only benetit would be that the generator may be easier to screen, Additionally, the
applicant has noted that it would be difficult to connect the generator to the junction box from
that location. The applicant has also considered a location to the east of the building, however,
there is a drainage system which flows through this area, The only side available that would not
need a variance is next to the building along the sidewalk. This site, however, would eliminate
landscaping, a portion of sidewalk, and windows. The generator must be placed as close to the
junction box as possible in order to hook up to the junction box. The proposed location would
work the best for that aspect.
The Zoning Ordinance states that screening shall be provided where mechanical equipment is
located on the ground or the roof of the premises. The applicant considered three possibilities.
One would be for no screening because the generator comes with an enclosure that is fairly
. attractive compared to a generator without an enclosure. The other options were for either a
cedar wood fence or a block wall that would surround the unit. The generator must be accessible
for servicing so the fence or wall would have to be larger than the unit. The actual generator
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 5
would reside entirely on the sidewalk at the loading dock With the enclosure, the unit would
. stick out further into the driveway, however, an acceptable drivc will be maintained. The
applicant intends to place bollards to protect the screening and gencrator from damage.
The applicant preferred the cedar wood fence; however, has stated that they feel it would look
just as good without screening due to the enclosure. Thcy would then add skirting to the bottom
of the enclosure,
Staff found circumstances unique to the property in that the property is bordered by public right-
of-way on three sides creating a relatively small buildable area for this site. Thc applicant lists
several other sites that they have considered which would all require variances, This site is
adjacent to the junction box which is where the generator is connected to the building. The next
best option would be on the north side of the parking area; however, the only benefit is that the
generator may be easier to screen, The applicant has noted it would be difficult to connect the
generator to the junction box from that location.
The applicant took great steps to find an alternative location, The generator is as far from the
property line as it can be without taking out parking spaces, Per Code requirement, the applicant
is willing to screen the generator with a 10 foot high cedar wood fence or an alternative option.
Ms. Randall advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning Case
#99-12, Site Plan, to allow for the construction of a 5 foot 6 inch by 13 foot 6 inch generator and
. 13 by 25 foot fence enclosure, along with a 13 foot variance, with the following conditions:
L The cedar wood fence be painted to match the color of the existing building,
2. The generator only be run a maximum of five hours per month for servicing or during the
duration of power failures.
3. The temporary generator on a trailer be removed.
Having reviewed the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting, Councilmember Aplikowski
felt that the only reason the applicant preferred the cedar wood fcnce versus a block wall was a
matter of cost Ms. Randall stated another reason for the cedar wood fence was for the ability of
snow to flow through where a block wall would trap the snow, She indicated that the applicant
was available to address this issue,
Mayor Probst asked that the applicant address the screening issue. He noted that the Planning
Commission had considered a block enclosure screening option to match the building. In this
location, he felt that this would make sense and he was inclined to suggest the construction of a
block wall over a cedar wood fence.
Mr. Robert Beck, Hcad of Operations for Midway Bank, St Paul, stated that the cedar wood
fence had been his second choice other than having the unit placed on the sidewalk without
remote screening. The intent had been to utilize the decorative panels that are in place on the
. unit with skirting around the bottom. In his opinion, this would be the least noticeable option.
Because of the clearance required around the unit, a cedar wood fence will more than double the
footprint of the unit and the use of a block wall would add an additional foot to that footprint.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 6
. Anything done beyond simply placing the generator on the sidewalk adds to the size and the
significance of the installation.
Mr. Beck stated that the building in use by Midway Bank is a leased facility. It is currently being
used as a computer operations facility. This may not be the usage years down thc road. Once a
structure is constructed such as a brick wall, it becomes much more permanent He indicated that
if screening is required he would prefer a cedar wood fence which is significantly less costly and
would not have the permanence of a cement structure.
Mayor Probst stated that he understood Mr. Beck's position. However, he did not agree that the
permanency of a block wall was a negative aspect He indicated that the building has been in
place for approximately 15 years and is a reasonably well built building. If Midway Bank were
to remain in this facility for the next 15 years, a wood enclosure would most likely not hold up
for more than five years, He added that the facility has frontage on threes sides and the front
door of the facility is essentially off Red Fox Road,
Mr. Beck pointed out that the generator will be placed along side the loading dock area which
has large doors and is not the most attractive side ofthe building. This was one reason for
placing the generator in the proposed location, He added that this was where the temporary
generator is located and, even though the current color does not match the building, the generator
blends in this location,
. Councilmember Larson concurred with Mayor Probst He acknowledged that the generator
would be located near the loading dock area. However, adding more to this area may make it
less attractive than it is now, He indicated that, even if the enclosure were not used in the future
for a generator, it may be used to house a trash dumpster or some other use. Without knowing
the future status of the facility, he would prefer the enclosure be done nicely at the beginning.
He added that the facility itself is quite attractive for an industrial building.
Mr. Beck agreed that the building is currently attractive and added that, regardless of what sort of
enclosure is used, it will have to be maintained. It was his belief that it was unlikely that the
structure would fit any other use in the future. He stated that his most significant issue was the
fact that the enclosure will more than double the footprint of the unit and will make the unit more
noticeable than it would be without an enclosure.
Councilmember Aplikowski requested additional information regarding the maintenance issues
of a block wall versus a cedar wood fence. Mr. Beck stated that, with a cedar wood fence, it
would be less likely for snow in the winter time to be captured within the structure.
Additionally, a fence would allow air flow through the enclosure. With any sort of screening, the
enclosed area will have to be kept clear of snow which will be an ongoing maintenance issue.
Councilmember Aplikowski asked if air flow around the generator affects its operation. Mr.
Beck stated that he did not believe air flow affects the operation of the generator. He invited Mr.
. Rick Apple from Alliance, the generator vendor, to address this issue.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 7
. Mr. Apple stated that the generator system sits approximately two feet off the ground on a fuel
tank system, The air flows from the sides of the unit, across the engine, and is then pushed
through the radiator and out of the unit With a block wall structure it will be even more
essential that the area be kept clear so snow will not will be pulled into the unit and freeze in the
radiator. When the engine is shut down after a short operational period of time, the snow does
not completely melt and the fan may freeze, This may result in the belts being spun off the unit
and the failure of the unit
Mr. Apple stated that he has been involved in the generator business for approximately 15 years
and deals with many city applications throughout the upper Midwest. He indicated that
aesthetics is a key issue these days and his company has worked hard to develop a generator
design that meets the facility requirements, In many scenarios, generators have large muffler
units mounted on the top of the units. Over the years the paint chips and the mufflers rust. With
the unit being purchased by Midway Bank, the mufflers have been incorporated inside the
enclosure. The main reasons for this was to be able to place a unit, painted the same color as the
building, using the least amount of space in order to blend the unit into the facade of the building
itself.
Mr. Apple concurred with Mr. Beck in that a cedar wood fence would be the most viable option.
The fence would be very attractive, sturdily built, and painted to match the building, He noted,
however, an enclosure will increase the overall footprint of the unit. At this time, the generator
will sit entirely on the sidewalk area witbout protruding into the parking lot area. When a fence
. or wall is added, there must be at least three feet of clearance.
Mr. Apple stated that cost is also an issue. A painted cedar wood fence of high quality is a fairly
expensive proposition. A brick wall made to match the exterior design of the building becomes a
very expensive proposition, A brick wall would require footings in the ground and would have
to be at least 10 feet tall. This will not allow air flow through the enclosure and will cause snow
to be trapped inside the wall.
Mr. Apple stated that the intent was to meet the requirements of the facility while following the
Y2K requirements of the Federal Government Midway Bank was also considering the long-
term reliability ofthe generator system on this site since there is a great deal of data processing
that is the basis of the facility.
Mayor Probst agreed that the behavior of snow through an open fence versus a solid fence is
different However, it would be hard to predict which of the options would cause more snow to
accumulate around the generator. By allowing no enclosure or a wooden fence the City would be
hard pressed to not allow the same thing for other businesses within the community that decide
they need a generator.
Councilmember Larson noted that the plans that show a cedar fencc and the plans that show a
block wall both show bollards, He asked what the purpose of the bollards would be on the block
. wall enclosure. Mr. Apple stated that the bollards would be included with the block wall in order
to protect the blocks from being chipped if hit by a truck He noted that there currently are
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 8
. bollards along the sidewalk to protect the building and the proposal would continue these
bollards around the generator.
Councilmember Aplikowski stated that she did not have a problem with approving a cedar wood
fence in this particular case, and in this location, She indicated that block walls do not always
work as well as one may think. Based on personal experience, it was her belief that a block wall
tends to be more of a maintenance issue than a wood fence.
Councilmember Rem concurred with Councilmember Aplikowski. She indicated that this issue
had been discussed by the Planning Commission and the result had been the approval of the
cedar wood fence. She felt that, since the screening would have to be so large, a block wall
would appear as an addition to thc building. The fence would be easier to maintain and repair
and, since the facility is leased, the enclosure may not be a long-term need.
MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion
to approve Planning Case #99-12, Site Plan, to allow for the construction of a 5
foot 6 inch by 13 foot 6 inch generator and 13 by 25 foot cedar wood fence
enclosure, along with a 13 foot variance with the following conditions:
l. The cedar wood fence be painted to match the color of the existing
building.
2. The generator only be run a maximum of five hours per month for
. servicing or during the duration of power failures,
3, The temporary generator on a trailer be removed,
Mayor Probst stated that he would vote against the motion as he felt the City Council should be
approving a different sort of enclosure. He added that the motion should include the findings of
facts for approval of the corner side yard setback variance found in the staff report dated October
25, 1999. Councilmembers Aplikowski and Rem agreed,
The motion failed (2-2, Mayor Probst and Councilmember Larson opposed),
Since the installation of the generator was something the applicant must move forward with,
Mayor Probst asked ifthe applicant was prepared to suggest any options. Mr. Beck suggested
that, since the request for variance was approved, and the only remaining issue was the nature of
the enclosure, he be allowed to move forward with the placement of the permanent generator
with temporary screening and install the permanent screening once that decision is made. He
noted that the installation of the screening would be a separate effort by a different contractor
than the installation of the generator.
Mayor Probst stated that nothing in this Planning Case had been approved since the motion for
approval failed, He believed that the Council was inclined to approve the variance request.
However, if the applicant were allowed to proceed as suggested, he would have to be willing to
. install a block wall, if that is what is approved, or be subject to the removal of the generator.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 9
. Mr. Beck stated that he was willing to comply with the decision made by the City CounciL He
added that he would be willing to leave the temporary generator in place until the end of the year.
Mayor Probst asked staff if additional problems would be created in the future if the Council
were to move forward as suggested by the applicant. Ms, Randall stated a condition could be
placed to allow the applicant to move forward with the generator placement, with the final
decision on screening pending further discussions at a future meeting. She suggested that a
time1ine for resolution be set, such as two months.
Councilmember Aplikowski confirmed that the applicant has a temporary generator at this time,
Mr. Beck stated that this was correct. If the Council were to decide to not take further action
until after the end of the year, Councilmember Aplikowski asked if the applicant could operate
until that time with the temporary generator, Mr. Beck stated that this would be possible,
Mr. Apple pointed out that, if the decision is delayed, there would be the issue of installing the
enclosure in frozen ground. He stated that the applicant was fully capable of operating as they
are now and, if the installation of the permanent generator with a block wall is delayed into the
winter time, the temporary generator and trailer may have to remain where it is until the spring
thaw.
Mayor Probst stated that if the Council did take action to allow the applicant to proceed, with an
understanding that the screening must be installed, it would not be acceptable for the project to
. be delayed for months.
Councilmember Larson stated that, if the City Council was not prepared to approve the entire
request, they should not approve a portion of it He pointed out that footings will be required for
both a cedar wood fence as well as a block wall. He did not understand what would be gained by
not waiting for a tie breaking vote.
Mayor Probst asked under what basis the temporary generator had been approved, Ms, Randall
explained that staff allowed the applicant to place a temporary generator on-site while they were
going through tl1is process. One condition of this was tlmt there be no complaints about the
appearance of the generator or noise. She indicated tl1at there have been no complaints about the
temporary generator which has been operated.
Mr. Post pointed out that, per page two of the staffreport, the City Council has a deadline for
action of Novembcr 9, 1999, This would allow the Council to stay this action until the next City
Council meeting.
Mayor Probst noted that, when a motion fails, it typically requires a vote from the majority side
to reconsider the case. Since this motion failed by a tie, he asked what action would have to be
taken to table the Planning Case, Mr. Post stated that another motion would have to be made to
carry the case over to the next City Council meeting. Mayor Probst asked if a motion must be
. made to reconsider the failed Planning Case. Councilmember Aplikowski stated that this was
not necessary.
--
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 10
MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a
. motion to continuc Planning Case #99-12, Site Plan, to the November 8, 1999
regular City Council meeting, The motion carried unanimously (4-0).
2. Case #99-18, Nathan Fjeld, 1929 Jerrold Avenue, Variance
Ms. Randall explained that the applicant was requesting approval of a corner side yard setback
variance (13 feet proposed, when 40 feet is required) and an accessory structure rear yard setback
(6 feet proposed, when 10 feet is required) for a new garage on a single family lot zoned R-2,
The applicant currently has a 24 by 28 foot garage located 6 feet from the north property line
(rear) and 13 to 15 feet from the west property line (corner side). The applicant wished to
demolish the existing garage and rebuild the detached garage in the same location and same size.
Ms. Randall noted that the applicant had believed that the rear yard setback was 10 feet.
According to information on hand, staff had found the setback to be six feet. She indicated that
this must be confirmed prior to a building permit being secured.
Ms. Randall stated that the existing garage is in disrepair and would either need to be repaired or
replaced. Currently there is a large tree to the rear of the garage, The applicant hoped to
preserve this tree and this was the reason for not moving the garage further to the east. This tree
would not prevent the garage from being moved to the south to meet the 10 foot rear yard
. setback requirement However, this would require a new pad for tbe garage.
Tbe applicant could; bowever, minimize this request by reducing tbe garage depth to a standard
22 foot garage and tben only need a 19 foot variance.
Prior A venue dead ends at the nortb end of tbe applicant's property line and is only used by two
homes and trail access to Hazelnut park. The applicant could request a vacation of this portion of
Prior Avenue, however, the City would still want to keep a trail easement and the applicant
would still need a variance for the proposed garage. Additionally, there are utilities in this area
which will need to be accessible. Tberefore, staff did not recommend the applicant request a
vacation.
Staff found that there were circumstances unique to the property in that the property in question
is approximately 10,125 square feet in area on tbe corner ofJerrold Avenue and Prior Avenue,
The applicant could reduce the garage depth to reduce the corner side yard setback variance to
19 feet The applicant could move the garage to the south to eliminate the need for a variance to
the north. The proposed detached garage is close to a property line. Garages on lots in the
surrounding area are closer than the Ordinance allows.
Ms. Randall advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning Case
#99-18, Corner Side Yard Setback Variance (13 feet proposed, wben 40 fect is required) for a
. detached garage, conditioned on:
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 II
1. The northern accessory structure setback be the required 10 feet rather than the requested
. six feet by moving the garage to the south, or by verifying that the current setback is 10
feet
2, The dimensions of the new garage be the same or smaller than the existing garage being
replaced.
Ms, Randall noted that a letter from the applicant was handed out at the October 6, 1999,
Planning Commission meeting. This should have been included in the October 6, 1999,
Planning Commission packet.
Mayor Probst asked if the applicant intended to build the new garage on the current slab or if the
slab will be replaced. ML Nathan Fjeld stated that the garage currently has a dirt floor with a
gravel driveway. The intent had been to replace the garage in the samc place, If the garage is
moved four feet to the south, he would loose four feet of yard space, Adding four feet to the
back of the garage would be wasted space. He added that, on the north side of a driveway there
is a small retaining wall that would have to be removed if the garage is moved.
Councilmember Larson confirn1ed that the applicant believed the rear yard setback is currently
10 feet Mr. Fjeld stated that he had rented a metal post detector and attempted to find the
property markers. He believed that he had found the marker but was not positive. Ms. Randall
stated that it was possible that the applicant was accurate, She indicated that tl1e information she
had used was aerial photographs and there have been some aerial photographs that have not
. coincided with surveys.
Councilmember Aplikowski stated that the applicant was most likely accurate since the adjacent
park had been built long after the home. She felt that the boundary lines would have been
verified at that time.
Mayor Probst stated that he was inclined to approve the new garage to be placed in the same
location as the current garage. He stated that he was more concerned about the possible damage
to the tree than he was about the setback. He felt that this was not an area that would be
negatively affected by the replacement of the garage in its current place. In fact it would be a
significant improvement to the property, He added that the facts for finding do not relate directly
to the property line issue,
Mr. Fjeld stated that the new garage will have a lower profile, as the existing garage has an eight
foot ceiling in the upper floor.
Councilmember Larson concurred with Mayor Probst He asked why the Planning Commission
had felt it important that the 10 foot setback be maintained when there is no adjacent residence,
Ms. Randall stated that there had not been a great deal of discussion at the Planning Commission
meeting regarding this issue.
. Councilmember Rem agreed that this had not been a major issue at the Planning Commission
meeting. Since the property line is shared by Hazelnut Park and there most likely will not be any
sort of structure built near the property line, she did not feel that the four foot difference in
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 12
. setback would be significant She added that, since the house had been built long before
Hazelnut Park, the lot line takes precedence and she felt that the garage was acceptable where it
currently is.
Mayor Probst confirmed that the applicant would not be required to move the structure if they
intended to only repair it Ms, Randall stated that the applicant would only be required to secure
a building permit
MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a
motion to approve Planning Case #99-18, Corner Side Yard Setback Variance (13
feet proposed, when 40 feet is required) for a detached garage, based on the
"Findings - Corner Side Yard Setback Variance (detached garage)" section ofthe
staff report dated October 25,1999, conditioned on the dimensions of the new
garage being the same or smaller than the existing garage being replaced. The
motion carried unanimously (4-0).
3. Case #99-19, Daniel Taylor, 1605 Lake Johanna Bonlevard, Variance
Ms. Randall explained that the applicant was requesting approval of a front yard setback variance
(15 feet proposed, when 40 feet is required). The applicant was proposing to relocate the single
family home on 1605 Lake Johanna Boulevard to 1609 Lake Johanna Boulevard and construct a
new single family home on 1605 Lake Johanna Boulevard. Both would require front yard
. setback variances, There are four homes along Lake Johanna Boulevard that access off a private
Ramsey County easement The applicant owns the first two homes.
In 1987, the City Attorney determined that the access easement is not a public easement
dedicated to the City. It is a legally established easement in favor of and for the benefit of the
adjacent property owners, including the applicant, It is reasonably safe to assume that no
standard public street will ever be constructed on the easement
The two homes to the north of these properties currently have variances to build with 20 foot and
25 foot setbacks. However, these lots are larger than the lots owned by the applicant. The
proposed setbacks would fall in line with the setbacks ofthe properties to the north.
The applicant currently has a 28 by 72 foot single-family home located at 1605 Lake Johanna
Boulevard and a small cabin at 1609 Lake Johanna Boulevard. He would like to demolish the
cabin at 1609 Lake Johanna Boulevard and relocate his current home at 1605 Lake Johanna
Boulevard to 1609 Lake Johanna Boulevard. The home at 1609 Lake Johanna Boulevard has
access from a 30-foot wide private easement The home at 1605 Lake Johanna Boulevard has
access from the 30-foot wide private easement and Lake Johanna Boulevard.
The properties are unique and staff had to determine which side would be considered the front.
The Zoning Code states that the shorter of the two sides on a corner lot is the front yard;
. however, the easement is not a public street. Staff did, however, determine that the other three
houses on the private easement would call the easement facing side the front, thus the corner lot
could do the same, Both the front and corner sides require a 40-foot setback, and the rear a 30-
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 13
foot setback. If Lake Johanna Boulevard was considered the front there would still be a
- . .,
. requirement for a variance since the lot is narrow.
The applicant had presented a proposal with a IS-foot setback off the easement line for both
homes, The applicant does not have a house plan at this time, however, after looking at several
plans, the applicant felt that a corner side yard setback will be needed. The applicant is
considering a home smaller than the home being replace,
At the Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission had discussed moving the
homes back further on the lot The applicant did agree to a 20-foot setback rather than the
proposed 15-foot setback. Staff then created a drawing to depict how this may layout By tilting
the home at 1609 Lake Johanna Boulevard a 20-foot front yard setback can be achieved while
maintaining both side yard setbacks. The applicant has a basketball court behind this home that
he would like to maintain as it is used by the neighborhood children. Additionally, there is a new
pool at 1605 Lake Johanna Boulevard which creates a difficulty in moving this home back. Staff
found that by removing a small notch in the front of the proposed pad at 1605 Lake Johanna
Boulevard, the 20-foot front yard setback can be achieved.
In reviewing this Case, staff found that the circumstances unique to the property were that
property 1609 Lake Johanna Boulevard is not located on a public street The side needing a
variance for 1605 Lake Johanna Boulevard is not a public street and, if it were viewed as such,
would only require a 1 O-foot side yard setback. The lots are smaller than the minimum R-l
. Zoning requirements making it difficult to construct a home of average size on the lot The pool
and basketball court make it difficult to move the homes further back.
Staff found that the variance would allow a condition that is consistent with the surrounding
development Two houses to the north were granted variances for a 20 and 25-foot setback to the
front property line.
Ms. Randall advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning Case
#99-19, front yard setback variance, as modified by the applicant to 20 feet proposed, when 40
feet is required, for placement of two single family homes at 1605 and 1609 Lake Johanna
Boulevard, subject to these properties meeting all other side and rear setback requirements.
Mayor Probst confirmed that the only variance be requested in this Planning Case was for a 20-
foot front yard setback off the easement for both properties, Ms, Randall stated that this was
correct Mayor Probst confirmed that the side yard setbacks for both properties can be
maintained. Ms. Randall stated that this was correct
Mayor Probst stated that he had been serving on the Planning Commission when the two
properties to the north were granted their variances. He indicated that, although the Planning
Commission had struggled with the setback issues, it had found that there was some logic in the
uniformity of the setbacks, He stated that he does not have a problem with a 20-foot front yard
. setback and allowing the home at 1605 Lake Johanna Boulevard to be moved to 1609 Lake
Johanna Boulevard. He expressed concern for approving a variance for the 1605 Lake Johanna
Boulevard property without seeing what the City Council was being requested to grant a variance
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 14
. on. He asked the applicant if he would be willing to accept a variance for the 1609 property with
a sense from the Council that the same variance may bc possible for the 1605 property without a
formal approval on this property until the City Council has a chance to review the plans for the
new home.
Mr. Daniel Taylor, 1605 Lake Johanna Boulevard, stated that he did not have plans for the home
because he felt he could not request an architect to create plans for a home until he knew how
large the building area would be. He felt that, ifthe City were to grant the 20 foot variances, it
would know that the new home would be in keeping with the setback requirements. He indicated
that he did not want to expend money on house plans without knowing if the setback request will
be approved.
Mayor Probst stated that he would prefer to take action on the 1609 Lake Johanna Boulevard
property and provide the applicant with some sense that a consistent 20-foot setback would be
acceptable. He was hesitant to offer this as a setback limitation and have the architect present a
plan with extensions that would protrude into this 20-foot setback.
Mr. Taylor stated that he could not understand why the City Council would need to see the house
plans if the setbacks are established and it is known that the home will be built within the Code
requirements, Mayor Probst stated that the City Council has been consistent, particularly around
the lakes, in wanting to ensure that the setbacks are consistent.
. Councilmember Aplikowski stated that she had no problem with the 20-foot setback and moving
the house at 1605 Lake Johanna Boulevard to 1609 Lake Johanna Boulevard. She confirmed that
the new home would be the applicant's residence. Mr. Taylor stated that this was correct.
Councilmember Aplikowski stated that the new home could not be very large due to the size of
the lot, unless the home is built up. She asked if the proposed jog in the home at 1605 Lake
Johanna Boulevard would have to be there. Ms, Randall stated that this had simply been a
suggestion by staff in order to meet the 20-foot front yard setback and was not a requirement.
Mr. Taylor noted that the current home at 1605 Lake Johanna Boulevard was only 15 feet from
the property line.
Councilmember Aplikowski stated that she understood the issue of not approving a variance
without first seeing the plans for a home. However, in this case, she felt that approving the
request would not be a problem.
Councilmember Larson stated that the solution being proposed by the applicant was creative. He
did agree that it would be difficult to approve the requested variance without first reviewing what
would be proposed to be built on the lot. He asked staff if it was the policy of the City for a plan
to be in place when a request for a variance is made so that the City has a feel for what is actually
being proposed.
. Ms. Randall stated that this is suggested to all applicants. In this case, she had discussed this
with the applicant and the applicant had provided staff with reasons why this would not be
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 15
. appropriate. Staff had felt that it would be reasonable to allow the applicant to take the chance of
moving forward without a house plan,
Councilmember Larson expressed concern about setting a precedent of allowing requests for
variances without complete plans of what will be constructed. He felt that this may allow
structures to be built that may be consistent with the variances but may not be what the City
would have wanted.
Mayor Probst stated that there had been a case in which a block diagram for a home that required
variances had been approved. Once the home was completed, he was not sure that the variances
would have been approved, ifthere had been a full understanding of what would be constructed,
If it would be acceptable to split the Planning Case and take action on 1609 Lake Johanna
Boulevard, as suggested by Mayor Probst, Councilmember Aplikowski stated that she would be
willing to indicate that the 20-foot setback for 1605 Lake Johanna Boulevard will be acceptable
upon review of the house plans for that property,
MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Council member Larson seconded a
motion to approve Planning Case #99-19, front yard setback variance, as modified
by the applicant to 20 feet proposed, when 40 feet is required, for placement of a
single family home at 1609 Lake Johanna Boulevard, subject to this property
meeting all other side and rear setback requirements, based on the "Findings -
. Front Yard Setback Variance" section of the staff report dated October 25,1999.
Councilmember Larson asked if the City Council would be comfortable with a staff review of the
proposed home at 1605 Lake Johanna Boulevard if both variances were approved. His concern
was for a proposal that, for example, has a deck or eaves that extend into the 20- foot setback
Ms. Randall suggested that a condition be added that no encroachments be allowed in the 20-foot
setback. Councilmember Larson stated that this would be helpful, although he would still prefer
that staff review thc plans, Mr, Taylor stated that he would be willing to abide by a condition of
approval that his housc plans be reviewed by staff prior to requesting a building permit.
COlillcilmember Aplikowski moved to amend the motion to approve Planning
Case #99-19, front yard setback variance, as modified by the applicant to 20 feet
proposed, when 40 feet is required, for placement oftwo single family homes at
1605 and 1609 Lake Johanna Boulevard, based on the "Findings - Front Yard
Setback Variance" section of the staff report dated October 25,1999, conditioned
on:
L The properties meeting all other side and rear setback requirements,
2. The home at 1605 Lake Johanna Boulevard have no encroachments into
the 20- foot front yard setback
. 3, The building plans for the home at 1605 Lake Johanna Boulevard being
reviewed by staff.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 16
. Councilmember Larson seconded the amended motion. The motion carried
unanimously (4-0).
4. Case #99-20, Apache Group, 1787 Gateway Boulevard, Planned Unit
Development Amendment
Ms. Randall eXplained that the applicant was requesting approval of an amendment to the
planned unit development to relocate the signage on a building located at 1787 Gateway
Boulevard,
The three buildings on this property each have one free standing sign with the address. The free
standing sign at this building also includes thc company name and logo,
The Zoning Ordinance requires that a sign plan be submitted in the conjunction with site plans in
the Gateway Business District that show the location, type, size, and design of the individual
signs. When the plmmed unit development was originally approved in 1997, two signs were
shown at the entrance on the east side of the building. The Planning Commission memo, for
Planning Case #97-06, dated July 2, 1997, stated that each building would have one free standing
sign and two business signs which are 60 square teet in area, at each ofthe four entries to the
building. This building, however, does not have four entries, thus the number of signs shown on
the plan were only two for the north east entrance. However, the building does lend itself to
having additional doors in the future.
. The building currently has an angled front entry facing to the soutlleast The applicant was
requesting the ability to move one of the signs from the east entrance to the south side of the
building next to the angled entryway. This would be a more visible location and customers
would be able to see the sign from the public street
The applicant was willing to give up one ofthe signs at the northeast entrance in lieu ofthe new
proposed sign. Staff would recommend that the applicant be allowed to keep the signage on
cithcr side of the entrances in addition to the proposed sign. The building would have a total of
three signs, which is still under the number of signs on the other two buildings which have up to
eight signs. This would give the applicant the ability to modify the signage without a planned
unit development amendment in the future if tenants change,
Ms, Randall advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning Case
#99-20, Planned Unit Development Amendment, to allow for a 60 square foot sign on the south
side ofthe building located at 1787 Gateway Boulevard, and that the applicant be allowed one
free standing sign and two wall signs, which arc 60 square feet in area, at each entryway to the
building for a total of 480 square fcet of signage on the building, which is less than 10 percent of
the building facade as required by the Sign Ordinance.
Mayor Probst asked if lighting was included for the proposed sign. Ms, Randall stated that the
. sign would not be illuminated. She indicated that none ofthe existing signs are illuminated. She
did not believe that the City had any restrictions on sign lighting, however, the applicant would
have to abide by the Lighting Ordinance and the lighting requirements in the Sign Ordinance,
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 17
. Mr. Post pointed out that this building is different than the other two built on this street in that
the building was built for multiple tenants. The Apache Group bought this building and is the
primary tenant, thus there is a need for greater exposure.
MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a
motion to approve Planning Case #99-20, Planned Unit Development
Amendment, to allow for a 60 square foot sign on the south side of the building
located at 1787 Gateway Boulevard, and that the applicant be allowed one free
standing sign and two wall signs, which are 60 square feet in area, at each
entryway to the building for a total of 480 square feet of signage on the building,
which is less than 10 percent of the building facade as required by the Sign
Ordinance. The motion carried unanimously (4-0).
5. Case #99-21, Pacesetter Corporation, 2015 Gateway Boulevard, Planned Unit
Development Amendment
Ms. Randall explained that the applicant was requesting approval of an amendment to the
planned unit development to place a trash compactor at 2015 Gateway Boulevard,
On July 14, 1997, the City Council approved Planning Case #97-06 for the construction of three
officelindustrial buildings. The Zoning Ordinance requires that all exterior storage shall be
. screened from public view. The site plan did not provide for any trash enclosures, The trash
compactor will be visible from Round Lake Court The applicant has been using a trash
dumpster located in the loading dock area. Several other tenants have been doing the same.
Due to the number of pick-ups required, the applicant would like to have a compactor to reduce
the number of trash pickups. The trash compactor is slightly larger than a trash dumpster and
looks much the same. The compactor will be 10 feet high, approximately 10 feet wide, and a
total of30 feet long. It will be located approximately 10 feet from the building and three feet
from the transformer. They are proposing to locate the compactor in front of a transformer with
the required three foot setback from the transformer. The trash compactor would not extend any
further than the trucks that will be located in the area.
Staff recommended screening be added on the west side of the compactor unit The applicant has
agreed to this requirement However, the applicant has noted that there are other trash dumpsters
in the area. The applicant has also expressed concern that the trash compactor must be accessible
from one side for daily pickups, The applicant did not object to screening on the west side.
Ms, Randall advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning Case
#99-21, Plmmed Unit Development Amendment, to allow for a trash compactor and dumpster on
the north side of the building located at 2015 Gateway Boulevard, with the condition that a wood
fence to match the building be placed on the west side of the trash dumpster and compactor.
. Upon reviewing the recommendation by the Planning Commission, Ms, Randall stated that the
applicant felt that the wood fence would be difficult to maintain, The applicant has considered a
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 18
. chain link fence with wood slats to match the building, similar to the 20-foot high chain link
fence at the loading dock ofthe building directly across from this building. However, the
applicant was willing to consider either fence,
Mayor Probst asked if stafIhad verified the original approval ofthe building to determine what
had been discussed. He suspected that the City had been lead to believe that the dumpsters
would be kept inside the garage doors.
Ms. Randall stated that she had reviewed both the Planning Commission and City Council
minutes and found discussions of the trash dumpsters in the Planning Commission memo and
minutes. However, it had been decided that this issue would bc discussed by the City Council
and she could find no reference to this issue in the City Council materials. She did note,
however, that the dock bays are not ground level. Therefore, it would be difficult for a dumpster
that is kept inside to be frequently moved in and out
Since the building is visible from the lake, Mayor Probst asked if the proposed screening would
be sufficient Ms. Randall stated that there is landscaping in place that would restrict the view
somewhat Additionally, the land near the lake is elevated and therefore, the dumpster and
compactor may not be visible from the lake.
Referring to the site plan, Councilmember Larson asked what the squares in the parking lot were,
Ms, Randall stated that the parking lot is asphalt and these squares were cement pads which
. provide better traction for the trucks.
Councilmember Larson asked if the tenant was located in the building is such a way that there
would be no alternative location for the dumpster and compactor. He suggcsted that the eastern
portion of the parking lot be considered, Ms. Randall stated that placing the dumpster and
compactor in that location would affect the tenant that will be proposing to move into the eastern
end of the building. She indicated that this new tenant will be proposing to have parking in this
area and not use the loading docks, She stated that when she spoke with Welsh Corporation
regarding this parking issue and the trash dumpster, they had informed her that the entire portion
of the building, including the corresponding loading dock area, is included in the lease. One
concern for Welsh was that the trash dumpster and compactor not inhibit the turning oftrucks of
other tenants, now or in the future,
Councilmember Aplikowski stated that she would prefer a chain link fence with slats over a
wood fence. She felt that a chain-link fence would maintain its appearance longer than a wood
fence,
Councilmember Larson noted that, although this side of the building was not meant to be the
most attractive, he was concerned that the dumpster and compactor would be visible from Round
Lake Court Councilmember Aplikowski stated that one trash dumpster with a compactor would
be less of a visual nuisance than two or three overflowing dumpsters.
. Mayor Probst stated that when the original Planning Case for this property was discussed, the
City Council had expressed a strong desire for the loading dock area to be screened by the shape
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 19
of the building, as well as other screening, The City Council had been assured that this would
. happen, however, it did not occur.
Councilmember Larson slated that, rather than having a numbcr of dumpsters in the loading dock
area, it would be preferable if the Welsh Corporation set aside a screened corner ofthe property
for trash disposal for the tenants of the building.
Councilmember Aplikowski noted that, if the tenant that creates the most amount of garbage is
located in the middle of the building, and the trash dumpster was located at the end ofthe lot, the
tenant in the middle would be in the way of other tenants. She stated that a practical dumpster
can only be screened so much and the garbage generated by businesses is simply a fact of life.
She felt that the City cannot encourage businesses in the community and then expect these
businesses to not accumulate garbage.
Councilmember Rem stated that, if tenant parking is needed at the end of the loading dock, she
would not have a problem with the trash dumpster, screened with a chain link fence, being placed
as proposed.
Mayor Probst stated that there are facilities with needs that can be solved in a variety of ways and
it seemed as though the attempt is to solve these issues in the least expensive way possible.
'.\Then a business uses the least expensive solution for an enclosure, within a few short years it
looks worse than if nothing would have been used.
. Councilmember Aplikowski asked how many bays are used by the applicant. Ms, Randall stated
that the applicant uses two bays oCthe building. Councilmember Aplikowski asked if there were
other tenants in the building. Ms. Randall stated that there are currently two tenants in the
building and there would be approximately four areas within the building for additional tenants,
Councilmember Aplikowski confirmed that the applicant does not currently have a trash
compactor. Ms. Randall stated that this was correct. Councilmember Aplikowski asked how
many trash dumpsters the applicant is currently using, Ms, Randall stated that the applicant is
currently using one trash dumpster which requires daily pick ups, Councilmember Aplikowski
confirmed that the trash dumpster is currently not screened. Ms. Randall stated that this was
correct.
Councilmember Aplikowski asked if having a compactor emptied three times per week versus
daily pick ups of a trash dumpster was a cost saving issue or simply a matter of convenience.
Ms. Randall stated that initially there would be no cost saving due to the cost of the compactor.
However, the applicant has found that over time the compactor will save money, She added that
the compactor will alleviate problems of the trash dumpster being over-full during overtime
shifts, The applicant has indicated that extra pick ups have been required during overtime hours.
Councilmember Larson noted that tllis was a large building for which the owner has made no
provision for the garbage. I-Ie indicated that he was not interested in trying to keep businesses
. horn generating garbage, However, he felt that the Welsh Corporation should take ownership of
the issue and set aside a properly screened area to handle the trash for the entire building,
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 20
. Mayor Probst agreed that the owner of such a development has some responsibility to deal with
issues such as garbage disposal and it would be preferable for there to be a consistent method as
more requests for outdoor storage are made. He indicated that he was not sure what would be the
best method for screening the proposed dumpster and compactor, however, it must be screened.
Since the dumpster and compactor will be visible from a public street, Councilmember
Aplikowski agreed that it must be screened.
Councilmember Larson asked how visible the loading dock area is from Round Lake Court Ms.
Randall stated that a portion of the loading dock area is visible from Round Lake Court;
however, the area in which the compactor is proposed to be placed would only be visible from
the end of the cul-de-sac. Councilmember Larson asked if there was vegetation along the south
side of the cul-de-sac. Ms. Randall stated that there are some plants in this area, Councilmember
Larson stated that he would prefer landscaping along the road for screening so that the entire
loading dock area is less visible. Ms, Rimdall noted that the area being referred to is an open
drive area.
MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved to approve Planning Case #99-21, Planned
Unit Development Amendment, to allow for a trash compactor and dumpster on
the north side of the building located at 2015 Gateway Boulevard, with the
condition that a chain link fence, with slats painted to match the building, be
placed on the west side of the trash dumpster and compactor.
. Mayor Probst suggested that the length of the fence be defined, Councilmember Aplikowski
statcd that the fence was proposed to bc 10 feet high, 30 feet long, and 10 feet wide. Ms. Randall
noted that the fence must be the full length of the compactor.
Councilmember Rem seconded the motion. The motion carried (3-1, Mayor
Probst opposed),
C. Resolution #99-38, A Resolution Declaring That a Vacancy Exists as
CounciImcmber
Mr. Post stated that this action stems from the receipt ofMr. Malone's resignation letter at the
October 12, 1999 City Council meeting. Adoption of the Resolution will set into motion the
action that the City Council discussed at its last worksession regarding the process to follow in
order to fill the vacancy.
The City Council was asked to approve Resolution #99-38, entitled, "A Resolution Declaring
that a Vacancy Exists as Councilmember."
MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a
motion to adopt Resolution #99-38, Declaring that a Vacancy Exists as
Councilmember. The motion carried unanimously (4-0),
.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 21
. ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS
Mr. Post stated that a mailing had been received from AMM regarding legislative priorities for
the next Session. He asked that the City Council attempt to rank these priorities prior to the next
City Council meeting. Upon receiving the rankings from the Council, Mr. Post stated that he
would forward rankings as a Resolution to the AMM prior to their policy adoption meeting.
COUNCIL COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE LIAISON ACTIVITY REPORTS
In order to avoid the situation with this evening's Planning Case #99-19, Councilmember Larson
encouraged staff to discourage applicants from submitting variance requests without having a
finn plan on paper available as to what will be built.
Councilmember Larson suggested that during the winter time, staff consider the situation that
arose this evening with regard to the industrial building on Gateway Boulevard, It was his belief
that the City will receive more applications for new tenants in this building and, at this time,
issues such as garbage disposal are up to the tenant to decide. He suggested that the Welsh
Corporation be contacted to discuss a resolution,
Mayor Probst agreed and added that, as more requests for generators come in, it will be
important to better define screening requirements. He stated that it was difficult to find any
. wood enclosures that do not deteriorate over time.
With regard to the Pacesetter leased space on Gateway Boulevard, Mr. Post noted that there had
been an expectation when this building was constructed that MSL would be leasing the property
as an extension to their campus. This action did not take place, which created a different set of
circumstances than was originally anticipated.
Council member Aplikowski stated that the Finance and Operations Committee will be bringing
forth a resolution with regard to the time spent by City staff installing dead-end signs. In order to
alleviate the time spent by staff, the Committee was suggesting that the City Council adopt a
policy stating that if a petition is received by the City signed by at least 75 percent ofthe affected
residents, City staff can authorize the installation of a street sign without prior review by the
Committee or City Council.
Mr. Post noted that this Ordinance would only apply to dead-end or no-through street signs.
Councilmember Aplikowski concurred, She stated that she would present the policy to the City
Council at its November 8, 1999 meeting for review,
Councilmember Rem stated that the Parks and Recreation Committee toured the local parks on
Saturday, October 16, 1999, She indicated that the Committee will discuss its concerns at its
next meeting and will forward the concerns to the City Council.
.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 22
. Council member Rem stated that she attended the Northwest Youth and Family Scrvices Board
meeting last week. She stated that the program received a certification from the Charitable
Review.
Councilmember Rem stated that she attended the local government tour of the TCAAP area on
Thursday, October 14,1999.
Prior to this evening's meeting, Councilmember Rem stated that she had received a call from the
Pilgrim House asking that she do a presentation of the open spaces and trails within the City of
Arden Hills and how they tie into the TCAAP area. She stated that she would present the land
use maps and the Vento plan, She believed that the presentation was intended to provide general
public information,
Mr. Post stated that he gave a breakfast presentation to the Friends of Ramsey County Open
Space which discussed this issue, The concern brought up was that it was unknown to what
extent the Minnesota Army National Guard will occupy the TCAAP site and how their presence
will impact the regional Rice Creek Trail. Councilmember Rem stated her impression was that
the information being requested for the presentation was for what was currently in place with
regard to trail systems and parks within Arden Hills,
Mayor Probst expressed his congratulations and appreciation to City employee, Mr. Schifsky, for
20 years of service to the City of Arden Hills,
. Mayor Probst complimented Mr. Moore for the letters of appreciation that had been included in
the non-agenda package.
Mayor Probst encouraged the follow through of the recommendations about the cost issue being
brought to the Fire Board,
Mayor Probst stated that the City received a number of calls regarding the McClung ditch
project. He indicated that he and Mr. Stafford convened an on-site meeting and City staff and
Engineer worked through a resolution ofthe neighborhood concerns,
Councilmember Larson asked Mr. Nimmer if he was aware of the process Ramsey County was
taking to accomplish their land transfer at TCAAP. Mr. Nimmer stated that Ramsey County has
not initiated much action with regard to the land transfer.
ADJOURN
C cilmember Rem moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion
adjou the meeting at 9:43 p.m. The motion ca led unan o s -0).
Te ance R Post
. Interim City Administrator
-
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 23
.
NOTICE OF MEETINGS
The next regular City Council meeting will be held Monday, November 8, 1999 at 7:30 p.m, at
the Arden Hills Council chambers.
.
.
- -------