Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 06-01-2005 < MINUTES CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION . WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1,2005 7:00 P.M, - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Zimmerman called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. OATH OF OFFICE Mayor Aplikowski administered the Oath of Office to David McClung. ROLL CALL Present were Commissioners Clayton Larson, Ken Bezdicek, Elizabeth Modesette, Roberta Thompson, David McClung, and Vice Chair Clayton Zimmerman. Absent: Chair Sand. Also present were Mayor Beverly Aplikowski, Councilmember Lois Rem, Community Development Director, Scott Clark, City Planner Peter Hellegers, and Recording Secretary Kathleen Altman. . A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 4. 2005. Vice Chair Zimmerman requested the following changes: Page I, last sentence, change 130 square feet to 130-sQuare feet. Page 3, last paragraph delete unanimously and add Commissioner Zimmerman opposed. Page 4, last paragraph from the bottom, first sentence should read: Commissioner Modesette asked ifMr. Peterson had been given... Commissioner Bezdicek moved, seconded by Commissioner Larson to approve the May 4, 2005 minutes as amended. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING CASE #05-13: Holidav Stationstores, Inc.. 4567 American Blvd. W.. Bloomington. MN; Master and Final PUD/SUP and Preliminary Plat for SW corner of Hil!hwav 96 and Round Lake Road Mr. Hellegers stated applicants were requesting a Master and Final PUD/Special Use Permit and Preliminary Plat for the development of the property at the southwest comer . of Highway 96 and Round Lake Road. Staff recommended approval based on the following conditions: ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE I, 2005 2 1. The applicant shall submit revised plans, responsive to the comments from the . Plan Review Comments section of staff's report (14A), for review and approval by the City Planner, City Engineer, and City Building Official, prior to issuance of building pennits. 2. The applicant and their contractors shall work with the City Planner and City Forester to save as many existing (and healthy) trees as possible in the areas designated as landscape space. 3. Revised plans showing additional screening, preferably in the form of coniferous trees, along the north and southeast sides of the property to meet the screening requirement of 60% opacity. 4. Wall and canopy signage shall be reduced to meet the City's requirements of 60 squarc feet and 25 square feet (per street facing canopy edge) respectively. 5. The height of the freestanding monument sign shall be reduced to I2 feet to be compliant with the City's Signage Ordinance. 6. The fueling canopy columns shall be treated witb the same brick as the proposed building for design consistency and to more closely match the Gateway Business District exterior material requirements. . 7. Execution of a PUD Permit/SUP Permit drafted by the City Attorney and approved by the City Council prior to thc issuanec of a Building Pennit. 8. Execution of a final plat prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 9. The applicant shall submit an application for a Final Plat review within six (6) months following City Council approval of the PUD and Preliminary Plat. 10. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Rice Creek Water Shed District and Ramsey County. Commissioner Thompson asked if they had considered moving the gas tanks further away from the water. Mr. HelIegers replied the applicant would be able to answer that question. Vice Chair Zimmerman opened the public hcaring at 7:10 p.m. Vice Chair Zimmennan invited the applicant to come forward. Victor Sacco, Sr. Manager of Real Estate for Holiday Companies Holiday Station Stores, stated they had worked hard with City staff on this site. He indicated they would be in complianec with all of the conditions. With respect to the gas tanks location, this was . designed for the transport truck to be able to deliver product easily; and where the cars would be entering and exiting the site - so they put the tanks were there was less traffic. He notcd all tanks were state of the art equipment and they exceeded what was required by the State for nnderground storage. He noted any sign ofIcaking or vapors, the system would shut down and they would go into their spill prevention plan. -------- ------.-- ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE I, 2005 3 . Vice Chair Zimmerman asked who was the governing body for underground tanks. Mr. Sacco replied it was the State Fire Marshal. Vice Chair Zimmerman asked who regulated spillage. Mr. Sacco replied there were no regulations as to how close the tanks could be to a pond or water. Vice Chair Zimmerman asked if they had built this particular model anywhere else in the Twin Cities. Mr. Sacco replied they were in the process of building a facility in Blaine and they had existing facilities in Hopkins and Shakopee. He noted this was their new look and they were adding additional brick as staff required. Commissioner Thompson asked if they had done any further evaluation of the size of the landscaping. Mr. Sacco replied they were going to work with the forester to try and salvage some of the larger trees, but they have not had much luck in the past in salvaging large trees. Vice Chair Zimmerman invited anyone for or against the proposal to come forward and make comment. Mr. Clark stated Mr. Hellegers had received a voicernail on May 31, 2005 from Jeanne Winiecki, 447 I Old Highway IO, stating they were in favor of the Holiday service station at the comer of Highway 96 and Round Lake Boulevard. They believed it was an . appropriate use for the location. Mr. Clark stated Mr. Hellegers had received an ernail dated February 5, 2005 from Bob May, I871 Todd Drive, Arden Hills, 651-330-6I88 stating: "Unfortunately I will be unable to attend the hearing tonight on project pc#05-04 but wish to make known my concerns. If a service station/convenience store/car wash is built at the location indicated on the map, it will be directly across highway 96 from my home in Arden Manor mobile home park. I am very concerned about the lights and noise emanating from such a business. Is there any discussion to erect a sound barrier on the north side of highway 96 from I-35W to highway 10 (or at least to the entrance into Arden Manor)? Also, would access to the facility be directly from highway 96 or from Round Lake Boulevard, which would then funnel onto highway 96 at the traffic light? Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my thoughts". Mr. Clark stated staff had received a handwritten note dated May 20, 2005 from Bill Stuart, I676 Braebery Lane, stating: "Looks good to me". Vice Chair Zimmerman closed the public healing at 7:21 p.m. Commissioner Larson moved, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, to recommend approval of Planning Case No. 04-13: Holiday Stationstores, Inc., 4567 American Blvd. W., Bloomington, MN; Master and final PUD/SUP and Preliminary Plat for the SW . comer of Highway 96 and Round Lake Boulevard subject to the conditions as outlined in staff s June I, 2005 report. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). ~ ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 1,2005 4 Commissioner McClung moved, seconded by Commissioner Modesette to find the . Planning Commission considered the effect of the proposed use of the hf:alth, safety, convenience and general welfare of the owners and occupants of surrounding land, in particular, and the community as a whole, in general, including but not limited to the following factors: existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions; noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics; drainage; population density; visual and land use compatibility with uses and structures on surrounding land; adjoining land values; park dedications where applicable, and the orderly development of the neighborhood and the City within the general purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). B. PLANNING CASE 05-12: ROYAL OAKS REALTY, 1000 COUNTY ROAD E WEST. SHOREVIEW. MN; MASTER AND FINAL PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR OLD CITY HALL AND PUBLIC WORKS SITE 0440-1450 HIGHWAY 96). Mr. Hellegers stated applicant was requesting a Master and Final PUD and Preliminary Plat for the redevelopment ofthe old City Hall/Public Works property as a 7 building, 30 unit, office condominium complex. Staff recommended approval of the Master and Final Planned Unit and Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: . 1. The applicant shall submit revised plans, responsive to the comments from the Plan Review Comments section of this report (I4A), for review and approval by the City Planner, City Engineer, and City Building Official, prior to issuance of building permits. 2. The applicant and their contractors shall work with the City Planner and City Forester to save as many existing (and healthy) trees as possible in the areas designated as landscape space. 3. The applicant's timeline for development shall be as follows: -Phase 1: Summer 2005 - The developer may begin grading, installing utilities, and construction of storm water improvements. It is expected that construction on 3 buildings/16 units are expected to be ready for occupancy by the spring of 2006. -Phase 2: Summer 2006 - The developer expects to begin construction on the remaining 4 buiIdings/I4 units (presumably 1-14) with expected occupancy of these units by the Spring of 2007. Extensions beyond 2007 shall require application to the City Council for review and approval. At the time of application for extensions, the City Council may include such conditions of approval as they determine necessary for compliance with City Code. . 4. 30 office condominium uses have been proposed for development on individual lots. Only one business shall be permitted to occupy anyone lot within the development. It is acceptable for one business to occupy more than one lot; however one business shall not occupy more than six (6) units within the development. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE I, 2005 5 . 5. In the event that retail uses replace the office uses proposed for development, such , retail uses as permitted through the Neighborhood Business District shall not occupy more than 30% of the units in the proposed development. The hours of such businesses shall comply with Neighborhood Business District regulations for hours of operation. 6. Restaurants which are listed as special uses for the Neighborhood Business District shall require a Special Use Permit and shall be required to follow the standard public hearing and Special Use Permit process prior to occupying any space within the development. 7. Residcntial use shall not be allowed to occupy any of the units in the proposed development. 8. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan for review and approval by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. The revised landscape plan shall include a mixture of coniferous and deciduous trees along the west buffer yard of the development. The mixture of landscaping shall adequately screen the development from the residential properties to the west. 9. A comprehensive sign plan shall be established to address signage within the development and shall be included with the Planned Unit Development document. . The eomprehensivc sign plan will establish sign standards for all signage within the devclopment. ro. Revised plans showing sidewalk connections, throughout the development and to the City and County trail systems, shall be submitted to the City Planner and City Engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. I 1. All mechanical operating equipment shall be screened to meet City regulations. I 2. A revised lighting plan shall be submitted to the City Planner for review lmd approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall include any adcent lighting on the buildings and also shall meet the City requirements for levels o~ illumination on adjoining residential property. The applicant shall also furnish the City Planner with lighting cut sheets for lighting fixtures proposed in the development. 13. Decorative painted fencing (like painted wrought iron fencing) shall be erected around the pond at the northeast corner of the property to protect pedestrians from falling into the pond. 14. Execution of a PUD Permit drafted by the City Attomey and approved by the City Council prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. . 15. Satisfaction of the park dedication requirements as approved by the City Council. I6. The applicant shall submit an application for a Final plat within six (6) months following City Council approval of the PUD and Preliminary Plat. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE], 2005 6 . ] 7. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Rice Creek Water Shed District and Ramsey County. I 8. The developer shall work with the City when locating and replatting the City trail so as to save as many of the existing trees in this area as possible. 19. The development shall be of a Hardy-board lap style exterior with a brick base consistent with revised elevations which shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to thc issuance of Building Pennit. 20. The proposed canopies, similar to the style in the pictures presented to the Planning Commission at their June I, 2005 meeting shall be included on the revised elevations which shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 21. Revised plans shall denote the change from a boulder style retaining wall to a versa- lock retaining wall. 22. The building containing units 26-30 may be occupied by only one business; for this building the maximum wall signage may be 60 square feet, in addition the southerly facing wall shall have no more than 30 square feet. The total square feet of signage for this building would not exceed 90 square feet. . Vice Chair Zimmerman inquired about the lot size. He asked when they had multiple lots in a development, what were the underlying zoning requirements. Mr. Hellegers replied this parcel was a large piece of property and as a part of the PUD it did allow them to have flexibility to look at different configurations. Vice Chair Zimmerman stated since these were office condominiums sold as individual parcels, then they had to go back to the 13,000 square foot lot size, unless they chose to vary from that zoning requirement. Mr. Hellegers replied he did not believe the intent was to have individual units of 13,000 square foot lot size. Vice Chair Zimmerman expressed concern about density on a smaller piece of property than they would normally have. Mr. Hellegers directed him to page 5 of staff's report where it indicated the density ratio was considerably lower than the maximum. Commissioner Larson asked if it was customary that they look at the main building material covering as being what is controlled by the ordinance, or is it all materials, or did they make exception for a minor use of that material. Mr. Hellegers replied at the time they were trying to do something similar to an Eden Prairie development in which it was brick all of the way up to the top of the windows with stucco above that. He noted it did not break down primary or secondary materials, but he wanted the Commissioners to know what they were looking at. He noted the design materials now being proposed were brick below the windows with hardy board above. . Vice Chair Zimmerman statcd hardy board in his opinion was less desirable building material than stucco. --- ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE I, 2005 7 Commissioner Larson noted hardy board was a cement board with a baked on finish and . it was not a wood material, so it would not need to be painted. Commissioner Bezdieek inquired about the driveway off of Highway 96. Mr. Hellegers replied the applicant would put in a right turn lane in the shoulder and they would need to repaint that area to indicate the turning lane. Commissioner Bezdieek asked what was the expected use of the service road. Mr. Hellegers referred him to the traffic study and noted the primary access \yould be for those going westbound on Highway 96 as well as those going north on HamIine Avenue. Commissioner Larson stated in order to proceed east on Highway 96, they ~ould need to , use the Highway 96 entrance and the only problem would be going west on Highway 96. Mr. Hellegers replied more often than not in order to go west on Highway 96, they would need to make a "U" turn at the protected light at Hamline Avenue. Commissioner Larson asked if the 50-foot turn radius was standard. Mr. Hellegers responded applicant wanted a 50-foot tum radius, but he was not sure a 50-foot turn radius was possible because of the large power pole on the north side of the qriveway. , i Mr. Clark noted the traffic study addressed that concern on page 15 of that report. Vice Chair Zimmcrman opcned the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. . Vice Chair Zimmerman invited applicant to make comments. i Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty, thanked staff for their work. He indicated they agreed with all of the conditions in staffs report. He indicated there would be minor changes to the proposal, including the canopy. With rcspect to the hardy board, this was an upgrade, which was more expensive than the stucco work. He noted stucco was not an acceptable product in the Neighborhood Business district. He indicated the hardy board had a baked on surface, which would go all of the way up to the top of the window and they would only put the hardy board where the stucco is located on their elevations. He stated because this was a PUD, they needed to determine if this fit into the neighborhood and location. He stated they were platting this like a townhouse where the individual business person will purchase a unit and a lot, but they would also use lot 31 as common land, which included the parking and green space area. He indicated the lot size per unit was smaller than they had in the normal neighborhood business, but in common they were below or within many of the standards. He noted the traffic engincer had requested they open the radius as wide as possible. He stated they might be able, to shift the driveway a little to the south, but there was a problem with the large utility pole on the north side of the driveway. He stated the right-of-way along Highway 96 was wide enough to accommodate the right turn lane - it just needed to be striped. Vice Chair Zimmerman inquired about units 26-30 and the potential of one ,tenant being . in the entire building. Mr. Black statcd this was a large local real estate Company that was looking to move. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 1,2005 8 Vice Chair Zimmerman asked if it was the intent to sell each individual office . condominium to individual businesses. Mr. Black replied that was correct, with the exception of units 26-30. Vice Chair Zimmerman asked if they had established any association rules yet. Mr. Black replied they had not worked on those covenants yet, but they were very easy to put together. He stated they were okay with including no subleasing into their restrictions. He stated they could eliminate restaurants in this development as they were not intending on putting in any restaurants. He also stated he was not sure there would be any retail businesses in this building. He noted they intended to market this to professionals such as accountants, attorneys, real estate developers, etc. Mr. Black indicated there was one minor modification made on the south end of the development where the Rice Creek Watershed was requiring them to not encroach upon the wetland at all, so they needed to reduce some of the parking along the south line by eliminating four parking spaces to address the Rice Creek Watershed's concern. Michael Spack, Traffic Data, Inc., stated he had met with the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer and they agreed on the parameters of the study. He stated they had addressed the proposed driveway on both Highway 96 and Hamline Avenue. He summarized parts of his report for the Commission. Commissioner Bezdicek asked how people going north on Hamline Avenue would get . into traffic. Mr. Spack replied they would need to sit in traffic at the stop light and there would be gaps in traffic to get onto Hamline Avenue. Commissioner Bezdicek asked how many parking spaces were there in this development. Commissioner Larson noted there were 306 parking spaces. Mr. Spack stated the County Traffic Engineer also believed that the traffic numbers would actually go down with the improvement of Lexington Avenue this summer. Vice Chair Zimmerman invited anyone for or against the variance to come forward and make comment. Audrey Guttersen, 1389 Arden View Drive, (by letter) stated: "I am writing in regards to concems I have for the proposed office park. I will be in MI on June I so won't be able to attend the hearing on June 1. I am the owner of I 389 Arden View Drive. My unit is one of two closest to the proposed PUD. I have several concerns about the planned lighting: The lighting pedestal closest to Lot 20 is very close to my residence and the illumination would be annoying. Is that light necessary for your adequate illumination? I am also concerned about the removal of trees from AHNA common land on the south . boundary of the proposed office park. My residence now is a beautiful wooded lot and abounding with wildlife - deer, wild turkeys, ducks, fox, and birds. I would like you to investigate building a berm along the southernmost boundary next to the proposed road and have well established trees planted on this berm. This would ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE I, 2005 9 improve the background appearance of the office park in addition to allowing AHNA to . retain its wooded appearance. Thank you for your consideration." Elwood F. Caldwell, 1451 Arden View Drive, stated "The Arden Hills North Homes Association, which represents the owners of the 140 townhomes directly south of and adjacent to the proposed development, stands by its comments addressing to Planning Commission members dated May 24, 2005 and attached with other appendices to the staff memorandum dated June I, 2005 by Peter Hellegers, City Planner. The additional comments below apply first to the 17 specific conditions upon which the staffs recommendation is contingent, and then to other section of the memorandum. At the outset, many of the l7 conditions deal with the technical details of implementing a complex project, for which the staff is to be commended, and which call for no special comment from us, as interested as we are in the project. This applies to Nos. I-3, 8, 10, II, and 13-I7. Our comments on the other conditions are as follows: No.4: Uses proposed for the development. We agree that only one business should be permitted to occupy anyone lot, but do not find it acceptable that one business may occupy as many as six lots. Although office uses . are currently proposed, NB zoning includes clinics, a host of retail uses (specifically 33 are named in the ordinance), and restaurants with a Special Use Permit. The staff analysis on page 4 states "If... the Planning Commission did not want a retail use, which is otherwise permitted in the NB district, a condition should be added to the PUD document." We stronglv advocate the addition of such a condition, applicable to retail and restaurants. A retail business owning as many as six or even three units could occupy an entire building. Moreover, it is possible, indeed likely, that individual owners may attempt to sublease a part of their space to another business, especially with thc eleven walkout units having separate lower entrances. We strongly oppose this and urge the Planning Commission to do the same. Note on page 5 it says "If the desire of the Planning Commission is to maintain the units as one user per unit, then a conditions should be added to the PUD document to that effect." No.5: Applied a 30% limit (i.e., 9 of the 30 units) to the replacement by retail of the office uses now proposed. Since as indicated above we oppose any replacement of office use by retail, we regard this condition as irrelevant. Under it, and if the acceptability of a business occupying as many as six lots is not changed and retail is not prohibited, one whole six-unit building or two three-unit buildings could be occupied by what would effectively be one retail business. . No.6: Points out that restaurants could occupy space within the development with a Special Use Permit. As with No.5 above, if retail and restaurant uses are prohibited by a provision in the PUD document, as we advocate, this condition is irrelevant. --------------- ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION ~ JUNE 1, 2005 10 No.7: Prohibits residential use of any of the units in the proposed development. We . agree with this condition. No.9: Recommends establishment of a comprehensive sign plan for the development. As pointed out in our previous comments dated May 24, we regard 30 square feet of wall sign permit unit as excessive, whether in the form of an upright panel about 3 x 5 with a light over it or the horizontal elongated "optional" panels about 2 x 10 shown on the building elevation sheet. A very similar development in Lakeville by the same company with substantially identical building elevations uses much more discrete wall signs, per the photographs we have submitted. If this works in Lakcville, it can work in Arden Hills. We strongly recommend that the Planning Commission specify that type and size of all sign (only) only for this development. Notwithstanding the staff s interpretation of how the square footage of the free standing entrance monument sign would be calculated, it's the 30 wall signs and not the entrance sign that represent our conecrn. No. 12: Recommend submission of a revised lighting plan. As stated in our previous submission, we recommend elimination of the light pole and the southernmost three or more parking stalls adjacent to lot 20, which is the closest to residences at 1389 and 1390 Arden Vicw Drive. As pointed out on page 12, the lighting . proposed along the south boundary of the development is in excess of requirements for adjoining residential property. Comments on sections of the memorandum other than the l7 specific conditions: 1) Access. As pointed out in the Plan Review Comments under item "0" on page 13, and notwithstanding the cquivoeal approval implied in the traffic study, access to the development from Hamline Avenue will be problematic and will lpontribute to congestion already existing as times south of Highway 96 at the Arden View Drive entrance. We direct the attention of Planning Commission members to the recommendation on page I5 of Attachment 4b-3, the Traffic Impact Report, to "Construct larger than required radius (50 foot radius if feasible) on the northwest and southwest comers of the Hamline A venue/Karth Lake Circle/Site Access intersection to improve traffic flow in and out of the site." No such radiuses are shown on the plat, and in fact, there is a very large wood utility pole right at the northwest comer. Among other things, we urge the Planning Commission to require the iplat to show such radiuses and that they be constructed. , ! 2) Landscape lot area. In our May 24 comments under "Drainage," we questioned the applicaPt's claim of "40.3% open space" and requested professional confirmation. As indicated in item . 4A on page 13, staff has calculatcd the landscape lot area to be closer tq 33%, about 5,000 square feet below NB zoning requirements of 35% in view of the latter's exclusion of areas less than 10 feet in width or less than 500 square' feet in area. Replacement of I5 parking spaces in three areas selected by staff but not specifically identified would increase landscape lot area to at least 35%, still well below the ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE I, 2005 II claimed 40%. If this is done, our identification of parking spaces adjacent to Lot 20 . and closest to residences on Arden View Drive for removal should be included in the number. 3) Other recommendation. In several cases other than identified above, staff has recommended inclusion of conditions in the PUD document that mayor may not be included in the 17 specific conditions of approval. Examples are the requirements in item 4A that Ramsey County approve planting in the right of way area (on page 6) and that landscaping in the buffer yard area include coniferous trees (on page 7.). We support all such recommendations." Jim Bharmal, 4540 Keithson Drive, stated he missed the May 24 meeting because he did not get the meeting notice. He indicated when he bought is house in 1990, he bought it thinking he was going to live in a residential neighborhood and the only structure by his house was the City office and public works building, which he was okay with, but now he was looking at 300 parking spaces and a 30-unit office complex which he did not want. He stated he felt betrayed by the City. He expressed concern about the number of buildings and he felt it would be an invasion of his privacy. He expressed concern about the lighting and the effect the lighting would have on his house. He stated he was 100 percent positive that the property values would decrease due to the increase in traffic because of this project. He indicated this project was not fit for this particular area and he requested they ensure that the people that lived on Keithson Drive that there would be . proper steps taken prohibiting any retail or restaurants from coming into the development. He expressed concern about the large parking area. He requested this development follow the rules and he did not want to be penalized as a homeowner. Gale Van Buskirk, I390 Arden View Drive, outlined negative impacts not considered: Need for an additional office building in Arden Hills is not justified in proposal or marketing study. Is there a real market need for more office space in Arden Hills? Will poor traffic access both in and out of the development dissuade potential office building buyers? What are the negative impacts on the neighborhood and City of Arden Hills, if office buildings are not sold? Estimates for loss of property values and quality of life of surrounding residential properties not taken into account in the big economic picture. She asked the Planning Commission to look at the bigger details in their decision tonight. She proposed they erect an 8 to IO foot high benn along the southern border of the development with conifers on top of it. She stated the advantages for the developer would be to provide additional landscape (over 5000 square feet), without losing I5 parking spaces; adds attractive setting to developmcnt; consistent with benn on eastern border of development; utilizes surplus soil from grading; no soil removal; eliminates retaining walls and their maintenance; promotes good water drainage with proper sloping; retains rolling hill appearance of Highway 96 developments; contributes to screening requirements of 60% opacity year-round without using fences. Advantages for Homeowners: Conceals partial view of development and Highway 96; tempers the sounds from parking lot and Highway 96; provides consistent landscaping with existing . townhouse benns; reduces some loss of property values; prevents nuisance headlight glare from parking lot and south drive. She noted "good berms make good neighbors". Mike Giel, 4534 Keithson Drive, stated he had lived in his home for I5 years and he was not opposed to an acceptable development of this area, but expressed concern for the ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 1,2005 I2 safety with respect to traffic for the residents on Keithson Drive and the townhomes. He . expressed concern about having two "U" turns in this area. He noted this was not only dangerous, but it was a major imposition for the people coming out of Keithson Drive. He indicated he did not accept the traffic report because that engineer did not "live with this traffic experience". He stated this was a major safety concern and he did not understand why the County would accept a "U" turn on Hamline and then another "U" turn up the road. He noted Mounds View High School used this area as a major thoroughfare to getting to school. He stated he wanted a cut-through in the island so a "U" turn was not necessary. He also suggested they turn the buildings 26-30 to face the parking lot and eliminate the road onto Hamline. He stated it was the people who made Arden Hills and it was the people who had to stay in the City, not the businesses. John Lawyer, 4539 Keithson Drive, stated he had lived in his home since 1977. He indicated he did not oppose the development, but would like to see it better insulated from the neighborhood so it did not disturb the quality of neighborhood life. He expressed concern about the pedestrian trail to the west of the property and t4at it not take the appearance of an alley way. He indicated they used the trail at least twite a day. He expressed concern about the fenced in trash dumpster and the brick wall of the westernmost units of the development, which was 10 feet from the edge of the foot trail. He suggested a berm along the western side. He requested the trash dumpster be located somewhere other than the western edge of the property. He expressed concern about the possibility of retail space in this development. He suggested they consider eliminating the possibility of retail space in this development. . Cindy Owen, 4490 Hamline Avenue North, stated she lived one block south of Highway 96 and had lived in her home for seven ycars. She stated she had a teenage son who was going to Mounds View High School next year. She expressed concern about the traffic on the road and the noise that was generated by the traffic. She expressed concern about the safety of the kids that were waiting at the bus stops. She also expressed concern about the speed the County Sheriff uses on Hamline A venue. James Pinckney, I425 Arden View Drive, stated there appeared to be four areas of non- compliance in this development, and he did not see any variances from the developer. He asked for justification from the developer as to these non-compliances. He asked if the developer had looked at all of the possibilities for landscaping. He expressed concern about the traffic study and the potential future and existing traffic problems. He stated traffic from the TCAAP project was just starting to build and he believed Guidant was less than half way into their expansion and hiring for a significant expansion of their facility. He believed the traffic study was flawed and it appeared to him that there were big issues related to this. He asked if a modification to Highway 96 was a possibility to allow better access. He acknowledged there will be an increase in traffic in the City in the next five years, but he was concerned they were not addressing two major projects that added to the traffic right now (TCAAP and Guidant). Jim Clark, 4528 Keithson Drive, expressed concern about the traffic. He asked them to . take into consideration the winter months and the blind spot on the road. He believed there would be an increase in traffic accidents in the area with this development. He stated he liked the nice, low profile of the buildings on the north side of Highway 96 off of Hamline and suggested they have low profile buildings in this development also. He noted in the future he believed Hamline would be generating considerable more traffic ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE I, 2005 13 once the TCAAP area was developed. He also expressed concern about his property . value decreasing. He believed the development would look better and fit in better where the shopping center was located up on Highway 96. Jan Cather Weaver, 1435 Arden View Drive, stated she would also like a berm as previously suggested. She expressed concern regarding the landscaping on the front side of Highway 96. She asked how the buildings would be landscaped so they did not look like a shopping mall or rental units with all of the asphalt. She expressed concern about the wildlife and requested that the wildlife not be disrupted with this development. She asked who would manage any vacated unit. She believed there was a lack of interest in this type of a development in the City. She asked if the traffic study had taken into consideration the increase of traffic in the next five to ten years. She expressed concern that Arden View Court would be used as a "U" turn. She stated she bought her home because it was a quiet neighborhood and expressed concern about the human ecology of Arden View Drive and Arden Hills. Mike Black stated with respect to traffic, they had a report from a professional engineer trained in traffic and there was a very detailed report done for this area. He stated based on this zoning, land use and development, the traffic being generated from this project would not have a significant impact to the traffic. He indicated during high traffic times, people would seek the easiest way in and out so there might be an occasional "U" turn. He stated this was no different than anywhere somebody went. He suggested the City have their engineer review the report. He noted the study had also been reviewed by the . Ramsey County Engineer, who had also agreed that this was an appropriate traffic generated use for this location. He understood the frustrations the residents had with the traffic, but those conditions were there today and providing a second way of ingress and egress was a must to make this development a viable project. He stated it was better to provide for disbursement of traffic rather than having one access point and he did not believe they could get the County's permission to cut an access into Highway 96. He noted willi the berm, they would need a minimum of 70 feet, which was not possible unless the residents wanted part of the berm on their property. He indicated they could look at a slight berm, but he was not sure it would work and there was a concern with proper drainage also. He suggested they walk along the buffer area and add more landscaping if needed. He stated landscaping was not an issue and if they wanted additional landscaping, they were willing to do that. He did not believe they would negatively impact propcrty values and in fact, believed thc property values would rise. He noted this was a high end, quality offiec development and the value of this dcveIopment would increasc the property valucs in the area. Hc stated they werc willing to discuss with staff with restricting retail and restaurants and it was their intention of having this strictly an office complex. With respect to tbe walkway along the westerly edge, they would look at that area and attempt to provide somc curves in that walkway with additional landscaping, noting they were limited in space. With respcct to the dumpster location, all of the dumpsters would be bricked and roofcd with a wood gated front. Thosc dumpsters would bc small accessory buildings that would be visually pleasing. He statcd if they could find another location, they would work with staff on . that. With respect to quality of life, he belicved one rcason they were here tonight was becausc thcy rceognized the quality of life in this arca and they saw a strong market for this type of a development. Hc statcd they have had a tremendous amount of calls regarding this development and knew that this development was going to bc successful. He indicated with any development, the wildlife and neighborbood would be disturbed, . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE I, 2005 I4 but this area was ideal for this type of a development and it was a friendly, compatible . use to the area. He believed once they were done with the development, the wildlife would come back into the area. He stated this development was only slightly modified from the ordinances. He noted they had 40 percent open space and he believed they were well within the spirit and intent of the Neighborhood Business zoning. He requested the Commission recommend this proposal to go forward to the City Council.. He stated they were willing to accept all of the conditions noted in staff s report. Vice Chair Zimmerman asked about unit turnovcr. Mr. Black stated these units would be handled the exact same way as a townhome association would handle vacant units and the maintenance would be an ongoing responsibility of the association. Commissioner Bezdicek asked if they had completed a feasibility study. Mr. Black replied their feasibility study was their experience and being able to successfully build and close these types of developments, as well as a tremendous amount of phone calls they had received. He noted they would complete this project in two years. Commissioner Bezdicek asked if they would have a certain amount of their Phase one sold prior to start of construction. Mr. Black stated they would not proceed with the project if they felt it would fail and they were confident that they would proceed with the first phase and did not see any reason why they would not start the second phase. He stated they have had IO units that have already been asked about. . Commissioner Larson asked if there would be any multi-tenant units. Mr. Black replied there would be no multi-tenant units and they were not proposing that type of a set up. Mr. Caldwell requested they not adopt this tonight unless they were going to include the provisions in the PUD document they were recommending. Vice Chair Zimmerman closed the public hearing comment at 9:32 p.m. Commissioner Zimmerman stated he believed with the additional five recommendations given tonight by staff and the comments made by at this public hearing, this needed to be tabled for further evaluation. He indicated he had studied this for a couple of days and there were a lot of things brought forward tonight that had not been considered and by tabling this would give everyone a better chance to understand how this project worked. Commissioner McClung concurred with those comments. He stated he lived in this part of the City and the traffic has substantially changed in the past few years. He believed they had some serious traffic challenges that needed to be looked at. He expressed concern about the trail and having ten feet between the building and the edge of the trail was not user friendly. He suggested they provide more depth between the trail and the building. He stated he was not comfortable approving this tonight due to the additional conditions given by staff tonight as well as the comments received by the public. . Mr. Clark stated they could continue this to the July 6 meeting and then turn this around to the July I I City Council meeting. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE I, 2005 I5 . Commissioner Bezdicek moved, seconded by Commissioner McClung, to table the public hearing on Planning Case No. 05-12 to the July 6, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). Commissioner Larson moved, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, to move their July 13 Planning Commission meeting back to the original July 6, 2005 meeting date. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. REPORTS A. Planning Commissioners Commissioner Larson asked if there was any way they could pull signage out of an approval and staff could approve signage, unless there was a variance involved. Mr. Clark replied on a regular development, they could put in a provision that applicant had to adhere to the sign ordinance, but in a PUD it became complicated. He stated one of . the struggles was the City had a very restrictive sign ordinance. B. Staff None. e. Council Member Mayor Aplikowski updated the Commission on recent City Council actions. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Bezdicek moved, seconded by Commissioner Larson to adjourn the meeting at IO:OO p.m. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). .