Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 . MINUTES CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION . WEDNESDA Y, JANUARY 5, 2005 7:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER Chair Sand called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. OA TH OF OFFICE AND APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Mayor Aplikowski sworc in thc Planning Commission membcrs. Thc Planning Commission appointed David Sand as Chair and Clayton Zimmerman as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission f()r 2005. ROLL CALL Prcscnt were Commissioners Clayton Larson, Ken Bezdicck, Elizabcth Modesette, Fran Holmcs, Clayton ZimmClll1an. and Chair David Sand. Absent: Nonc. Also prcscnt wcre Mayor Aplikowski, Community Dcvelopmcnt Director, Scott Clark, . and Rccording Secretary Kathleen Altman. A. APPROV AI.. OF MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON DECEl\lBER 1.2004. Commissioner Modesette requested the following changcs: Page 3, paragraph 6, first scntcnce inscrt did not bctwecn they looked and changc looked to look. Commissioner Zimmemlan requcsted the following changcs: Page I, third paragraph undcr public hcaring, change sit to site. Page 4, first paragraph. first sentencc, change 24- hour to 24-hours. Page 4, 7th paragraph, third sentcnce from bottom of paragraph changc a to at Ieast... Page 5, second paragraph, changc sated to stated. Page 5, last paragraph, last sentence should read, ""He noted thcrc would havc to be somc.. .... Pagc 6, first paragraph second sentencc from the bottom of paragraph delete the word on. Pagc 6, 5th paragraph, shouJd read: "Mr. Clark notcd oncc the City decidcd what typc of residential they wanted; they then could look at residential developers." Commissioncr Zimmcrman movcd, secondcd by Commissioner Holmcs to approve the Dcccmbcr I, 2004 minutcs as amcndcd. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). . PUBLIC IU:ARINGS None. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION ~ JANUARY 5, 2005 2 UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS . A. PLANNING CASE 04-19: RAMSEY COUNTY. 1425 PAUl.. KIRKWOLD DRIVE: SPECIAL USE PERMIT AMENDJ\tENT TO ALLOW FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A YEAR-ROUND USED OIL AND SEASONAL HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION SITE AT THE NORTH\VESTJ;~RN PORTION OF THEIR PUBLIC \VORKS FACILITY GROUNDS Mr. Clark stated the applicant had requested a Special Use PClmit (2nd) Amendment to allow f()r installation of a year-round used oil collection site and a scasonal Household Waste collcction sitc at thc northwcst corner of the applicant's property in Arden Hills. The applicant was also seeking a matcrials variancc for thc uscd oil collection building. He rcviewcd the Sitc Plan and notcd statl had not yet received the architcctural plans for the structure and thcrcfore stafT was recommcnding thc Planning Commission takc commcnts from the applicant and continuc this to thc Fcbruary meeting. Terry Noonan, Environmental Services Supervisor of Ramscy County Public Works askcd ifthc Commissioncrs had any questions. Commissioner ZimmC1111an statcd he was not in favor of a 24-hour facility because of the opportunity for people to abuse the dumping of illcgal itcms off He noted if they were . adding a second camcra and that might serve as a valuablc fcaturc and this addition would makc a 24-hour operation palatable, but if thcy did not have this camera, he did not want to sec a 24-hour operation. Mr. Noonan replied they had discusscd thc hours of operation and thcy had confirmcd that there was an existing camera on the fuel linc and what thcy wanted to do was put wiring in for a camera at so if thcrc was a problcm a camcra could be easily put in. He statcd thcy wcrc not proposing to put an additional camera in unless thcy had a problem. Hc also notcd that thc Public Works was not a 24- hour dcpartment and thcy did not have the staff available to open and closc thc gatcs on thc weekends. Hc stated they have not had any significant problems at their current facility. Commissioner Zimmennan exprcssed conccrn about hazardous waste being dropped off. Mr. Noonan rcplied thcy did rcceive some hazardous waste oncc in awhilc and that was thc reason they wantcd a storage facility. Commissioner Modcsette asked if staff would chcck that location cvcryday. Mr. Noonan rcplied during thc wcck days it was chcckcd on a daily basis. Commissioner Zimme1111an expressed conccrn that thc Shcriff Dcpartmcnt would be conccrncd about peoplc driving around the facility after hours. Mr. Noonan replied he belicved having the Sheriff Dcpatiment f~lcility there would be a beneflt. . Joe Wasniack, Ramsey County Houschold Hazardous Wastc, statcd Whitc Bcar Lake had a used oil facility that was open 24 hours a day and sincc thcy took ovcr operating it, therc had been little hazardous wastc droppcd off. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 5, 2005 3 . Commissioner Larson asked if cvcntually thcy would move the Spring/Fall Clean up days that werc currcntly at Shoreview'to this facility. Mr. Wasniack stated they operated their Houschold flazardous Waste Site concurrently with that cvcnt, but they had not thought about moving thc sitc of the clcan-up event. He indicated he was not sure if thcrc would be enough room at the facility for this type of an event. Commissioner Larson stated hc had warmcd up to this rcqucst now that thc AmlY was not conccrncd about security andhe had no objection to this proposal. Commissioner Modesettc statcd she was in f~lvor of a 24-hour drop otl facility. Commissioner Bezdieek askcd how many oil drop-off sites did Ramsey County currently run. Mr. Noonan rcplied they had onc oil drop-ofT sitc, but municipalities within thc County otlercd oil drop-off sitcs also. Commissioncr Bezdicek asked why the County was reluctant to put in a sccUlity camera. Mr. Noonan rcplicd hc did not know the cost of a sccurity system, hut they did not havc any problems at thcir current facility and they would put in the wiring so if thcrc was a problem in thc future, they could add a camera at that timc. Chair Sand stated he would be in favor of an additional security camera and strongly urged thc County to put a camera inside thc building for safety reasons. He stated he was strongly in favor of having building materials that did not include metal panel walls, such . as the one that was constructed iri Chanhassen. Chair Sand asked ifthc household hazardous waste facility was a seasonal opcration. Mr. Noonan rcplicd that was correct. Chair Sand asked what would prcvent pcople putting something other than oil down the spout. Mr. Noonan replicd when the vendor came and periodically emptied the tank, the used oil was tested and only the (?il was cvacuated. Chair Sand asked how ottcn the vendor empticd the tank. Mr. Noonan replied the tank could he empticd up to a couple oftimcs a week during peak times, but the vcndor could also bc called on an as-nccdcd basis. Commissioner Zimmerman askcd what would happcn if the tank was full before the vendor pickcd up thc oil. Mr. Noonan rcplied this had never happen cd in all of the years they had becn running a facility and the vcndor knew whcn peak season was and the tank was chccked frequently during that timc period. Ilc notcd the County's staff also monitorcd the tank. Chair Sand stated he would not suppOli a building structure made of metal. Commissioner Zimmernlan moved, scconded by Commissioner Larson to table Planning . Casc No. 04-19, Ramscy County, 1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive, Special Use Pennit Amendment to thc February, 2005 mecting to allow applicant time to submit the structural architectural drawings. The motion carried unanimously ,(6-0). ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION --- JANUARY 5, 2005 4 . Mr. Clark requcsted Item 5C be held beforc Item 5B as there was a representative in the audicnce f()r that item. C. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON BALL FIELD SIGNAGE Mr. Clark stated as discussed at the December Planning Commission meeting, Mounds View School District had inquired about using temporary banner signs that could be tied to the fences around the MVHS football/track stadium. He indicated the direction of the Planning Commission was to rcvicw what other communities had done to address similar requests and provide potential code languagc. He stated staff had contacted several metro cities and rcceived responses from approximately six of these communities. Of the communities surveycd there were a range of responses to this matter. Two of the communities indicated that ball field signage was not allowed, and any change would rcquire an amendmcnt to the ordinance. He noted of those two communities, Shorcview did not allow athletic field fence panel signage howevcr, they did allow one sponsor panel not to exceed 12 square feet to be attached to the bottom of a scoreboard. Two other communities responded that thcy did not have specific language to address ball field signage. Blaine was onc of thcse communities; they indicated that the school districts regulated signage at school district sports fields; howevcr signage at private fields would require a Conditional Use Pennit. Roseville also indicated that they did not havc any specific regulations for ball field . signagc, but that a requcst f()r ball field signage would require thc approval of the City Council. Finally, New Brighton did not havc any specific languagc for ball field signage; however this was something that could be dOl~e through a Comprehensive Sign Plan. The Comprchcnsive Sign Plan was cstablished thl"ough a process like a CUP/SUP/PUD and was prescriptive to the particular dcvelopment what the sign standards should be for that development. This method may requirc other changes to the Zoning Code to cnable the crcation of Comprehcnsivc Sign Plans. Unf()rtunatc1y, duc to just recciving an example of the Comprehensive Sign Plan the last week in Decembcr there was not time to create languagc in timc for the January meeting. He noted staffs recommendation would be to bring this item back with more material to the February meeting as a continued discussion item. However, if the Planning Commission detcmlincs that one of the versions in thcir packet is the prcferred mcthod, then staff would schedule a public hearing f()r the February meeting and bring back the preferred language as amended. Nick Tcmali, Mounds View School District, askcd if the Commissioners had any questions. Chair Sand notcd the original inquiry was that they wanted to have a plastic coated banner atlixcd to the outfield fence or perimeter fence. Mr. T cmali statcd they had spoken with a sign company to discuss different alternatives and one concern was wind . flow. He stated they would not be looking at a metal or wood sign. Chair Sand askcd if there was any current signage on the score board. Mr. Tcmali replied he was not sure, but he would check into this. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 5, 2005 5 . Chair Sand requested Mr. Temali take some photographs of thc field for the February meeting. Commissioncr Larson stated he would like all of the suggcstcd institutions be able to take advantagc of this proposal and not just Mounds View School District. Commissioncr Zimmcrnlan noted version thrce was the only vcrsion that addresscd all of the possible rcquests Mounds View School District had brought forward at the last mecting, such as naming rights and scoreboard advertising. Commissioner Zimmerman asked how far the City wanted to open the door when they created this languagc. Commissioncr Larson stated he was in favor of this proposal as a revenuc generator for thc School District. Mr. Clark statcd it was staffs intent to limit advcliising sponsorship to thc "institutions" only. Mr. Temali suggested they limit the advertising sponsorship to only fields owncd by thc institutions, which would not include City parks. Commissioncr Larson asked if there was a weekcnd tournament, would it still be possible . to get a pcnnit for tcmporary signagc at the City tields. Mr. Clark rcplied permits would still be available. Chair Sand stated he would bc in favor of option 2, striking thc Little Leaguc. Mr. Clark askcd what type of a banncr size the School District would be looking at. Mr. Temali replied when they spoke with the sign company, thcy suggcsted a 3 x 10 foot banncr. He statcd cach individual sign being limited to ten squarc feet would give them cnough visibility. Hc statcd an 80 square fcct total would also limit them and hc requested this be reconsidered. He notcd the prime banncr spot would probably be in front of thc visitor stands, which would not bc visiblc from the strcet. He stated the only possible place a banner would be visible from the street would be from the north cnd zone. Hc indicatcd he would like to prcsent furthcr intonnation as to their necds for thc sizc of thc signs they nceded at thc next meeting. Commissioner Modesettc stated she was in gcneral opposed to advertising signage as this was incongrucnt with cducation, but she understood the need for additional school financing. Mr. Temali agreed with this comment and notcd they had held off requcsting this as long as they could, but with the financial times they were in, the School District had asked the schools to look at entrepreneurial options to bring in funds. Chair Sand asked how would thc City limit what type of advcliising would bc on the . banncrs without running into a Freedom of Speech issue. Mr. Temali replicd the School District would draft policics as to what would and would not be allowed to be advertised on the banners. He noted there would be no tobacco or alcohol advertising allowcd. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 5, 2005 6 Commissioner Holmes suggested wording be added to the Ordinance that the content of . the signs be regulated by the institution owning the facility. Chair Sand agreed this type oflanguage would resolve any Freedom of Speech issues. B. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE AND HOME OCCUPATION PERMITS Mr. Clark stated at the December I, 2004 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission discussed massage regulations and whether they should he revised. The general direction of the Planning Commission was that Therapeutic Massage was something that should he allowed in Arden Hills and should be considered as a suitable Home Occupation. Furthermore, the Planning Commission asked staff to check with surrounding communities to see how they handled re,b'1llating Therapeutic Massage. He reviewed Home Occupation versus massage, rap, and sauna parlor re,b'1llations as well as a comparison of Other Cities' Therapeutic Massage regulation. He also reviewed the standards for Therapeutic Massage. He stated staff recommended deleting the existing Section 330.03 and replace it with lan,b'1lage from either the Shoreview or Falcon Heights Therapeutic Massage re,b'1llations. He noted if the Planning Commission detem1ined that one of the ideas proposed was the preferred altemative, statT would schedule a public hearing tor the Planning . Commission's February meeting. If however, the Planning Commission would want additional review, staff would schedule this item as continued discussion on the February Planning Commission Agenda. Commissioner Larson stated he t~lYored the Shoreview ordinance. Chair Sand stated he believed all of the ordinances otfercd different things. He stated he liked the Ncw Brighton policy language because it addressed this in a positive manner, but agrced the Shoreview ordinance read thc best. Commissioncr Zimmem1an stated he agreed with the proposcd lan,b'1lage. Commissioner Bezdicek asked if legal counsel would review this language prior to it being brought back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Clark replied it would be approved hy the City Attomey prior to the February meeting. Commissioner Holmes asked under itcm i. why they had differcnt hours for weekdays and weckends. She stated some of the other City ordinances did not have this distinction. Shc stated she believed the times should be the same fix both weekdays and weekends. Mr. Clark replied the reason this was done was because this was a home occupation and more people were home on the weekends and therefore as a matter of courtesy, they opened later. . Commissioner Modcsette stated she agreed with Commissioner Holmes and she did not see why there should be ditferent hours on weekdays and weekends. . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 5, 2005 7 . Commissioner Bezdicek statcd he agreed with thc languagc as presented. Commissioncr Larson agreed with Commissioner Bezdicek. Chair Sand stated they should also add holiday hours to be the samc as weekend hours. Chair Sand notcd they should also add a perccntage of space that could be used for this home occupation. Mr. Clark replied they could add that. Commissioner Larson stated this might be discriminating against smallcr homes, but with the portablc tables, this would not be a permanent space anyway. Mr. Clark noted what they were really talking about was the size of thc table and he believed it would be more important to limit the numbcr of employees. Chair Sand asked if they should limit thc number of customers at a timc. Mr. Clark replicd staff could elil11inat,~ the nced for a waiting room, which would basically limit it to only onc customer. Chair Sand noted the resident at the previous mceting had indicated hcr intent was to evcntually teach couple massage and asked ifthcy wanted to limit it to only onc customer at a time. Commissioncr Holmes statc:::d she did not want to have marc than one customer vehicle at a time on the premiscs. However, she understood therc might be some overlap of . customers once in awhilc. Commissioner Bezdicek noted that this languagc gave thc City the ability to inspect the property and asked if the City would know what to inspect. Mr. Clark replied this was a prccaution in the event the City needed to inspect the premises, the busincss owner could not kecp them out. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if the residcnt who was at the prcvious meeting was given a copy of this report. Mr. Clark replied he was not surc, but it was his intent to comc up with firmer language and then send it to her. D. DISCUSSION ON FRONT PORCHES/SETBACK EXCEPTIONS Mr. Clark stated staff had received several telephone calls from rcsidents inquiring about adding porches onto their homes. Currently, porches would be pennitted if they either met the front sctback or did not extcnt beyond 3 feet into the front, sidc or rear setback. This setback exception currently applied to structural itcms like: Eaves, cantilcvcred areas, cornices, canopics, awnings. dccks, balconies, stcps, ramps, firc escapes and chimneys. Not only did this cxccption not allow much spacc for porches, on homes that currcntly meet the front setback. it barely provided enough space for people approaching a front door without having to back down thc steps. . He stated recognizing that front porches can offer a welcoming presence for homes and better curb appeal, the City of Richfield created a mechanism within their codes to allow porches to be counted as setback exceptions, but required staff rcview and established specific dcsign critcria. He askcd if the City should pursue amending the Zoning . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION -- JANUARY 5, 2005 8 . Ordinancc to include setback exceptions for front porches and should thc existing lan!:,ruage he maintained and porches allowed only ifthcy meet the current re!:,rulations. Chair Sand asked if thcy werc going to go ten fect into thc setback from the most extcnded p0l1ion of thc house, thcy could go tcn feet bcyond the garage point. Mr. Clark stated this would be mcasured hom thc principal structure and not the garage. Chair Sand askcd if it made sense to have a sh0l1er cncroachmcnt for an opcn deck than an cnclosed porch. Commissioncr Larson noted stcps, decks and ramps wcre considcred a part ofthc principal structure. Chair Sand stated it did not make scnsc to havc a 6 foot setback for an opcn deck and a 10 foot setback for an cnclosed porch. Commission~r Larson statcd a dcck was not integratcd into the primary structure, where an enclosed porch needed to be compatible with the existing rootline. Commissioner Holmes believed New Brighton also had this type of a program and suggestcd staff chcck with that City as to what their ordinancc said. E. PLANNING COMMISSION 2005 TENT A TIVE MEETING DATES Mr. Clark presented the tentative meeting dates for the 2005 Planning Commission . meetings. Commissioner Zimmennan askcd if they wanted to hold a Planning Commission mecting on July 6 or should they hold it thc following week to avoid vacation conflicts. Mr. Clark askcd if they also wanted to move the Scptember meeting to the following week becausc of the Labor Day holiday and that start of school. Chair Sand also notcd thcy might need to changc the Junc meeting due to Memorial Day. F. PLANNING COMMISSION 2005 PC WORK PLAN Mr. Clark noted thc Planning Commissioner 2005 Work Plan would be prescnted at the February meeting. REPORTS A. Planning Commissioners Nonc. B. Staff . Mr. Clark updated the Commission on recent TCAAP developments and the old City Hall site. ~ ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION -- JANUARY 5, 2005 9 C. Council Member . Mr. Clark updated the Commission on recent City Council actions. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Bezdicek to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). . . . i MIN UTES CITY OF ARDEN HILLS. MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION . WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2005 7:00 P.M.~. ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER Chair Sand called the meeting to ordcr at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Prescnt wcrc Commissioners Clayton Larson, Elizabeth Modesette, Fran Holmcs, Clayton Zimmennan, Roberta Thompson, and Chair David Sand. Abscnt: Commissioner Ken Bczdicek. Also present werc Mayor Bevcrly Aplikowski, Community Development Dircctor, Scott Clark, City Planner Petcr Hellegers, and Recording Secrctary Kathleen Altman. SWEARING IN OF ROBERT A THOMPSON AS PLANNING COMMISSIONER Mayor Aplikowski swore Roberta Thompson as a Planning Commissioner. . A. APPROV AL OF MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 5. 2005. Commissioner Zimmernlan requested the following changes: Page 6, fifth paragraph, first sentencc should read: Hc noted if the Planning Commission dctenllined .. .'" Commissioncr Zimmerman movcd, secondcd by Commissioner Larson to approvc the January 5,2005 minutcs as amended. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). PUBIJIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING CASE #05-03: ST. PAUL LODGE #2 -I.O.O.F.. 1174 EDGE\VATER A VENUE: SPECIAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. Mr. Hcllegers stated applicants were requesting a Special Usc Pcrnlit Amendment (SUP) to allow for site plan modifications which would reduce thc sizc of the originally approved parking lot in Special Use Permit #70-36. The reduccd parking area would free the eastern lots (Lots I, 2, and 2; Block 3; Lakc Josephine Villas) to be sold by the . applicant as one residential lot. Staff recommended approval based on thc following conditions: . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 2, 2005 2 1. Thc applicant shall continue to abide by thc conditions of approval listed in Special . Use Pennit #70-36 except feJr the site plan amendment discussed. 2. No construction shall occur on all or part of Lots 1, 2, or 3, Block 3, Lake Josephine Villas prior to those properties being platted into one rcsidential lot which meets the minimum requirements for the R-2: Single and Two Family Residential Zoning District. 3. If membcrship or f,TUest attendance increases to a point where 12 parking spaces are utilizcd on a recun-ing basis, then thc Oddfellow's Lodge would be required to construct the matching parking area shown as "additional space for parking if ever needed" on the sitc plan and included in City Planning File #05-04. 4. The proposed new parking area and any future parking, as discussed in Condition #3, shall be gradcd to drain toward the northeast comer of the new parking area. The grading and drainage shall take spccial eare to avoid any adverse drainage effects on Lots I, 2, or 3, Slack 3, Lake Josephine Villas. 5. Screening of at least 60% opacity shall be providcd along the north, east, and south sides of the new parking lot as proposcd on the site plans on file in City planning tile #05-04. Screening may be accomplished by a 3-foot high privacy style fencc or coniferous shrubs to a minimum height of 3 feet. Screening shall require the approval of the City Planner prior to the issuance of any Building or Zoning Permits. Commi'ssioner Zimmerman inquired about the park dedication requirement. Mr. Hellegers replied the City Attomey had indicated park dedication would not be something that would be collected becausc the properties would be consolidated and this . was not a matter of a subdivision. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if the intent was to subdividc the lot and sell the lots off to development. Mr. Hellcgers rcplied what applicant proposcd was to put this into onclot. Commissioncr Zimmemlan believcd if the end rcsult was to sell of the property for development, then they should collcct park dedication fees. Mr. Clark replied they would have the City Attol1ley revicw this again and put his opinion in writing. Commissioncr Modcsettc noted the two lots across thc street appcared indcpcndent and other lots had bcen consolidatcd to makc nice sizc lots. Mr. Hcllegcrs replied thc two lots across the street werc built without platting. He notcd applicant was proposing to cut the thrcc lots off and sell them as one parcel. Commissioncr Larson askcd if thc City held an easemcnt along the street. Mr. Hellegcrs replied they did. Chair Sand notcd in conncction with any motion thcy would need to make the special finding. . Chair Sand asked if the application included platting of thc three lots into one lot. Mr. Hellegers replied this particular application did not. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 2, 2005 3 Chair Sand invited anyone for or against the variance to come forward and make . comment. Ray Polk, Lodgc Trcasurer, stated the reason thcy were doing this was because it was costing more to stay there than they were taking in so they needed to sell the lot. He stated they were not using that area as a parking lot because they did not need it. He noted they only met twice a month. He stated they had a couple of special events also during the year. He noted service organizations were dwindling and they were no different. He stated by selling this. it would enable them to hold on for a while longer. Commissioner Thompson asked if they had any special events where the parking lot would be filled up. Mr. Polk replied no, the most cars they usually had was 8 to 10 cars. Dave Monson, 175 Edgewater, stated they havc lived there since late 1997 and the Lodge was a great neighbor. He noted the Lodge had provided parking for all of the displaced neighbors when the City was doing the street rcconstruction. He asked what the lot dimensions werc being proposed to be. Mr. Monson stated he believed the setback on the sides of thc lot fronting a street was 40 feet. which would get down to 60 x 110 feet. He statcd when they bought their property, they had applied for a variance for a deck and they wcre denied that variance. He stated he supported this planning case and enabling the Lodge to continue to function, but requested the Commission might give him the same kind of indulgence with respect to a . variance at somc point in the future. Chair Sand closcd the public hearing at 7:21p.m. Commissioner Larson inquired about the ponding easement with a house built in the easement. Mr. Hellegers replied where the structures were indicated was accurate. Commissioner Larson stated the section map should he updated. Mr. Hcllcgers replied it was 2001 section map, so it might not be accuratc. Commissioner Larson moved, seconded by Commissioner Thompson that the Planning Commission f<.mnd that the proposed amendment to the Special Use Pcmlit does not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood and largcr community as per staffs report and to recommend approval of Planning Case No. 05-03: St. Paul Lodge #2 - LO.O.F., 1174 Edgewater A venue; Special Use Pcrmit Amendment five conditions as outlined in staffs February 2,2005 report. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). B. PLANNING CASE 04-19: RAMSEY COUNTY. 1425 PAUL KJRKWOLD DRIVE: SPECIAL USE PERMIT AMI(NDMENT TO ALLOW FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A YEAR-ROUND USED OIL AND SEASONAL . HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION SITE AT THE NORTHWESTERN PORTION UF THEIR PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY GROUNDS Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 2, 2005 4 . Mr. Hellegers statcd applicant was requesting a Special Use Permit (2nd) Amcndment to allow for installation of a year-round used oil collection site and a seasonal Household Hazardous Waste collection site at thc northwest comer of thc applicant's property. The applicant is also seeking a materials variance for the used oil collection building. Staff rccommended approval of the request subject to the following conditions: 1. Thc scasonal Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) collection operation should not exceed two months total per calendar ycar, nor shall the scasonal HHW collection operatc for more than one month in a row. 2. In order to prevent vandalism or improper use, and to insure the security of the used oil collection and seasonal HHW site which would be in opcration 24-hours a day, the applicant shall install an exterior security video camera to monitor the area. 3. If it were dctcnnincd that thc security of thc used oil collection building poscd a risk to Arden Hills residents and the general public attempting to utilize the facility, the Arden I-lills City Council may requirc that the applicant install a security camcra to monitor thc intcrior of thc uscd oil collection building. The applicant may choose to install a security camera to monitor the interior of the used oil collection building at any time and is not required to seek pennission from thc City of Arden Hills prior to the installation cxccpt for the building permits which may bc required. 4. Landscaping removed for the installation of the seasonal HHW and used oil collcction site shall bc relocatcd to the north and/or northwest of the proposed used oil collection site. . 5. The coloring of thc exterior building matcrials shall be of a coloring compatible with the main Public Works building and shop area, and the Sheliffs Water Patrol building, or shall be painted to be compatible. 6. If the applicant dctermincd that the clean-up day activitics should be moved trom their current site in Shoreview to the Ramsey County Public Works Facility property, the applicant shall be required to fIrst obtain approval of the Arden Hills City Council for an Amcndmcnt to this Spccial Use Pcrmit. Chair Sand asked if condition six should be reworded. Mr. Hellegcrs suggested condition 6 read: That any special events to be held at the facility for household and hazardous wastc bcyond the nonnal scope of things that would happcn at that facility would then require coming back to thc Planning Commission and Council for an amended SUP. Chair Sand invited anyone for or against the variance to come forward and make comment. There were no commcnts madc. Chair Sand closcd the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Zimmcnnan movcd, seconded by Commissioner Thompson that the Planning Commission fInds the proposcd amendment to the Special Usc Pennit would . not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood and largcr community and to approve Planning Case No. 04-19: Ramsey County, 1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive; Special Usc Permit Amendment to allow for thc installation of a year-round used oil and scasonal Houschold Hazardous Waste Collection site at the northwestern portion of their Public ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 2,2005 5 Works Facility grounds, subjcct to the six conditions as noted in stafTs February 2,2005 . rcport and the amendcd condition six as outlined by staff at tonight's mecting. Thc motion carried unanimously (6-0). C. PLANNING CASE 05-02: DEBRA AND WILLIAM THORNTON. 35tO SIEMS COURT: VARIANCE Chair Sand opened the public heating at 7:33 p.m. Mr. llellegers statcd applicant was rcquesting an II-foot front yard sctback for an addition to the front of applicant"s property in Arden Hills. Staff recommended approval of the rcquest subjcct to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall file all necessary building permits with thc Building Official for approval prior to the issuancc of a building permit. Building pennits shall be submitted to thc Building Official a minimum of two (2) wecks before the planned start of construction. Commissioner Zimmerman noted cunently the house is 6.7 feet closer to the lot linc than required. Hc asked if a variance was request cd at the time the home was built. Mr. Hellegers rcplied there was no record of a variance requestcd. . Commissioner Modescttc notcd thcrc was dcck on the back of thc house and she was not sure if unbuildable was accurate. Mr. Hcllcgcrs pointed out there was a steep grade which would make it difficult to build on. He noted thc propcrty was not very functional because of its narrowness. Commissioner Zimmcrman asked if applicant was not requcsting a variance and a building permit was issucd would if this confonning propeliy be grandfathered in. Mr. Hellcgers rcplicd it would he. Chair Sand asked how large the three-scason porch on the back of thc house was. Mr. Hellegers rcplied applicant was in attcndance tonight and could answcr that question. Chair Sand invitcd anyone for or against the variancc to comc fOlward and make comment. William 1'ho111ton, 3510 Siems Court, applicant, thanked City staff He notcd the staff was very helpful and cooperative with him. Hc summarized the history of the lot and house. He notcd the housc had to be situated whcre it was because of the cliff in the back yard. He indicated they had no practical way of building hack to the cast. He stated thc screencd porch back edgc had 1 5-foot posts that went down off the edge of the clifT. Hc indicated this was a vcry unusual lot. He noted to thc south they had large oak trecs that thcy did not want to disturb. He stated to thc north there was a garage, which would need . to be dcmolished and a bascment dug. He indicated one of the other problcms they were facing was that the lot line was about 20 feet in from the edge of the road and that had created that on one edge their house it was 33 fect fi"om the lot linc. He notcd thcir lot line curvcd in. He statcd the home was built ovcr 50 years ago. Hc indicated cven with granting thc 11- f()ot variance at the nOlih end 0 f thc proposed construction, they were still ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 2, 2005 6 48 fcct from the edge of the road and on the south end, they werc also still over 48 feet . from the road. He indicated this was a uniquc neighborhood and the houses were scattercd all ovcr thcir lots because of the topography. He stated therc wcrc a number of homcs in the neighborhood that had sctback issucs and havc had to request variances. Hc stated this was a uniquc ncighborhood and they did not want to destroy any of that Ul1lqueness. He pointed out that their home was getting old and necdcd to be updated. He indicatcd thcre wcre vmious homes in the neighborhood that had requested variances to update their homes. Hc stat cd he believed thcy were kccping with the character of the ncighborhood and this was the best option duc to the unique lot thcy had. Commissioner Thompson stated she had looked at thc lot and shc agreed thcre was a deep cmbankmcnt. She asked if they had considered expanding out to thc east. Mr. Thornton rcplied thc problcm thcre was with thc walkout, which would make two floors and they did not want that largc of an expansion. Hc stated thcrc would also not be a good way to move the kitchcn back there. Mr. Thornton stated they had spoken with their neighbors who had signcd a petition indicating they had no objection to this projcct. He understood there was one objcction that had comc in and thcy had not spoken to that pcrson. lIe indicated all of the neighbors he had spoken to had seen all of the documents and were in support of this project. Commissioner Thompson asked how many trees they would have to cut down for this . project. Mr. Thornton replicd therc were no trees that would need to be removed. Chair Sand notcd the back of his property was heavily wooded and askcd if thcy expanded out the back, would they have to remove trees. Mr. Thornton responded he was not sure, but he would be concerned about the root system of the oak trces. By Email, Zata Vickcrs: "1 live at 3470 Siems Ct., the fIrst housc on Siems Ct across Ardcn Place from 2510 Siems Ct. I don't expect to be able to attcnd the hearing on February 2, so am e-mailing opinion and comment to you. I am opposed to this request bccause this construction will altcr the character of the ncighborhood. I enjoy the park-like quality of Siems Ct. Many trees, lawns, and other plants providcd the lovely and peaceful character of this neighborhood. Houses, no mattcr how architccturally gorgeous, do not give thc same feeling. I am constantly rcminded of this from the vicw through my backyard windows that used to look out on an expanse of grass and trees and now look out on a very large concrete block and a baby-poop-yellow house. It is a constant reminder to many of us that the character of a neighborhood can so easily he blighted by someone elsc's pride and joy. That housc is within its lcgal limits. Howcver it has motivated mc to work against . similar situations, such as the variance requcst for 3510 Sicms, wherc we have sctback rcgulations specifically to prcvent such changcs in character. The Thornton's house already appears to bc much closer to thc road than the other houses on the same side of that street. Extending it cven closcr to thc road would furthcr ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 2, 2005 7 diminish the apparent size .of the front yard and providc an end to the size and quality of . the front yard spaces along that side of thc road." Dave Carlson, 3535 Siems Ct., statcd he belicved this lot clearly shows there is a hardship. He noted most of the homes in the ncighborhood did not meet currcnt codes as they existed. He indicatcd thc neighborhood right now was going through a renaissance. Hc stated the plans the Thornton's have livcd up to the changes the City would be pursuing and it fit with many of the homes that had been renovated and rebuilt. He encouraged the Planning Commission approve this request. Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. Commissioncr Larson stated as opposed as he generally was to variances, he did believe this lot presented a hardship. He stated this house also stood out as different from the neighborhood and he believed this addition would make thc house fit bettcr into the character of thc neighborhood. Commissioncr Modesette agreed that the addition will enhancc the neighborhood and the rcason this worked for the addition was because of thc layout of thc existing house. She noted the slopc was steep, but opposcd using that as thc dcfining rcason when it stemmed from othcr things. Commissioncr Thompson statcd from her perspcctive, it was more about the hardship . than what was happcning in thc neighborhood. Commissioner Larson moved, seconded by Commissioncr Zimmerman to approve Planning Case No. 05-02: Debra and William Thornton, 3510 Sicms Court; Variance, subject to thc condition as notcd in staff's February 2, 2005 rcport. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). D. PLANNING CASE 05-04: ARDEN HILLS: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO GATEWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT. REVISIONS FOR AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS WITH RETAIL AND A CAR WASH AS A SPECIAL USE Chair Sand opcned thc public hcaring at 7:04 p.m. Mr. Hellcgcrs statcd the Commission was being rcquested to rcview thc proposed amendmcnts to Scction 5 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a service station with retail sales and serviccs and a car wash to be permitted attcr thc issuance of a Spccial Use Permit in the Gateway Business District. Staff rccommended approval of the Zoning Orilinance Amendment as proposed. Mr. Clark noted thc City of Arden Hills was the applicant and their intention was to come . back f()r a Special Use Permit. Commissioner Larson assumed the configuration of the road was somcthing that would be changcd whcn thc intersection was done. Mr. Clark replied that would be lookcd at, but lIighway 96 would not be part of this and no access would be on Highway 96. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 2,2005 8 . Chair Sand asked how this area would would look oncc the rcalignment occurrcd. He asked if this had bccn taken into account with the City. Mr. Clark replied the City had not seen a plan that talked about Highway 96 moving to the north and thc most currcnt plan was thc extension of Round Lake Road continuing north and thcn going to thc northeast and back into the TCAAP property. He stated the County would try to minimize any impact to the mobile home park because of the cost involved in that. Chair Sand statcd he remembered someone from thc County showing the proposed alignment of Highway 96 and he belicved it was shown as going through thc southern cdge of the mobile homc park. Mr. Clark replied that was a possibility, but the impact would be minimal. Chair Sand statcd hc wantcd to make sure the vision for the sitc was taking into account any future dcvelopment. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if staff had seen any footprint as to how this servicc station would look likc and if therc would be any varianccs requested. Mr. Clark rcplied the City had entered into a Purchase Agrccment with this propcrty, which was separate from this process. He belicved it was too early to tell with this proposed development, but staff had made it very clcar to them that thcy wantcd the best building thcre was on this property because it was thc gatcway into the City. He stated he did not know iftherc would be any variances requested at this time. Hc noted statT would be going out and . surveying thc trccs in an attempt to save as many trecs as possible on this lot. He indicated they had not discussed specifics on this project. He statcd this would probably bc coming for a public hcaring to the Commission in April. Commissioncr Zimmennan asked if staff had donc any analysis to scc if it would meet the landscape requirements. Mr. Hellegcrs replicd he had explaincd all of the zoning regulations, but therc had not bcen a concept plan prescnted yet. Mr. Clark stated this lot was slightly bigger than thcy usually wanted. He stated thc other issue was the lot was unusual, but they werc aware of the setbacks, but hc believed they would still bc looking at a PUD. Commissioncr Larson asked if the potcntial developer had noticed that on the other side of 35W there were three vacant buildings, including a service station. Mayor Aplikowski replied she believed because New Brighton was holding that propcrty for a possible Medtronic developmcnt, that this was not cven a possibility for discussion that this development could go ovcr therc. She believed thc rcason this developer wanted this lot was because of visibility. Commissioncr Modesettc expressed concern that the City would have anothcr gas station. Mr. Hellcgers noted if a gas station was put in this arca, they would need to meet the gateway business district standards, which standards were higher than in other areas. . Chair Sand invited anyone for or against the variance to come t()f\vard and make comment. - ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 2, 2005 9 By Email, Bob May, 1871 Todd Drive: "Unfortunately 1 will be unable to attend thc . hcaring tonight on project pc#05-04 but wish to make known my conccrns. If a service station/conveniencc store/car wash is built at the location indicated on the map, it will bc dircctly across highway 96 from my homc in Arden Manor Mobilc Home Park. I am vcry concerned about the lights and noise eminating (sic) from such a business. Is there any discussion to erect a sound barrier on the north side of highway 96 tram 1-35W to highway 10 (or at least to thc entrance into Arden Manor)? Also, would access to the facility be directly from highway 96 or from Round Lake Blvd., which would then funnel onto highway 96 at the traffic light? Thank y(~u for giving mc the opportunity to express my thoughts" Dave McClung, 4370 North Snclling Avcnue, stated he lived in thc northcrn part of town and he was supportivc of this proposal. He stated in this stretch of Highway 35, you went a long stretch to get to a gas station. He indicated he supported businesses within Arden Hills and they did not havc anything likc this in the north part of thc City. He believed this proposed development would be very nice and would be an advantage to the community. Chair Sand elosed the public hearing at 8:27 p.m. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if the access would bc ofT Round Lakc Boulevard versus going ofT of Highway 96. Mr. Hellegers replied therc would probably be one right-in, right-out on Round Lake Boulevard. with a fuller access farther down on Round . Lake Boulevard. but therc would be no access onto Highway 96. Commissioner Zimmennan cxpressed concern about the hcight of the signs. Mr. Hellegers noted anything that exceeded the current sign standards would nced to approval by the Planning Commission as well as a Special Use Permit. Hc stated he would like to see a monumcnt typc of a sign and not a largc pylon sign. Chair Sand agreed stafT necdcd to make thc developer aware that the Planning Commission wanted a quality dcvelopment on this sitc and would be ent<.1fcing the buildings standards in that arca. Commissioner Zimmerman movcd, seconded by Commissioner Larson to approve Planning Case No. 05-04: Arden Hills; Zoning Ordinance Amcndment to Gatcway Business District, rcvisions for Automobile Scrvice Stations with Retail and a Car Wash as a Special Use including amcndments 1 through 6. Thc motion carried unanimously (6-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. TCAAP Preliminarv Framework Plan . Mr. Clark statcd statf was seeking action on the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) Master Framework Plan dated January 13,2005. He notcd the TC AAP Master Framework Plan. which is substantially the same as the Plan revicwed by the Planning Commission on December 8. 2004, was developed ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 2, 2005 10 through a special Master Advisory Panel over the past two years. If approved by the . Planning Commission, it is the desire to have the Council review the same during the month of February. Staff views that it is important to have an "official vision" as part of the working toward the goals of having an offer to purchase letter, to the General Services Administration, finalized by May/June of this year. The key item of the Plan, as stated through the resolution, are as follows: 1) The adoption of the Framework Plan will establish the City's official land use vision f()r the TCAAP property. It is also stated that this blueprint may undergo changes as final decisions are made on various transportation issues, additional information is secured regarding contamination issues and the economics of the project are more detailed. 2) Thc Plan adopts thc philosophy of the City Council's TCAAP Goals and Vision that was adopted on January 25,2004. 3) The Plan will go through changes as part of the AUAR process, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning tcxt and district amendmcnt process. 4) Thc north to south roadway that connects the "J-r' interchange area to County Road I "is predicated on interchangc alterations on County Road 1. If this does not happcn, the City will nced to considcr altemative north/south connections which could include thc Wildlife Corridor arca. 5) The "north primcr tracer area," which is labeled "SpOlis Facility," is still under discussion as to how this area will be uscd. There are obvious issues associated with it, such as not having access, and the issues of economics . associated with clean-up on a potcntial non-tax paying property. 6) Issues associated with proper levels of density, dcsign and amenity considcrations will all be addrcssed through the Planning Commission as part of the Phase IV planning process. He stated based on adoption of this plan by thc Planning Commission, this item will be schcduled for the City Council's February 14,2005 meeting. Commissioner Zimmerman inquired if the City had considercd the impact the proposed new homes would have on the school district. Mr. Clark replicd that issue would bc something thcy would bc discussing. Commissioner Zimmemlan noted the schools were almost at capacity at this time and asked what thcy would do with any new students. Mayor Aplikowski replied this had bcen discussed and the City and school district was aware of this issuc. Chair Sand stated he was positively surprised that they had come to this point and he believed they have made a lot of progress on this and thanked staff or their hard work. He belicved this would bc a positive developmcnt for thc City. Commissioncr Holmcs asked if thcrc had ever been a compmison done betwecn density and development in the surrounding area. Mr. Clark stated thcy needed to f<.)cus on . whcrc they were going to go from herc. Hc indicated they would not bring back thc master planning group, which was initially dcsigned to put this plan togcther. Hc noted the next part got into the implementation and the next step would go back to the Planning Commission. . Hc indicated therc was a proccss they would be following. He noted onc of thc issues thcy would need to discuss was thc issue of density. Hc indicatcd onc of the ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 2,2005 11 . things they had to balancc was to make this project economically fcasible and thcre would be probably be some public financing of the project. He stated this plan would offer a wide variety of housing types that might or might not be available in the City. Hc statcd this plan would be differcnt than the rcst of the community, but it would otTer a high-end of architectural detail. Hc noted thcy havc assumed densities below what he would call normal development standards. He statcd the densities would be highcr than the current comprchcnsive plan, but it would be lower than the surrounding communitics. He noted the density discussion would come back to thc Planning Commission for their thoughts and rccommcndations which would be givcn to thc City Council. Commissioncr Holmes stat cd shc could not support this Rcsolution bccause it did not follow the vision goals of the TCAAP vision with respect to open space, regional parks, and traftic. She noted the amenities arc all in thc northern part of the area, which would not benefit any of the residents on the south side of the City. Shc stated she wanted more paSSIve open spacc. Commissioner ZimmeIman stat cd they were looking at a compressed picture of what things would look likc. If they would actually get a concept of what this looked like, it was dcsigncd with a lot of open space and he believed met the goals of the area set forth previously. He statcd he would support the Resolution, and as it was currently configured it was an cxccllcnt rendition of what a large majority of the peoplc in thc City wanted. . Commissioner Modesettc stated she liked thc fact that thcy wcre spcaking to things that would change and they had to keep in mind that things could change a lot. She stated she agreed this site ncedcd to start out as a high quality concept. Shc statcd as thcy lookcd at the details, she also had some concerns that thc high quality would make it so unique that it would become cxclusivc. Shc stated it was important to her that the end rcsult should represent the nonnal fabric of society and not become too out ofthc ordinary. Mayor Aplikowski stated the goal was to provide jobs and homes for the people in thc area and that was why thcy were proposing thc mixcd use. She notcd there would bc higher density, but they want cd the people who livcd to also work there. She stat cd the transportation pattern had always bccn a challenge on this piecc fi-om the beginning. She indicatcd the road would necd to be looked at again and again before any definite dccisions wcre made. She stated they had not ahandoncd the neighborhood par~ conccpt and there were pockets of grccn spacc. Commissioner Holmes stated shc did not understand why Ramscy County had obtained thcir land and did not need to devclop it whilc the City was going to acquirc the land and havc it all developed. Shc belicvcd this area needcd a suhstantial amount of grecn spacc. Mayor Aplikowski replied thc City could not afford to not develop the land. Mr. Clark notcd thcrc would be many acres to the east that would rcmain opcn spacc. Commissioner Holmcs noted the east was not available to the City. . Mr. Clark stated the principal of thc Vento plan was that thcy recognize that there would be development on this property, but a significant portion of this property would remain open. He stated thc majority of the rcst of this propcrty would remain opcn spacc in perpetuity. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 2, :W05 12 . Chair Sand stated he undcrstood if they looked at thc whole 2400 acrcs, the eastern half I would rcmain as open spacc and cvcn in that arca there was discussion as to whcther it would be active or passive open space and re belicved the passivc opcn space had a greater influcnce on the outcome. He believed there was a promise madc that the eastern half would bc opcn to the public, not just accessible to the Guard. He stated he had a concern with the density, but hc believed !his could bc controlled through the propcr design .b'1lidelines sct by thc City, as wcll as good architecture. He stated even though this was dcnse, they needed to take into account t~1at this need cd to be economically feasiblc to the City. Commissioncr Holmcs stated the thing that concern cd her most with the density was the increase in traffic that this would gencrate. Shc believed this development would have a ncgative impact to the community. Mayor Aplikowski notcd there were more pcorle working in Arden Hills that did not livc in Arden Hills. Commissioner Thompson stated a lot of pcople wanted to livc in the City, but did not want the largc lot or wantcd to downsize, so shc believcd there was an cxpectation that there would be othcr typcs of housing arrangemcnts in the City. Mr. Clark stated if the City was not a part ofth,is process; thc Army could go out and look . for another buyer, which meant the City would havc little control over the property. Hc noted right now the City had all of the control as to what type of a developmcnt would be built. Chair Sand stated having sat through the various meetings; he did not want to throwaway thc hard work of 10 years due to the conccrns of density. Hc believed the density issue could be addrcssed in thc dcsign conccpts. Hc noted thcrc has been a lot of input tram a lot of pcople and he believed that should be respected. I Commissioner Holmes stated what conccrncd her was that thcre were only threc plans, which all looked the same. She believed thcre had not been a lot of work done on this. Chair Sand stated he would tcnd to dcfer to the experts on this because they had worked in this area tor a long time. He noted therc was not much they could do with respect to the road layout and the mixed use. Commissioncr Zimmcrman movcd, seconded by Commissioncr Larson to approvc Resolution Rccommending Adoption of the Twin Cities Anny Ammunition Plant Framework Plan dated January 13, 2005 with thc correction to the fourth Whcrcas clausc changing the date to January 24,2004. Thc motion carricd unanimously (5-1) (Commissioncr Holmes opposed). . B. PLANNING COMMISSION 2005 PC WORK PLAN Mr. Hellcgers prcscnted the potcntial Planning Commission work plan tor 2005. He indicatcd thc plan showed two ongoing acti:vities; TCAAP Land Use Planning, and ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 2, 2005 13 Planning Commissioner Training. In addition the plan shows the Zoning Code Update . for the months of March through August, thc Property Maintenance Code being reviewcd fl.))" thc months of Junc through September, and thc Rcdevelopment District Concept bcing reviewed from August through Deccmber. A Development Bus Tour is also planned for the last Saturday in Octobcr or the first Saturday in November. Mr. Hellegers indicated due to the impending acquisition of the TCAAP property and the potential Planning Commission work involved (establishing design guidelincs, Zoning District crcation, Comprehensivc Plan Amendments, etc.), some of the items on the work plan may not be addressed until 2006. The priority listing would have TCAAP and Planning Case review as the top two items with thc Zoning Updatc following closc behind. Commissioner Holmcs asked what the point of a work plan was. Mr. Hellegers replied this would help establish what they hoped to accomplish over the year, but acknowledgcd this plan was subject to change depcnding upon what came up within the City. Commissioner Zimmennan also noted they were going to be working with the PTRC for thc gatcway signs. Mr. Clark rcplicd he was correct, but hc thought the easicst way to start the proccss was to sit down with thc Chairperson of the Planning Commission and the PTRC and look at design and matcrial options. He statcd thcrc was a mecting tentatively set for Friday, February 11. . C. ATHLETIC FIELD SIGNAGEUPDATE Mr. Hellegers statcd as discusscd at the December 2004 and thc January 2005 Planning Commission mceting, Mounds Vicw School District had inquircd about using temporary banncr signs that could be tied to the fenccs around thc MVHS f()otball/track stadium. While the temporary banncr signagc is all that had been rcqucsted at this time, staff thought it would be appropriate to create regulations for other signage opportunities that MVl-IS may request in the futurc. He noted at the January 2005 mccting staff prcsented threc options for modifying thc existing Arden Hills Sign Ordinance to include language regulating ball field signage. Bascd on the discussion tram thc January meeting staff dctcrmined the following: Ball field signagc should be limited to institutional users and property owncrs and would not bc applicable to City parks; MVSD is looking for marc signage than was proposcd in the threc options provided to thc Planning Commission; Examplcs of where signage would be located at Mounds View High School should bc includcd in the prescntation to thc Planning Commission. . Hc indicatcd sincc it appeared that thcrc werc still several dctails to iron out, stafl dctennincd that a public hearing should not bc held until the March Planning Commission meeting. . He stated staff had mct with Mr. Nick Temali of the Mounds View School District and the Activitics Dircctor of Mounds Vicw High School and detcnnined thc types and sizes of signage that may bc rcquired in the futurc. The main areas whcrc signage would be desired are thc sponsorship banncrs along thc west side of the visitors bleachcrs, ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 2, 2005 14 sponsorship banners (facing the field) along the north side ofthc football/track perimctcr . fencc, scoreboard signagc, and field naming signage on thc prcss box or an cntrancc gate. Chair Sand statcd he also wantcd some language in subdivision 5 added to read: Signage shall not restrict thc viewing area of the people sitting in the stands. Mr. Hellegers rcplied that language could be includcd. Commissioner Holmcs asked if thc signs would be taken down after every game. She statcd she would prefer if they be taken down. Mr. Nick Temali, Mounds Vicw School District, rcplied their stadium had a gamc or event every night of thc wcck, so to take banncrs down daily would bc a burden to turn around and put them up again a few hours later. Hc stated they likcd the languagc whcre they would takc thcm in at thc end of thc fall scason and be brought back out again in the spring for the spring events. Chair Sand asked if thcy wanted this limitcd to only cdueational institutions and if so thcy should say cducational institutions. Commissioner Larson noted he belicvcd thcy should limit this to thc thrce educational institutions (Mounds Vicw High School, NOIthwestcrn College, and Bethel Collcgc) noting his concern that there could bc advcrtising at Valentincs Elcmcntary if they said cducational institution. Chair Sand rcquested staff obtain the City"s attorney opinion to dctcrmine if the City was allowcd to limit the type of educational institution whcre signage would be permittcd. . REPORTS A. Plannin~ Commissioners None. B. Staff Nonc. e. Council Member Mayor Aplikowski updatcd the Commission on rcccnt City Council actions. ADJOURNMENT Commissioncr Zimmcrman moved, secondcd by Commissioncr Larson to adjourn the mecting at 10:03 p.m. The motion carricd unanimously (6-0). . ~ MINUTES ~ CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA - PLANNING COMMISSION . WEDNESDA Y, MARCH 2, 2005 7:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER Chair Sand called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were Commissioners Clayton Larson, Ken Bezdicek, Clayton Zimmerman, Roberta Thompson, and Chair David Sand. Absent: Commissioner Elizabeth Modesette. Also present were Councilmember David Grant, Community Dcvelopment Director, Scott Clark, City Planner Peter Hellegers, and Recording Secretary Kathlecn Altman. A. APPROV AL OF MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 2. 2005. Commissioner Zimmennan requcsted the following changes: Page 2, third paragraph . fi'om the bottom, change Commission to Commissioner. Page 5, 4lh paragraph from the bottom should rcad: "Commissioner Zimmerman asked if applicant was not requesting a variance and a building permit was issued would this conforming..... Page S, last paragraph, 20th sentencc, to read: "He indicated one of the other problems they were facing was that the lot line was about 20 fcet in from the edgc of the road and that had created that on one edge their house it was 33 feet..." Page 8, first paragraph, first sentence, to read: "Chair Sand asked how this area would look once..... Page 8, 7th parabrraph, first sentence to rcad: "Commissioner Larson asked if thc potcntial developer had noticed that on the other side of 3SW there were three..." Page 1 1, first paragraph. first sentence to read: "things they had to balance was to make this project economically feasiblc and therc would probably be some....' Pagc I I. first paragraph, second sentencc to rcad: "Hc stated this plan would afTer a wide varicty of housing types that might or might not be...". Page 11, last paragraph, first sentence to read: "Mr. Clark stated the principal of the V cnto plan was that they rccognizc that therc would... .. Page ] 2, first paragraph, first sentence to read: "Chair Sand stated he understood if they looked at thc whole 2400 acres, the eastern half would remain as open space and even in that area therc was discussion as to whether it would be active or passive open space and he believed thc passive open space had a grcater influence on the outcome." Page 13, Sth paragraph, second sentence to read: "'Whilc the temporary banner signage is all that had been requested at this time, staff..." Commissioncr Zimmcrman moved, secondcd by Commissioncr Larson to approvc the . Fcbruary S, 200S minutes as amended. The motion carried unanimously (S-O). .. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION -- MARCH 2, 2005 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS . A. PLANNING CASE #05-09: DAVID RADZIEJ AND ROG}:R SABOT. 4365 AND 4367 LEXINGTON A VENUE: DRIVE\V A Y VARIANCES Mr. Hcllcgcrs stated applicants were requesting variances to aJlow thcm to maintain the cxisting sharcd driveway and add an additional drivcway for each of the applicant's propcrtics in the City. Statrrecommended approval based on thc t()Jlowing conditions: 1. Thc applicants shall submit Zoning Pennits with plans to the Building Official a minimum of two (2) weeks beforc thc planned start of construction. 2. Thc applicants will rcquirc approval from Ramscy County for the cub-cuts prior to the installation of any ncw driveway. 3. The driveways shall be constructed to meet the City standard width of a 12-f()ot minimum and a 22-foot maximum. 4. Thcre shall bc at lcast 60 fed betwccn each drivcway access. 5. Parking shall comply with the Arden Hills Zoning Ordinancc requirements of no parking on any areas except f()r driveways and parking lots, and shall not havc more than 4 vehiclcs may he parked on any driveway. Commissioncr Zimmerman asked why previous conditions that had not heen met had not been chccked on. Mr. Hcllegcrs replied hc did not know why those conditions had not bccn checkcd up on by staff in 1995. . Commissioncr Zimmerman askcd whosc responsibility was it that conditions imposed on the property wcre met. Mr. Hellcgcrs rcplied it was City staffs rcsponsibility. Chair Sand stated thcrc was an c-mail rcccived from a neighbor on 1090 Amble Drive ohjecting to thc rcquest on five grounds. Commissioner Bczdicck asked why wherc they retaining the existing driveway and adding two additional ones. Mr. Hellegers replicd it would provide bettcr access t()r thc applicants. Chair Sand asked if therc was anything in the Zoning Ordinancc or the Comprchensive Plan that would limit thc addition of a drivcway here. He notcd mature trees would be lost to make room tc)r the new driveways. Mr. Hellegcrs rcplied therc wcre no conditions protccting those trees. Chair Sand askcd if it would be a right turn in and right turn out. Mr. Hellegers replied that was correct. Commissioncr Larson asked who created thc hardship. Mr. Hellcgcrs replied this was donc hy a prcvious owner. . Commissioner Larson askcd if thcy had originally agreed to the shared driveway. Mr. Hellcgcrs rcplied that was correct. Commissioncr Larson noted with Lexington bcing a commuter strect, hc assumcd the rcason tor the sharcd drivcway was to eliminate accesses on Lexington. He stated it 'ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 2, 2005 3 appeared to him that whoever built these homes did not comply with the conditions of . approval and because they did not comply, they were being asked to add two more access to this. He indicated they had never tricd this and now there would be no left turns. He stated it seemed to him that whoever did the initial construction did not fo]]ow the direction of the conditions of approval. Commissioner Larson stated since each of these homes were allowed to have an access to the street in tront of it, the site could have been modified to allow a driveway for each of these houses and that could be approved by staff. Mr. Hellegers replied Council would have needed to remove the original condition of approval. He noted one of the problems with a shared access drive was the 20 toot access point, which was a tight access point. Commissioner Thompson asked if a turnaround option was looked at. Mr. Hellegers replied that option had not been discussed and he could not find any prior documentation regarding that option. Commissioner Zimmennan asked how wide the existing driveway was. Mr. Hellegers replied the existing driveway was 20 feet. Commissioner Zimmerman noted it appeared the driveway was at least 2 cars wide. Chair Sand asked if they had looked at the option of widening the existing driveway. Mr. Hellegers replied they had not looked at that option. He noted both the County and the . applicants had indicated it was a problem for a single access point and that was the reason they had not looked at that option. Chair Sand noted widening the existing driveway would save a lot of the vegetation. Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Chair Sand invited anyone for or against this application to come f(H"Ward and make comment. Email dated February 19,2005 from Aladin Hassan, 1090 Amble Drive, Shoreview: "I. More driveways on Lexington Ave at that spot is creating more dangcrous situation for everyone going south on Lexington from east of Amble Dr. because the only way to get to the free way 694 is to turn south on Lexington. 2. It is already very bad during rush hours at the present time. 3. My understanding everywhcre is eliminating the number of driveway acccss on busy roads tor PUBLIC safety reasons and the plan I received in the mail showed that there will be THREE DRIVEWAYS instead of ONE!!! 4. rm surc it is more hazardous t<.)r that very busy main road. 5. How many driveways in very short distance (and close to two cross sections) the drivers on that Extremely busy rood (sic) will be watching ??? And if thc city agree on that whcy (sic) they want to retain the existing driveway isn't bad cnough now? . 1 hope the city of Ardcn H ills does not approve that plan... Thanks:' Kathy Rodziej, 43565 Lexington A venue, stated they had lived in their home f()r six months and previous to them moving in the home had been owned by a single person. " 'ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 2, 2005 4 . Bcvcrly Sabot, 4367 Lexington Avenue, stated it was difficult to make thc tum into the drivcway with the specd limit of 40 mph on Lexington A venue. Shc noted therc the Rodziej's had tccnagc drivcrs and this was a safcty issue. . Roger Sabot stated two huge mature trees would nced to be removed if they widcned the drivcway. Hc notcd thc drivcway was not wide enough for two cars to go in and out comfortably. He believed the drivcway was 22 feet. He stated they werc the tirst owners aftcr the pcoplc who originally built it. He notcd putting in two additional driveways would not take out any substantial vcgctation. Chair Sand notcd for safety purposes. it might bc safer to eliminatc the cxisting driveway and put in the two new driveways. Ms. Rodziej statcd in that typc of a situation, they would have to go past their garage and would need to tum around to get into their garage. Shc noted they also had recreational vchieles where it would be difticult to gct into the driveway if the existing driveway was eliminated. Commissioner Zimmerman askcd if they had talked about a tumaround. Ms. Rodziej stated tonight's meeting was the first time they had hcard about a tumaround. Chair Sand asked if this were to be approved, who would approve the geometry of the driveway to ensure it was anglcd properly onto Lexington. Mr. Hellegers replicd the City Engineer and/or the Ramsey County Enginccrs would nccd to work out thc geometry of . thc drivcways. Commissioncr Bezdicek stated more driveways on a busy road wcre more dangcrous. Ms. Rodziej stated they would cnter in thc center driveway and exit out thc othcr driveway. Mr. Sabot replied thcy fclt thcy could get into thc traffic on Lcxington Avenue faster with their proposal. He expresscd concem that the speed on Lexington Avenue would increase, which will also make thc existing driveway unsafe. Ms. Sabot noted most of thcir vegetation was removed whcn the sewer system came through. Mr. Sabot indicatcd they wanted to prcscrve their large trecs. Commissioner Thompson statcd the natural tendency would be to takc the tirst driveway. Shc expressed concem that if these homes werc sold at somc point in the future, the new owners may not be as coopcrati ve. Letter from Leonard E. Gallus, 1104 Amble Drive, datcd February 21. 2005: .. J . I necd to have furthcr infonnation to understand how an extra 12' x 100' . drivcway cxtension starting by my backyard, and angling across the front of the property and connccting to the existing driveway will help the Sabots to access Lcxington Ave. They still can only tum to the right and go South at any of the drivcways. ---- ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 2, 2005 5 2. When thcse 2 lots were dcvelopcd somc 7 ycars ago, it was my undcrstanding that . f()r safety rcasons there would be a common entrancc to thc residences. Today, with increascd traffic flow on Lcxington Ave. the addition of two cntrances could make for an cven less safe condition than was thought of 7 ycars ago. This would bc a short distance on a roadway like Lexington and could add to motorist confusion. 3. Thc entire neighborhoods of Karth Lake Hills and Karth Lake Estates are able to acccss Lexington Ave. with little backup and only 2 entranccs/cxits to Lexington Ave. Additional Conccrns: Trees and natural woodland rcmoval Lights tram vehicles using the Sabot driveway shining into my backyard Water runoff toward my yard; their property elevation is slightly higher than mine Visual privacy My homc value It has rccently come to my attcntion that the Sabot residencc is not complying with some Arden Hills residential regulations. The Sabots have conducted an internet shopping busincss out of their Lexington Ave. homc since shortly aftcr moving in. (about 4 years) Apparcntly clients comc to their . home to lcarn how to use thc internet sitc and do their own business. This business seems to b~ sporadic, and has been lcss activity recently. I have becn recently infornlcd by Petcr Hcllcgcrs of thc f()llowing regulations regarding homc businesscs: I. A licensc is needed 2. Drivcways should not have more than 4 cars on them "' Time rcstrietions for conducting the business ., . The Sabots have not complied with thc abovc rcgulations. At timcs the Sabofs have customers whose cars takc up thcir drivcway and somctimcs require additional parking in front of my house on Amble Drive. The days ofthc week vary, but it sccms that most activity is on thc weekends. The time is gcnerally early evening, and ending usually by II :00 PM I am very concern cd that the real necd for thc drivcways is for thcir busincss concerns. If they get the additional driveway and arc able to usc thc ncw cxtcnsion for business parking, I will at times have a parking lot view from both inside my home and even morc . lack of privacy in my backyard."' Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. 'ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 2, 2005 6 Commissioner Larson moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman to recommend . denial of Planning Case No. 05-09: David Radziej and Roger Sabot, 4365 and 4367 Lexington Avenue; Driveway Variances, reasons f()r denial: I. The lack of detail plans and the engineering necessary to show exactly what the dynamics of the access are going to be. The owners have the opportunity to work this out between the City and the County Enginecrs and come up with a bcttcr engineered plan than submitted. 2. The shared acccss was a condition of approval for the original dcvelopmcnt of the site and othcr conditions of ~pproval, which was the turnaround was not met, so thcrcfore, the Commission did not know how the site functions if that condition was in place. .., .,. multiplc accesses to the property and the proximity to thc Victoria and Amble intersection would bc more confusing and dangerous to tratlic on Lexington A venuc and to the occupants. Commissioner Larson believed the applicants did have access problems and he could look much more favorably on this if thcre werc detailed englncenng plans. Commissioner Thompson agreed. Commissioner Zimmerman understood applicant's thoughts wanting two additional driveways, but he did not sec how thc logistics would work. Chair Sand statcd"hc believed it was not the applicant's f~lUlt that the turnaround was not put in, but this should have been taken care of at the time the building permit was issued. He shared the other Commissioner's concerns and indicated he might be marc amenable . going along with this proposal with detailcd Enginccring's plans. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Rogcr Sabot stated they were not informed by the County that they necded a detailed drawing; that they only nceded a skctch, which is what they presentcd. B. PLANNING CASE 05-06: CITY D:F ARDEN HILLS. 1245 W. HIGHWAY 96: CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES AMENDMENT FOR THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE. Mr. Hellegers stated staff was rccommending repealing existing City Code Section 330.03 relating to massage, rap, and sauna parlors; adopting proposcd Section 330.04 relating to Massage Therapy Establishments and Massage Thcrapists; and Amending Sections 5.E and 10.G of the Zoning Ordinance to rcference Massage Therapists and Massage Thcrapy Establishments. Chair Sand requestcd a distinction be put in that the liccnse went with the person and not the house, so if ncw owners were to come in and they wanted licensing, they would need to acquire it. Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 8: 13 p.m. . Chair Sand invited anyonc f()r or against this Ordinance to come forward. Comne Vahle, 1365 Arkwright St. #201, S1. Paul, stated shc was liccnsed in Ncw Brighton and she had just surrcndcred her S1. Paulliccnsc because the office where shc . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 2, 2005 7 was working at was closing. She indicated she was in attendance tonight to see what the . City's licensing requirements that were being proposed. She stated she liked the extension of the hours and that there was a requircment for a waiting room for thc patrons. She noted she was also in agrcement with the fecs being proposed. Chair Sand closed the public hcaring at 8: I 8 p.m. Commissioncr Zimmcrman moved, secondcd by Commissioner Larson to approvc Planning Casc No. 05-06: City of Arden Hills, 1245 W. Highway 96; City Code of Ordinanccs Amendment ft)}" Therapeutic Massage and repealing existing City Codc Scction 330.03 relating to Massage, Rap, and Sauna Parlors; adopting proposed Section 330.04 relating to Massage Therapy Establishmcnts and Massage Thcrapist: and amending Sections 5.E and 10.G of thc Zoning Ordinance to refercnce Massage Thcrapist and Massage Therapy Establishments. After further discussion Commissioner Zimmelman withdrew his motion to restate it and Commissioner Larson withdrew his second. Commissioncr Zimmcrnlan moved, seconded by Commissioner Larson to recommcnd Planning Case 05-06 approval based on statrs recommendations f(lr repealing Section 330.03 of the City Code relating to Massage, Rap, and Sauna Parlors and new Scction 330.04 relating to Licensed Therapeutic Massage and approving Zoning Amendmcnts numbers 1 and 2 to allow f(lr massage as a spccial use, not pcnnitted use, or pernlittcd . use in certain Zoning districts. Thc motion carried unanimously (5-0). C. PLANNING CASE OS-OS: CITY OF ARDEN HILI.S. 1245 W. HIGHWAY 96. SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS FOR ATHLETIC FIEI.D SIGNAGE AT BETHEL UNIVERSITY. NORTHWESTERN COLLEGE. AND lVIOUNDS VIEW HIGH SCHOOL Mr. Hcllegers requested the Commission consider statTs rccommendations to amend Ordinance No. 333 "An Ordinance Regulating Signage Standards within the City of Ardcn Hills" to establish standards for athlctic field signage at Bethel University, Mounds Vicw High School, and Northwcstcrn College whcrc such signage is visible from a public roadway or property outside of these educational institutions. Mr. HelIegers stated rcpresentatives from Mounds View School District approached the City about the possibility f()r athletic field signage on the Mounds Vicw lligh School property late in 2004. At their meetings on December 2004, January 2005, and Febmary 2005, the Planning Commission discussed the issue of whether athlctic field signage should be regulated by thc Sign Ordinance and if rcgulated what standards should be applied. At their Fcbruary 2005 mccting, the Planning Commission revicwed proposcd amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to address the issue of athletic field signage and . recommcnded certain changes to the proposed languagc. Subsequent to thc February mceting, staff sent copies or the proposed language to reprcsentatives at Bethel University, Mounds Vicw High School, and Northwestern College and asked f(lr thcir input on the proposed language. Rcpresentatives from Bcthel University rccommended that thc Temporary Sponsorship Banners bc incrcascd slightly in size and also stated that 'ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 2, 2005 8 the land should include an "'if visiblc" clause to regulatc the signage. Thc signs that are . not visiblc would not bc subject to thc rcgulation; those that are would have to comply with the new size standards and would bc requircd to file sign pemlit applications as describcd in the ordinance. In addition, mcmbers of the Planning Commission recommcnded that the "if visible" clausc should cstablish who was detcrmining if the signagc was visiblc. Staff has included language that would ultimately give that authority to the City Councilor City Administrator. He recommendcd approval of the seven Sign Ordinance Amcndments as proposcd. Commissioncr Larson recommended thcy designate a ccrtain staff membcr or designcc to look into the signage. He noted as it was worded that City Councilor City Administrator shall detcrminc if the signage is visible was poor wording tor an Ordinance. Chair Sand opcned the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Chair Sand invitcd anyone tor or against thc variance to come forward and make commcnt. Bruce Kunkel, 3452 Glen Arden Road and Administrator at Bethel Collcge, thankcd statT and thc Commission for their work on this. He believed this would work well for both Bethel Collegc and the rcsidents. . Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. Commissioncr Larson moved, seconded by Commissioncr Bczdicek to approve Planning Case No. 05-08 : City of Arden Hills, 1145 W. Highway 96; Sign Ordinance Amcndmcnts t()r Athletic Field Signage at Bethel University, Northwcstern Collegc, and Mounds View High School. The motion carricd unanimously (5-0). D. PLANNING CASE 05-07: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS. 1245 \V. HIGHWAY 96. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS FOR 10- FOOT FRONT PORCH EXCEPTION TO FRONT SETBACK IN R-l AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS Mr. Hellegers requested the Commission consider staffs recommendation to amend Section 6.C.2.a. of the Zoning Ordinance and insert new section 6.C.2.d into thc Zoning Ordinance. He recommended approval of Zoning Amendmcnts #1 and #2 to allow tor stcps, decks, and ramps as Permittcd Encroachmcnts up to 6 feet in all Zoning Districts and to allow Front Porches as Pcrmittcd Encroachmcnts of up to 10 feet, providcd that the front porch is no closer than 30 feet from any front or side lot linc, ft)r Single-Family Dwellings. . Chair Sand asked what tt)!. thc definition of residcntial street sidc yard. Mr. Hcllcgcrs replied that would be a comer propcrty. Chair Sand asked if they wanted to allow somc flexibility in the footing and ttHJI1dation materials so it was complimcntary to the home. I Ie expressed concern that it might be i ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION -. MARCH 2, 2005 9 too rigid. Mr. Hellegers replied this language was takcn from the City of Richfield's . language and he believcd that City wanted to havc a consistcnt appcarance in the front of the homes. He indicated he had spoken with the building official about this and he was okay with eithcr following the Richfield ordinancc or not following thc Richfield ordinance. Commissioner Larson notcd a perimeter foundation was a sturdier structurc. Chair Sand stated if thcy were referring to an encloscd structure, thcn hc could sec needing bcttcr footing and foundation materials. Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 8:46 p.m. Chair Sand invitcd anyone for or against the variancc to come forward and make comment. There werc no comments. Chair Sand closed the public hcaring at 8:47 p.m. Commissioner Bczdicck asked if they wcre only talking about front yard porches. Mr. Hellcgcrs replied this would includc front yard and side yard porches. . Chair Sand moved, scconded by Commissioncr Thompson 'to approvc Planning Case No. 05-07 : City of Arden Hills, 1245 W. Highway 96; Zoning Ordinance Amendments for 10-toot Front Porch Exception to Front Sctback in R-I and R-2 Zoning District. Zoning Amendments # I and #2 to allow for stcps, decks, and ramps as Permitted Encroachments of up to 6 feet in all Zoning Districts and to allow Front Porchcs as Pennittcd Encroachmcnts of up to 10 fcet, providcd that thc front porch is no closcr than 30 fcet from any front or side lot line, for Singe-Family Dwellings. The motion carricd unanimously (5-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. REPORTS A. Planning Commissioners Commissioner Larson noted he would not be at next month's meeting. B. Staff . Mr. HcUegers updated the Commission on upcoming application requests. C. Council Member Council Member Grant updated the Commission on reccnt City Council actions. . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 2, 2005 IO . . ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Bezdicek to adjourn the meeting at 9:13 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). . . MINUTES CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION . WEDNESDA Y, APRIL 6,2005 7:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER Chair Sand called the meeting to ordcr at 7:06 p.m. ROLL CALL Present wcrc Commissioncrs Ken Bezdicck, Elizabeth Modesette, Roberta Thompson, and Chair David Sand. Abscnt: Commissioners Clayton Larson and Clayton Zimmerman. Also present were Mayor Beverly Aplikowski, Community Development Dircctor, Scott Clark, City Planner Peter Hellcgers, and Recording Secrctary Kathleen Altman. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES :FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 2. 2005. Commissioner Bezdicek moved, seconded by Commissioner Modesette to approve the . March 2, 2005 minutes as amcnded. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING CASE #05-10 - RAMSEY COUNTY. RAMSEY COUNTY & PARTNERS PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY AND SHERIFF STATION. 1425 PAUL KIRKWOLD DRIVE: SIGN STANDARD ADJUSTMENT Mr. Hellegcrs stated applicants were requcsting a Sign Standard Adjustment from the Signage Ordinance criteria for a freestanding monument sign. Staffmadc the following findings with rcgard to the Sign Standard Adjustment: 1. There are sitc conditions (traffic, readability for traffic moving 50+ mph) which require a sign adjustment to allow the sign to be rcasonably visible from a strect immediately adjacent to thc site. ") Thc sign adjustment will allow a sign of exceptional design or a style that has potcntial to cnhance the area (one sign f()r several agcncies) and is more consistcnt with thc architecture and design of the sitc. 3. The sign adjustment will result in a sign that is inconsistent with thc purpose of the . sign district and the zoning district in which thc property is located. Staff recommcndcd denial of the Sign Standard Adjustmcnt based on the aforementioned findings fix the f()llowing rcasons: ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION -- APRIL 6.2005 2 . 1. Whilc the sibJTI would bc visible from Ilighway 96, thc amount of infonnation rcquired fiJr sign and the speed of tratlic on Highway 96 (which would increasc thc nced larger text) may require a Sign Standard Adjustment. However, a smallcr variance from the Sign Ordinancc Standards would still result in greatcr visibility and would be marc consistent with the City's Sign Ordinance Standards. 2. The proposcd sign is inconsistent with both the Civic Centcr Zoning District and Sign District 6 which anticipated more destination oriented facilities that would not requirc as much signage as the commercial zoning and signage districts. The proposed sign is much larger than allowed for any commercial zoning and signage districts in the City. Commissioner Bezdicek asked if the sign thcre now was the same size of thc proposcd sign. Mr. Hellegers replicd the ncw sign would be slightly shOltCr. Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7: 12 p.m. Chair Sand invited the applicant to come forward and make comment. Brucc Thompson, Assistant Director Property Management Ramsey County, statc he wantcd to come to some kind of an agrecment betwecn the City and the County regarding signage. He indicated thc mock up sign that was presently there was not going to work. . He stated thcy did havc an altcrnatc sign he wanted to propose. He noted thc goal in establishing a monument sign was visibility. He indicated letters of 10'" and 6"' were the ideal size and letters of that sizc would be visible by the tratlic. He noted if they took those size lctters and put in all of thc letters thcy needed to that is what dictatcd the size of thc sign. He stated they also had a goal of having the sign fit the area and the building. He indicated the colors on the sign would match the building and they would use leftover brick from thc building and the aluminum would he colored exactly the same as the metal on the building. Commissioner Tony Bennctt. Ramscy County, presented to the Commission the proposed sign for their consideration. Hc indicatcd the sign would need a variance and noted thc City Hall sign was 119 square feet, which was over the 100 square t()()t limit imposed by the City and this sign had onc name on it, whilc their sign would have many names on it. Commissioner Bezdicek asked how many squarc feet was the sign they werc proposing. Mr. Thompson replied they were proposing a 169 square fect sign. Commissioner Modcsettc askcd if there would be reconstruction of the holding pond. Mr. Bennett replied thc holding pond would rcmain as it was and thc sign would fit. Chair Sand asked how the new sign would be positioned. Mr. Bennett replied it would he perpcndicular to Highway 96. Hc noted the new sign would he 72"' high and 28 fcct . long. Chair Sand asked why they had not seen this Plior to tonight mccting whcn it was dated March 5. Mr. Thompson replied he belicved thc date was wrong and it should he datcd April 5. not March 5. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION .. APRIL 6, 2005 3 . Mr. Bennett stated this was an error on thc drawing date because the finalization of the sign design was just made this week. Chair Sand stated it was ditlicult to make a recommendation when the Commission and staff had not had suffIcient time to analyze this. Mr. Hellegers stated by shrinking the sign in height it would only be necessary to have one vanance. Mr. Thompson stated it was their intent to show the Commission that thcy werc willing to look at some alternatives because the original sign did not "'lark and they did not intend to not give the Commission or staff insufficicnt time to look at this. Commissioncr Bennctt apologized for rushing this, but indicatcd he wantcd to have the sign up for thc Open Housc, whieh would be in the next 60 days. Chair Sand invited anyone for or against the variancc to come forward and make comment. Thcre were no comments made from thc public. Chair Sand eloscd the public hcaring at 7:26 p.m. . Commissioncr Modesette stated she could see that a variancc was necessary for this sign and she understood they had a lot of int(mnatioll to put on this, but the fact this was being rushcd through, she was uncomfortable approving this tonight. She requcsted thcy see a mock up of this bef(xe it was fInally approved. Commissioner Bezdicek stated hc was surprised to see another proposal coming f()rward this evening and he had diftlculty approving this without staff having sufticient time to look at this and makc a rccommendation. Commissioner Thompson stated she wanted staff to be given sufficient time to look at this and givc thcir recommendations. She stated thc liked the matcrials and believed thcy needed this size of a sign, but had a concern about the metal on the sign due to headlights hi tting it. She statcd she was uncomfortable approving this tonight until stalT had been given morc time to make their recommendations. Chair Sand noted a sign mock up was expensive, but if thcy could prepare a computer generated photograph that would be helpful. He agreed with all of the Commissioner's comments. He recommended tabling this motion pending receipt of further information and giving staff sut1i.cient time to make a recommendation. Mr. Clark statcd n0n11ally if this would be acted on tonight, this would bc put on the . April 25 Council meeting agenda, so he would recommend if this was addrcssed at the Commissioner's meeting in May, this be put on the May <) Council meeting agenda, which would mean the applicant would only lose 1\ days. . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 6, 2005 4 . Chair Sand moved, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, to recommcnd tahling Planning Case No. 05-10, Ramscy County, 1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive (Ramsey County Puhlic Works and Shcriff Station), Sign Varial1l:e for additional factual and visual information to givc staff sufficient time to make a recommendation. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). B. PLANNING CASE 05-11 : ROLAND KARJALAlITI. 1137 EDGEW ATER A VENUE~ FRONT/SIDE YARD CORNER SETBACK VARIANCES Mr. Hellegers stated applicant was requesting a 5-foot front yard setback variance and a 10- f()ot sidc yard comer sethack variance for the construction of a new single family dctachcd house on the applicant's propcrty at 1137 Edgewater Avcnue in Arden Hills. Staff rccommcndcd approval of the variance suhject to the f()llowing conditions: 1. The applicant shall filc all necessary huilding pcrmits with the Building Official f()f approval prior to the issuancc of a huilding pennit. Building pennit plans shall be submitted to the Building Official a minimum of t\VO (2) \veeks hct(m~ the planned start of construction. 2. A drainage swale should be constructed along the western portion of the property to collect the drainage water flowing westward down the hilJ of the prope11y and carry . the drainage toward thc street. ^ rcvised grading the drainage plan showing this drainage swale shall require thc approval ofthc Ardcn Hills City Enginecr prior to the issuancc of any building permits. 3. A rcviscd grading and drainagc plan showing the clevation of the first floor and basement and thc sun'ounding propc11y shall be submitted to thc City and shall rcquirc approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuancc of any huilding permits. 4. The applicant shall be required to plat the property prior to thc issuancc of any building permits. Chair Sand asked if condition four should have the applicant replat the propcrty. Mr. Hellegers replied that was correct. Commissioncr Thompson asked fCll- an explanation of the drainage swale. Mr. Hellcgers summarizcd thc drainage swale for the Commission. Commissioner Modcsettc askcd if the curb cut and concrcte drivcway would rcmain. Mr. Hellegers rcplied there should only be one access and so it should be removed. Chair Sand askcd if the retaining wall that was cUlTently there was close to where the new rctaining wall was being proposed. Mr. Hellegers replied it appeared to be close. . Commissioner Modesette stated she was not certain the engineering was complete enough to run the water to the street. Mr. Hellegers replied it might need a little more space and he would have the City Engineer rcview this befcllT it would go forward. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 6,2005 5 Chair Sand asked if the ncighbors concern had been addressed. Mr. Hellegers replied the . neighbors wanted to see the proposal and make sure the trees wcre preserved. Chair Sand asked if the trccs on the Certificate of Survey wcre new plantings or werc they existing vegetation. Mr. Hcllegers showed the current aerial photograph and whcre the landscaping presently was located. He noted most of the trees on the Certificate were existing trees. Chair Sand asked if there had been any contact to the neighbor to the west regarding the drainage issucs. Mr. Hellegers replied they had not been spoken to yet, but they were given notice of his proposal. Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. Chair Sand invited applicant to comc forward and make commcnt. Roland Karjalahti, 1137 Edgewater Avenue, stated presently they had a couple of retaining walls on the property, which would be redone and the reconfiguration of the retaining walls had not becn dccided on yet until he knew irthc variance was approved or not, but hc would work with City staff on these retaining walls. Hc noted with the new retaining walls, this would address any drainagc issues. He stated hc had spokcn to the property owner to the west and he has not had any unusual flooding or drainage problems on this property. He indicatcd he had also spoken with the propcrty owner to the north . about the trees and they definitely wantcd to kccp the trees to the north. He stated due to the pavement management project in the area, much of the landscaping in the front had bcen removed, but he wanted to put in more landscaping in the front. He askcd if the City Zoning Ordinances required rcplatting in this typc of a situation. He noted in Shoreview they would not require a replatting in this type of a situation. He indicated a full final plat procedure was vcry expensive and because or the proximity to Lake Joscphinc, the surveyor needed to follow certain State guidelines. Hc asked if replatting was absolutely necessary. He noted this was two platted propel1ies, but one tax parcel. Chair Sand stated thcy would havc to defer to staff as to whether or not this needed to be replatted. Mr. Hellegers replied during recent meeting with staff and the City Attorncy this exact type of an issuc was brought up and it was agreed upon that this process of platting was the corrcct procedure to follow. Chair Sand stated staff would not change recommendation number 4. Mr. Hellegers replied he believed this was the correct recommendation. Chair Sand stated he liked this plan and it was a beautiful house and he believed this would be an improvcment to thc neighborhood. Chair Sand invited anyone for or against the variance to come forward and make comment. . Davc Monson, 1175 Edgewater, stated these plans looked very nice and he was very much in favor of this proposal. There were no further comments made. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 6,2005 6 . Chair Sand closed thc public hcaring at 7:56 p.m. Commissioner Bczdicck statcd he understood stafr s comments with rcspect to the replatting, but asked if thcrc were any altcrnatives that would bc acccptable to comply with thc bJUidelines. Mr. Hellegers replied there was a lot linc that would run down thc middle of the house and this was the reason thcy necdcd to havc this rcplatted. He notcd two altcrnatives they have in the Ordinance. did not apply to this type of a situation. He indicated he believed replatting would be the corrcct procedure. Mr. Clark stated they might be able to state in rcquirement 4 that the applicant should bc required to replat or convey by minor subdivision, which would give staff the opportunity to reexam this. Commissioncr Bezdicek, secondcd by Commissioncr Modcsette, to rccommcnd approval of Planning Case No. 05- I I: Roland Kar:ialahti, ] 13 7 Edgewatcr A venue, Front/Sidc Yard Comer Setback Variances subject to the recommcndations made in staffs April 6, 2005 and modifying rccommcndation four to read: The applicant shall be requircd to rcplat or convcy by minor subdivision the property prior to thc issuance of any building pcrmits. Thc motion carricd unanimously (4-0). . UNFINISRED AND NE\V BUSINESS A. PLANNING CASE 05-09: DAVID RADZIEJ AND ROGER SABOT. 4365 AND 4367 LEXINGTON A VENUE: DRIVE\V A Y VARIANCE. Mr. Hellcgers stated the applicants have requested vmiances to allow thcm to maintain the ex'isting shared driveway and add an additional dliveway f<)r cach of the applicants' property in Arden Hills. He noted at the March, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, thc Planning Commission votcd unanimously to dcny thc requestcd variancc to maintain the existing sharcd driveway and add one additional drivcway for each of the propertics. He stated the applicants have rcviewcd thc Planning Commission' s direction and havc attcmptcd to answer some of the Planning Commission's previous qucstions. Statl recommended approval of the requcst for variancc to allow onc new driveway at 4365 and onc new driveway at 4367 while maintaining the existing sharcd drivcway subjcct to the following conditions: I. The applicants shall submit Zoning Pcnnits with plans to thc Building Official a minimum of two (2) wccks bcforc thc planncd stm1 of construction. . ') The applicants will rcquire approval from Ramscy County for the cub-cuts prior to thc installation of a new driveway. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 6, 2005 7 3. The drivcways shall be constructed within the City standards f()r driveway widths . of a 12 foot minimum and a 22 foot maximum. 4. Thcre shall be at lcast 60 feet bctwccn cach drivcway acccss. 5. Auxiliary signagc shall be installed which idcntitics thc cntry drivc and thc cxit drives. 6. The access drivcs shall bc reviewed by thc City Enginccr and County Traffic Engineer, installation of the access drives can only proceed atter approval of thc access drive design by both thc City Enginccr and County Enginccr. 7. Parking shall comply with the Arden Hills Zoning Ordinance requiremcnts of no parking on any arcas except for drivcways and parking lots, and shall not have marc than 4 vchicles parked on any driveway. Chair Sand statcd it appeared applicants had addressed some of the concerns thc Commission had last month. Hc asked if staff was comf0l1able with this new proposal. Mr. Hellcgers replicd he belicved this was a better proposal than what had prcscnted at thc previous meeting. Chair Sand statcd it helpcd applicants included the photographs with thc computer generatcd lines and thanked thc applicants for these. . Commissioncr Modcsctte asked how wide thc cxisting driveway was. Mr. Hcllcgcrs replicd the existing driveway was 19'. Chair Sand stated one of their concems was if the ncw driveways were not allowed, thcn the existing drivcway might have to be widened to allow cars to pass each other easily. Chair Sand movcd, scconded by Commissioncr Thompson to recommend approval of Planning Casc No. 05-09: David Radziej and Rogcr Sabot, 4365 and 4367 Lexington Avcnuc; Drivcway Varianecs, subject to the seven conditions as outlined in statT's April 6, 2005 report. Commissioncr Modesettc asked if staff had receivcd any further comments from thc ncighbors regarding the concerns with this additional drivcway bcing addcd. Mr. Hellcgcrs replicd the neighbors had not been notiticd of this meeting as it was not a public hearing, but he had checked with the City Enginccr and he did not have a concern with this proposal and it also met thc County requirements. The motion carried (3-1) (Commissioncr Modesette opposcd). B. DISCUSSION ON FENCE HEIGHT . Mr. Hellcgcrs stated rcccntly a residcnt inquired about amcnding thc City's regulations tor fcncc hcight. Thc resident had just constructcd a red cedar kncc which was 6 feet 6 inchcs in hcight with ornamcntaI post caps somcwhat higher still. Apparently, thc materials arc scnt to thc knce company pre-cut and whcn thc frame is assembled the fences would be tallcr than the 6 foot hcight currently pcnnittcd. Thc rcsident stated the ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 6,2005 8. red cedar fences are very attractive and with the regulations the way they currently were . the fences would likely not get built due to the extra cost to the residents to have the contractor rcduce the height of pre-cut fence materials. The resident had providcd copies of fence regulations from several metro cities which allow fence hcights ranging from 6 feet 6 inches to 8 feet. He indicated the Arden Hills Zoning Ordinance allows fences in residential districts to be built in the front yard area up to a maximum of 3 feet in height and fenccs in rear yards to be built up to a maximum of 6 fcct. A Zoning Permit is rcquired prior to fence construction. Building regulations would kick-in for fences above a height of 6 fcet (due to wind load, etc.). If the Planning Commission indicates the fence regulations should be amended staff would schcdule a public hearing ft)r the May 4 Planning Commission meeting and also bring Zoning Ordinance amendment language to that meeting. Commissioner Bezdicek stated he did not believe this walTanted discussion. Commissioner Thompson agreed and noted they had a procedurc already set up and she believed the procedure should bc followed. Chair Sand agreed. The Commission agreed to follow the procedure already establishcd. . REPORTS A. Planning Commissioners None. B. Staff Mr. Clark updated the Commission on recent TCAAP matters. C. Council Mcmbcr Mayor Aplikowski updated the Commission on recent City Council actions. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Thompson moved, seconded by Commissioner Bezdicek to adjoum the meeting at 8:45 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). . '.. MINUTES CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION . WEDNESDA Y, MA Y 4, 2005 7:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER Chair Sand called the mecting to order at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were Commissioncrs Clayton Larson, Ken Bczdicek, Elizabeth Modesettc, Clayton Zimmerman, Robcrta Thompson, and Chair David Sand. Absent: None. Also prescnt wcre Mayor Beverly Aplikowski, Councilmember David Grant, Community Dcvelopment Dircctor, Scott Clark, City Planner Pctcr Hell egers, and Recording Secretary Kathleen Altman. A. APPROV AI. OF MINUTES FROJ\'1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON APRIL 6, 2005. . Commissioner Zimmcmlan moved, second cd by Commissioner Larson to approvc the April 6, 2005 minutes as amcndcd. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING CASE #05-10 - RAMSEY COUNTY, RAMSEY COUNTY & PARTNERS PUBLIC \-VORKS FACILITY AND SHERIFF STATION, 1425 PAUL KIRKWOLD DRIVE: SIGN STANDARD ADJUSTMENT (CONTINUED FROM 4/6/(5) Mr. Hellcgcrs stated applicants were requesting a Sign Standard Adjustment from the Signagc Ordinance critcria tt)r a frcestanding monumcnt sign. Hc notcd at the April 6lh Planning Commission mceting, the Commission rcviewed the originally proposed sign plans which were included in the PC packet, a slightly revised sign plan which was included in the PC packet, and wcre shown another potential design at the meeting. Thc applicant had now submittcd plans for the design, which wcre shown to the Planning Commission at their April 6lh meeting. The plans show a sign that was significantly shorter and longer but maintains thc same sizc of the signage. The reduction to the hcight of the sign allowcd thc proposed sign to meet that requirement, leaving the . maximum size of the sign as thc only variance; a variance of approximately 130 squarc feet. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 4, 2005 2 Chair Sand asked what staff had in mind for a smaller varianl:e. Mr. Hellegers showed a . mock up of what a smaller sign could look like. He noted in tenns of size, he believed it went back to the other signs they had in the City, such as the Cub sign, which was 100 squarc feet and the largest sign in the City at present. He statcd there nccdcd to be a definitive rcason to have a sign as large as being proposcd. Chair Sand opencd thc public hcaring at 7: 10 p.m. Chair Sand invited anyone for or against the Sign Standard Adjustment to comc ft)rward and make comment. Brucc Thompson, Assistant Dircctor of Property Management Ramsey County, stated Commissioner Bennctt cxpressed his regrets that he was unable to attcnd tonighfs meeting. He apologized ft)r coming to the last meeting with a revised signage plan and realizcd that showing a plan at the last minute, did not give the Commission an opportunity to revicw thc details of thc sign requcst. He stated thcre were three reasons they wanted the variance for thc overall sizc including it being in thc interest of thc partnership that they were requesting that specific size in order to include all of the partners they had on the sitc. He indicated thcy could meet thc sign ordinance by including Ramsey County Works and Sheriff Patrol only, but hc did not belicve that was in the best interest of the partnership. He statcd the Sheriff Dcpartment had requestcd a sign that identitied thcir Depm1ment from a great distancc. He notcd according to the Traffic Sign Institute, the lettcrs thcy had on thc sign was designcd to bc rcadable from . 350 fect at 45-50 mph. He indicated reducing thc sizc of the letters would causc vehicles to slow down to rcad thc sign, which could lcad to traffic problems and/or accidents. Commissioncr Zimmerman asked ft)r an explanation of the lighting. Mr. Thompson rcplied thc sign would be a boxed sign that had both intemal and extemal lettcring. He statcd thc largc letters would be lit intcmally on the sign at night. Chair Sand asked if they had considcrcd rcdesigning thc dcscriptions so the Sheriffs Department was lit at night. Mr. Thompson replicd the Sheriff Dcpartment would be lit up cxtemally. He indicated they were also considering adding the SheritYs star next to their namc. Chair Sand asked if the partnership consisted of the four major cntities or thc subdivisions as well. Mr. Thompson replied it includcd Ramsey County, the City of Ardcn Hills, Minnesota AnllY National Guard, and thc Moundsvicw School District. Chair Sand stated they could rcducc thc size of the sign if they got rid of all of thc subdivisions and only had the ftlUr major entities. Mr. Thompson replied they could do that, but it would not show thc Shcritrs Departmcnt in that case. Chair Sand asked if this sign would also show the recycling oil dumping area. Mr. Thompson replied thc sign would not show that area and nobody had approachcd them to . add additional signagc ft)r that facility. Commissioner Larson askcd if they had pcople inquiring whcrc their location was. Mr. Thompson rcplicd they had inquirics as to wherc thc Public Works and Sheriffs Depat1l11cnt werc located. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 4, 1005 3 . Commissioncr Larson noted therc was a rather obscurc addrcss on their building, which would make it ditlicult to find. Mr. Thompson statcd it was thc Board's dccision to name thc road Paul Kirkwold Drivc, but on their letterhead they gave the specific intersection. Commissioner Larson askcd if it.was important to the City to have the City's name on the sign. Councilmcmber Grant replied it was important that the City have thcir name on the sign so residcnts could find the maintcnancc facility. Commissioncr Modescttc noted thcrc werc cvcrgrccns planted in front of the sign and over time, thosc trces would block thc sign. She asked if that had been addressed. Mr. Thompson replied thcre werc a couple of trees that would nccd to bc movcd so they would not obscure the sign. He noted thc trccs would be moved closer to the pond. Chair Sand asked ifthc cun'ent sign being requestcd would rcquirc any grading of the site to provide a lcvel surfacc. Mr. Thompson rcplicd grading would need to be raiscd to street levcl. Chair Sand indicated hc was dismaycd at thc lack of creativity of the sign. J Ic notcd a sign that had the major partncrships, plus thc logos ncxt to the name as well as thc address at thc top of thc sign would bc a bcttcr sign. Commissioncr Modesettc suggested they shorten Minnesota to "MN" on thc sign. Mr. . Thompson rcplied thc Guard specifically wantcd Minnesota spelled out on the sign. Mr. Thompson notcd they did have the addresses on thc building and it was viewable from Highway 96. Commissioncr Zimmennan stated he would like to sec thc Ardcn Hills logo on the sign and he believed it would definitely "drcss up" thc sign, as well as adding the othcr logos. Chair Sand closcd the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Commissioner Larson movcd, scconded by Commissioner Bezdicek to recommcnd denial of Planning Casc No. 05- 1 n. Ramscy County, 1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive (Ramsey County Public Works and Shcrin'Station), Sign Variance on the basis that the sign is too large to mcct the criteria of the District and the sign could bc madc less massive to be brought into compliancc with thc sign District, or much closer to thc critcria of thc sign Disttict. Commissioncr Zimmemlan asked if Commissioner Larson was rcquiring applicant be in compliancc with the sign district. Commissioner Larson rcplicd hc belicvcd thc applicant could come in much closer, if not in compliancc with the District standards and noted evcryone else had bcen ablc to do that. . The motion carried unanimously (5-1) (Commissioner Zimmcrman). B. PLANNING CASE 05-14: CITY OF ADEN HILLS. 1245 WEST HIGHWAY 96~ VARIANCE FOR 1105 AMBLE DRIVE (LEXINGTON AVENlJE I MPROVEM ENTS) ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 4, 2005 4 . Mr. Hellegers stated applicant was requesting a lO-foot side yard setback to allow the existing home to remain compliant with City Code while allowing for the expansion of Lexington A venue, for the property locatcd at 1105 Amble Drivc in Arden Hills. Staff recommended approval of the request. Commissioncr Larson asked if the evergreen trees would need to be removed and if so, would the trees bc relocated. Mr. Hellegers replied whcn Ramsey County went in to widen the project, they would havc prcpared an assessment as to what was thcre and the property owners would be compensated for the loss ofthc trees. Chair Sand asked if the easement being taken by the County was an existing easement or was this additional property for highway purposes. Mr. Hellcgers replicd this was beyond the existing right-of-way and this was new casement becausc of the addition of the tum lane. Chair Sand asked what jurisdiction did the County have in taking this easement. Mr. Hellegers replied the County could condemn the property, but the County tried to work this out with the propcrty owncrs and compensate the owners for the loss. Chair Sand asked if the temporary easement was a construction easement. Mr. Hellegcrs rcplied that was correct. . Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Chair Sand invitcd anyone tor or against the variance to come forward and make comment. Greg and Jean Peterson, 1105 Amble Drive. Mr. Peterson stated he was concemed with this rcqucst. He notcd right now the road being proposed was going to be as wide as a freeway with two lanes running both north and south and thc ten feet of his additional easement would make another lane, as well as thc median and another tum lane on the south side of the street. Hc indicated this was tuming into a wide street and expressed concem about additional noise. He noted his large pine trees would be removed and not rcplaccd. He statcd this was a residential property and not a commercial property and they would be living very close to an extrcmely busy strect. He expressed concem about a decrcase in property value to his home by living on this busy street. Hc asked if all of thc utilitics wcre bcing movcd closer to his propcrty and if thosc casements would also move closcr to his propcrty. Commissioncr Modcscttc askcd if Mr. Pctcrson if had bccn given any infonnation as to what utility easement would be. Mr. Peterson respondcd he had not reccived much infonnation and he had not becn given a guarantee of any fencc or wall. Commissioncr Bczdicck asked if Mr. Petcrson had consummated his abJfecment with the . County. Mr. Peterson replied thcy had not and the County had not at this point given them sufficient details, but thc County had described the process. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION -- MAY 4, 2005 5 Commissioncr Bczdicek asked what the ramification ofthcir dccision would havc on Mr. . Pcterson's negotiations with Ramsey County. Mr. Peterson responded he believcd their decision would have somewhat of an impact on what would happen. Chair Sand asked to what extcnt thc Commission had the authority to do this. He notcd they did not have thc authority to deny this because the County had eminent domain authority. Mr. Clark rcsponded what was important was to makc sure the Commission scparated the issues that Mr. Peterson's remcdies werc an issue betwccn thc County and the propcrty owncr and what the City was doing was saying thcrc would bc an impact to thc property in the structure being non-conforming once thc road was widened and therefore, the Peterson's would nccd a variancc for thc non-conforming structurc, which would be helpful to both the Petersons and thc City. Commissioner Larson asked if granting thc variancc at this time was timely considering the negotiation was not complcte. He asked if this favorcd the County. Mr. Clark replicd all thcy wcrc rcmedying was one issuc, which was the non-conformity. Commissioner Larson asked if the variance was in place, did this aid thc County bccause thcrc was not the non-confomlity qucstion. Mr. Clark rcplied from his perspective, thc answer would be no because there was two issues - thc non-conformity and the negotiations thc County was having with Mr. Peterson. Commissioncr Zimmennan asked what brought this to the City's attention. Mr. Clark . responded staff had lookcd awhilc ago at what propertics were going to bc affected with this road reconstruction and staff wantcd to makc sure that thesc types of rcquests wcre all done at one time. He noted it was quitc common to look at these issues in advance of a road rcconstruction. Chair Sand asked if thc County had alrcady prcpared a survey. Mr. Clark replied they had. Chair Sand indicated thc only thing that had not been established was the amount of compcnsation to thc Petcrsons. Mr. Clark rcplied that was corrcct. Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. Commissioner Thompson moved, scconded by Commissioner Zimmerman to approve Planning Case No. 05-14, The City of Arden Hills, 1105 Amble Drive, Variance. The motion carricd unanimously (6-0). C. PLANNING CASE OS-OS: CITY OF ADEN HILLS. 1245 \VEST HIGH\V A Y 96~ REZONING THE OLD CITY HALL AND PUBLIC WORKS SITE (1440-1450 HIGHWAY 96) FROM R-l: SINGLE-FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL TO NB: NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS . Mr. He11egers stated applicant was requcsting rczoning the wcstcm portion of thc old City Hall/Public Works site from R-l: Single Family Rcsidential to NB: Ncighborhood Business. . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 4,2005 6 Staff recommcnded rezoning thc west 397.5 fect of the north 276.82 fect of the Northeast . Quartcr of the Northwest Quartcr of Scction 22 Township 30 Range 23 from R-l Single Family Residential to NB Ncighborhood Business. Chair Sand opencd the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. Chair Sand invitcd anyone for or against the rezoning to come forward and make comment. Grcg Rcdman, 1480 Ardcn Vicw Drive, reprcscnting Arden Hills Townhome Board, stated hc was reprcsenting thc association dircctly south of this proposal. He stated thc Board did not havc any specific objcction to thc rczoning, but thc Board did have somc concerns with the subscquent development proposal and reserved the Board's right to comment on that proposal. Chair Sand notcd thcy wcre rescrving comments as to how the propcrty was developcd, but they did not oppose thc rezoning. Mr. Redman rcplied that was correct. Gail Van Buskirk, 1390 Arden View Drive, stat cd shc was opposed to the zoning change because shc belicved the Comprehcnsive Plan was taking ovcr green spacc and making more industrial arca. She expressed concern that there were a lot of industrial arcas being put in thc City. She noted she was not opposed to residcntial homes or townhomes bcing put in this arca, but she did not want to see a ncighborhood busincss put in. Shc indicated . putting in a neighborhood busincss would bc a waste of this sitc. Chair Sand closed thc public hcaring at 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Larson moved, secondcd by Commissioncr Thompson, to approve Planning Case No. 05-05, the City of Arden Hills, 1245 Wcst Highway 96; Rezoning thc Old City Hall and Public Works Sitc (1440-1450 Highway 96) from R-l: Single Family Residential to NB: Ncighborhood Business. Commissioncr Bczdicek asked if this was consistcnt with the Comprchcnsive Plan. Mr. Ilellcgers responded it was. The motion carricd unanimously (6-0). D. PLANNINC CASE 05 12: ROYAL OAKS REALTY. 1000 COUNTY ROADE "rEST. SHOREVIE\V. MINNESOTA: ,'\'1l~..STER AND FIN1\L PUD AND PRELH\llNARY PLAT fOR OLD CITY HALl.. ,A..NDPUBLlC WORKS SITE ( 1440 1450 lUCHW,A..Y 96 Continued to thc June 1,2004 Planning Commissioncr meeting. UNFINISHED AND NE\V BUSINESS . None. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 4, 2005 7 REPORTS . A. Planning Commissioners Chair Sand noted he would not be present at the June 1, 2005 meeting. B. Staff Mr. Clark summarized the June items to come before the Commission. C. Council Member Council Member Grant updated the Commission on recent City Council actions. ADJOURNMENT Commi~sioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Larson to adjoum the meeting at 8:07 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). . . . 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 Zimmcnnan called the mccting to ordcr at 7:02 p.m. OATHOFOFHCE Mayor Aplikowski administcrcd the Oath of Office to David McClung. ROLL CALL Prcsent wcrc Commissioncrs Clayton Larson, Ken Bczdicek, Elizabcth Modcsette, Robcrta Thompson. David McClung, and Vice Chair Clayton Zimmerman. Absent: Chair Sand. Also present were Mayor Beverly Aplikowski, Councilmcmber Lois Rcm, Community Development Director, Scott Clark, City Planner Peter Hcllcgers, and Recording Secretary Kathlccn Altman. . A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON l\IA Y 4, 2005. Vice Chair Zimmerman requested the f()llowing changes: Page 1, last sentence, change 130 square feet to 130-square feet. Page 3, last paragraph delcte unanimously and add Commissioner Zimmerman opposcd. Page 4, last paragraph from the bottom, first sentence should read: Commissioner Modcsette asked if Mr. Pcterson had bcen givcn... Commissioncr Bczdicck moved, seconded by Commissioner Larson to approvc the May 4, 2005 minutes as amended. Thc motion caJTicd 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 Preliminarv Plat for SW corner of Highwav 96 and Round Lake Road Mr. Hellegers stated applicants wcre rcquesting a Master and Final PUD/Spccial Usc Pennit and Preliminary Plat for the development of the propcrty at thc southwest comer . of Highway 96 and Round Lake Road. Staff recommended approval based on the following conditions: ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION -JUNE 1,2005 2 1. Thc applicant shall submit revised plans, responsive to the commcnts from the . Plan Review Comments section of staff s report (14A), for review and approval by the City Planner, City Engineer, and City Building Oflicial, prior to issuance of building permits. 2. The applicant and their contractors shall work with the City Planncr and City Forester to save as many existing (and hcalthy) trees as possible in the areas designated as landscape space. 3. Rcviscd plans showing additional screenmg, preferably in thc form of coniferous trccs, along the north and southcast sides of the property to mect the screening requircmcnt of 60% opacity. 4. Wall and canopy signagc shall be reduccd to meet the City's rcquirements of 60 square fect and 25 square feet (pcr street facing canopy edge) respectively. 5. Thc height of the frecstanding monument sign shall be reduccd to 12 feet to bc compliant with the City's Signagc Ordinance. 6. The fueling canopy columns shall be treatcd with the same brick as the proposed building for design consistency and to more closely match the Gatcway Business District extcrior matcrial requiremcnts. . 7. Exccution of a PUD Permit/SUP Permit drafted by the City Attorney and approved hy thc City Council prior to the issuance of a Building Pennit. 8. Execution of a final plat prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 9. Thc applicant shall submit an application for a Final Plat review within six (6) months f<.)llowing City Council approval of the PUD and Preliminary Plat. 10. The applicant shall ohtain all necessary permits trom the Rice Creek Water Shed District and Ramsey County. Commissioner Thompson askcd if thcy had considcred moving thc gas tanks further away from thc water. Mr. Hellegers replied the applicant would be able to answer that question. Vicc Chair Zimmerman opened the public hearing at 7: I 0 p.m. Vicc Chair Zimmernlan invitcd the applicant to comc forward. Victor Sacco, Sr. Managcr of Real Estate for Holiday Companies Holiday Station Storcs, stated they had worked hard with City stafT on this site. He indicatcd they would be in compliancc with all of the conditions. With rcspect to thc gas tanks location, this was . designed for the transport truck to be able to delivcr product easily; and whcrc the cars would be entering and exiting thc sitc - so they put the tanks wcrc there was less traffic. Hc noted all tanks were state of the art equipmcnt and thcy cxcecded what was required by the State for underground storage. Hc noted any sign of Icaking or vapors, the system would shut down and thcy would go into their spill prcvention plan. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 1,2005 3 . Vice Chair Zimmcnnan askcd who was the govcrning body for undcrground tanks. Mr. Sacco replied it was the State Fire Marshal. Vice Chair Zimmcnnan askcd who rcgulated spillage. Mr. Sacco rcplicd there wcrc no regulations as to how close the tanks could be to a pond or water. Vicc Chair Zimmerman asked if they had built this particular model anywhere else in thc Twin Citics. Mr. Sacco rcplicd thcy wcre in thc proccss of building a facility in Blaine and they had cxisting facilitics in Hopkins and Shakopee. He noted this was their new look and they were adding additional brick as statf required. Commissioner Thompson asked if they had done any further evaluation ofthc size ofthc landscaping. Mr. Sacco replied they wcre going to work with thc forester to try and salvage some of the larger trees, but they have not had much luck in the past in salvaging large trees. Vil:e Chair Zimmerman invited anyonc t()r or against thc proposal to come forward and make comment. Mr. Clark statcd Mr. HclIcgcrs had received a voiccmail on May 31, 2005 from Jeannc Winiccki, 4471 Old Highway 10, stating they wcrc in favor of the Holiday servicc station at the comer of Highway 96 and Round Lake Boulevard. They believed it was an . appropriatc use t()r the location. Mr. Clark stated Mr. Hellegers had received an email datcd February 5, 2005 from Bob May, 1871 Todd Drive, Arden Hills, 651-330-6188 stating: "Unf0l1unatcly I will bc unable to attend the hearing tonight on project pctl05-04 but wish to make known my wncerns. If a service station!conveniencc store/car wash is built at the location indicated on the map, it will be directly across highway 96 from my home in Ardcn Manor mobile home park. I am very concerned about thc lights and noisc emanating from such a business. Is there any discussion to erect a sound barrier on the north side of highway 96 from 1-35W to highway 10 (or at least to thc entrancc into Arden Manor)? Also, would aCl:ess to the facility be directly from highway 96 or from Round Lake Boulevard, which would then funnel onto highway 96 at the traftic light? Thank you for giving me the opportunity to cxprcss my thoughts". Mr. Clark stated staff had reccived a handwritten note dated May 20, 2005 from Bill Stuart, 1676 Bracbery Lanc, stating: .'Looks good to me". Vice Chair Zimmerman closcd thc puhlic hearing 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; Mastcr and final PUO/SUP and Preliminary Plat f()r the SW . corner of Highway 96 and Round Lake Boulevard subject to the conditions as outlined in staff s J unc I, 2005 rcport. The motion catTied unanimously (6-0). ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 1,2005 4 Commissioner McClung moved, secondcd by Commissioner Modesette to find the . Planning Commission considered thc effect of thc proposed use of the health, safety, conveniencc and gcneral welfare of the owncrs and occupants of surrounding land, in particular, and the community as a whole, in gcncral, in eluding but not limited to thc following factors: existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions; noisc, glare, odors, vibration, smokc, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste, and other nuisancc charactcristics; drainage; population dcnsity; visual and land use compatibility with uses and structurcs on surrounding land; adjoining land values; park dcdications wherc applicable, and the ordcrly dcvelopment of thc neighborhood and the City within the general purpose and intcnt of this ordinance and the Comprehcnsive Development Plan for the City. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). B. PLANNING CASE 05-12: ROY AL OAKS REALTY. 1000 COUNTY ROAD E WEST. SHOREVIEW. MN; MASTER AND FINAL pun AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR OLD CITY HALL AND PUBLIC WORKS SITE (1440-1450 HIGHWAY 96). Mr. Hellegers stated applicant was requesting a Mastcr and Final PUD and Preliminary Plat for the redevelopment of the old City Hall/Public Works propcrty as a 7 building, 30 unit. officc condominium complex. Staffrccommended approval of the Master and final Planned Unit and Preliminary Plat subject to thc following conditions: . 1. The applicant shall submit rcviscd plans, rcsponsive to the commcnts from thc Plan Review Comments section of this report (l4A), for review and approval by the City Planner, City Enginecr, and City Building Official, prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Thc applicant and their contractors shall work with the City Planner and City Forestcr to save as many cxisting (and healthy) trccs as possible in thc areas designated as landscape space. 3. Thc applicant's timeline for developmcnt shall bc as follows: -Phase ]: Summer 2005 - The dcveloper may begin grading, installing utilitics, and construction of stann water improvcments. It is expectcd that construction on 3 buildings/16 units arc expcctcd to be rcady for occupancy by the spring of 2006. -Phase 2: Summer 2006 - The developer expects to begin construction on the remaining 4 buildings/14 units (prcsumably 1-14) with expected occupancy of these units by the Spring of2007. Extcnsions beyond 2007 shall requirc application to the City Council for revicw and approval. At the time of application for cxtensions, the City Council may include such conditions of approval as they detemline nccessary for compliance with City Code. . 4. 30 office condominium uses have becn proposcd for dcvelopment on individual lots. Only one business shall be pemlitted to occupy any onc lot within thc developmcnt. It is acceptable for onc business to occupy marc than one lot; howcver one business shall not occupy marc than six (6) units within the dcvelopment. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 1,2005 5 . 5. In the evcnt that retail uscs replacc the oftice uscs proposed for developmcnt, such retail uses as pcrmittcd through thc Ncighborhood Busincss District shall not occupy morc than 30% of the units in the proposed dcvclopment. The hours of such busincsses shall comply with Neighborhood Business District regulations for hours of operation. 6. Restaurants which arc listed as spccial uses for the Ncighborhood Business District shall rcquirc a Spccial Use Permit and shall bc rcquired to follow the standard public hcaring and Special Use PClmit process prior to occupying any space within the developmcnt. 7. Residcntial use shall not be allowed to occupy any of thc units in thc proposed dcvelopment. 8. The applicant shall submit a rcvised landscape plan tt-x review and approval by the City Planncr prior to the issuance of building permits. The rcvised landscape plan shall include a mixturc of coniferous and deciduous trees along the wcst buffer yard of the development. Thc mixture of landscaping shall adequately screen the developmcnt from the residential propertics to thc west. 9. A comprehcnsive sign plan shall be established to address signage within thc developmcnt and shall be included with thc Planned Unit Dcvelopmcnt document. . The comprehcnsivc sign plan will cstablish sign standards ttlr all signage within thc development. 10. Rcvised plans showing sidewalk conncctions, throughout thc dcvelopment and to the City and County trail systems, shall be submitted to thc City Planncr and City Engincer for rcview and approval prior to the issuance ofbuilding peOllits. 11. All mcchanical operating cquipmcnt shall bc screened to mcct City regulations. 12. A reviscd lighting plan shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to the issuance of building pcrmits. Such plan shall include any acccnt lighting on thc buildings and also shall meet the City requircmcnts for levels of illumination on adjoining rcsidential property. The applicant shall also fuOlish the City Planner with lighting cut sheets for lighting fixtures proposcd in thc development. 13. Decorativc paintcd fencing (like painted wrought iron fencing) shall be erected around thc pond at thc north cast comer of the property to protect pcdestrians from falling into the pond. 14. Execution of a PUD Pennit draftcd by thc City AttoOley and approved by thc City Council prior to thc issuancc of a Building Permit. . 15. Satistaction of the park dcdieation requirements as approvcd by the City Council. 16. The applicant shall submit an application fllr a Final plat within six (6) months following City Council approval of the PUD and Preliminary Plat. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 1,2005 6 . 17. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Rice Creek Water Shed District and Ramsey County. 18. The developcr shall work with the City when locating and replatting thc City trail so as to save as many ofthc existing trees in this arca as possiblc. 19. Thc developmcnt shall be of a Hardy-board lap style exterior with a brick base consistent with revised elevations which shall bc submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Pemlit. 20. The proposed canopies, similar to the style in the pictures presented to the Planning Commission at their June 1, 2005 mecting shall be includcd on the revised elevations whieh shall be submitted to the City fix revicw and approval prior to the issuance of a Building Pcrmit. 21. Revised plans shall denote the changc from a boulder style retaining wall to a versa- lock rctaining wall. 22. The building containing units 26-30 may be occupicd by only onc business; for this building the maximum wall signage may bc 60 squarc feet, in addition the southerly facing wall shall have no more than 30 squarc feet. The total square feet of signage f<-)r this building would not exceed 90 square fect. . Vice Chair Zimmerman inquircd about thc lot size. He asked when thcy had multiplc lots in a dcvelopmcnt, what were thc underlying zoning rcquirements. Mr. Hellegers rcplicd this parcel was a large piece of propel1y and as a part of the PUD it did allow them to havc flexibility to look at different configurations. Vice Chair Zimmemlan stated since these were otlice condominiums sold as individual parcels, then they had to go back to thc 13,000 square foot lot sizc, unless thcy chosc to vary fhnn that zoning rcquircment. Mr. llcllcgers replied he did not believe the intent was to have individual units of 13,000 square foot lot size. Vice Chair Zimmcrman exprcssed conccrn about density on a smaller piece of propcrty than they would nonnally have. Mr. Hellegers directed him to page 5 of stafrs 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 controllcd by the ordinance, or is it all materials, or did they make exception f<-)r a minor use of that material. Mr. Hcllegcrs rcplied at the time thcy 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 Commissioncrs to know what they were looking at. Ile notcd the design materials now being proposed were brick below the windows with hardy board above. . Vice Chair Zimmcnnan stated hardy board in his opinion was less desirable building material than stucco. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 1,2005 7 . Commissioncr Larson noted hardy board was a cemcnt board with a baked on finish and it was not a wood matcrial, so it would not nccd to be painted. Commissioner Bezdicek inquircd about thc driveway off of Highway 96. Mr. Hellegcrs replied thc applicant would put in a right turn lanc in the shouldcr and they would nccd to rcpaint that area to indicatc the turning lanc. Commissioner Bezdicek asked what was the expected use of thc scrvice road. Mr. Hellegers refcrrcd him to the traffic study and noted thc primary access would be f()r thosc going westbound on Highway 96 as well as those going north on Hamline Avcnuc. Commissioner Larson stated in order to proceed cast on Highway 96, they would nccd to use the Highway 96 cntranee and the only problem would be going wcst on Highway 96. Mr. Hcllegers replied morc oftcn than not in order to go west on Highway 96, they would need to make a "U" turn at the protected light at Hamlinc A venuc. Commissioncr Larson asked if the 50-f1)Ot turn radius was standard. Mr. Hellegers rcsponded applicant wantcd a 50-t()Ot turn radius, but he was not sure a 50-f()ot turn radius was possible because ofthc large power pole on the north side ofthc driveway. Mr. Clark notcd thc traftic study addressed that concern on page 15 of that rcport. Vicc Chair Zimmerman opened thc public hearing at 7:50 p.m. . Vice Chair Zimmennan invitcd applicant to makc comments. Mikc Black. Royal Oaks Rcalty, thanked staff for their work. He indicatcd they agreed with all of the conditions in staff s repOlt. He indicated there would be minor changes to the proposal, including the canopy. With rcspect to thc hardy board, this was an upgrade, which was more expensivc than thc stucco work. He notcd stucco was not an acceptable product in thc Ncighborhood Business district. He indicated thc hardy board had a baked on surface, which would go all of thc way up to the top of the window and they would only put the hardy board whcrc thc stucco is located on their elevations. He statcd bccause this was a PUD, thcy nccded to detcnnine if this fit into thc ncighborhood and location. He statcd they were platting this likc a townhouse where the individual business pcrson will purchase a unit and a lot, but thcy would also use lot 31 as common land, which included the parking and green space area. He indicatcd the lot size pcr unit was smaller than thcy had in the normal neighborhood business, but in common thcy werc below or within many of the standards. He noted the traftic cngineer had rcquested they open the radius as widc as possible. Hc stated thcy might bc able to shift the driveway a little to thc south, but thcrc was a problem with the large utility pole on thc north side of thc drivcway. He statcd the right-or-way along Highway 96 was widc enough to accommodate the right turn lane - it just needed to be striped. Vice Chair Zimmernlan inquircd about units 26-30 and thc potential of one tenant bcing . in the entire building. Mr. Black statcd this was a large local real estatc company that was looking to movc. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 1,2005 8 Vicc Chair Zimmcrnlan askcd if it was the intent to sell each individual office . condominium to individual businesses. Mr. Black replied that was correct, with thc exccption of units 26-30. Vice Chair Zimmernlan asked if thcy had established any association rules yet. Mr. Black replied they had not worked on thosc covenants yct, but thcy were very easy to put togcther. Hc statcd they were okay with including no subleasing into their restrictions. He stated thcy could eliminate rcstaurants in this development as they were not intending on putting in any rcstaurants. He also stated he was not sure there would bc any retail busincsses in this building. He noted they intcnded to market this to professionals such as accountants, attorneys, real cstatc developers, etc. Mr. Black indicated therc was one minor modification made on the south end of the developmcnt where the Rice Creek Watershcd was requiring them to not encroach upon thc wetland at all, so they needed to rcduce somc of the parking along the south line by eliminating four parking spaccs to address the Rice Creek Watershed's concern. Michael Spack, Traffic Data, Inc., stated he had met with the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer and thcy agrccd on the parameters of the study. He stated they had addrcssed the proposcd driveway on both Highway 96 and Hamline Avenue. Hc summarized parts of his report for the Commission. Commissioner Bczdicck asked how people going north on Hamline A venue would get . into traffic. Mr. Spack replied thcy would need to sit in traffic at the stop light and therc would be gaps in traffic to gct onto Hamline A venue. Commissioncr Bczdicek asked how many parking spaces wcre thcre in this developmcnt. Commissioner Larson noted there werc 306 parking spaces. Mr. Spack stated the County Traffic Engineer also believed that thc traffic numbers would actually go down with the improvemcnt of Lexington Avenue this summcr. Vice Chair Zimmcrman invited anyone for or against thc variance to come forward and makc comment. Audrcy Guttersen, 1389 Arden View Drive, (by lcttcr) statcd: "I am writing in regards to concerns I have for thc proposed office park. I will be in MI on Junc I so won"t be able to attend thc hcaring on June 1. I am the owner of ] 389 Arden Vicw Drive. My unit is one of two closest to the proposcd PUD. I have several concerns about the planncd lighting: The lighting pedestal closest to Lot 20 is very close to my rcsidencc and the illumination would be annoying. Is that light necessary for your adcquatc illumination? I am also concerncd about thc removal of trces from AHNA common land on the south . boundary of the proposcd office park. My rcsidence now is a beautiful wooded lot and abounding with wildlife - deer, wild turkeys, ducks, f()x, and birds. I would like you to investigate building a berm along the southernmost boundary next to the proposcd road and have well establishcd trees planted on this bcnn. This would ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 1,2005 9 improve the background appearance of the office park in addition to allowing AHNA to . retain its wooded appcarance. Thank you for your consideration'" Elwood F. Caldwell. 1451 Arden Vicw Drive, stated "The Arden Hills North Homes Association, which reprcsents the owners of thc 140 townhomes directly south of and adjacent to the proposed developmcnt, stands by its comments addressing to Planning Commission mcmbers dated May 24, 2005 and attached with other appcndices to the staff memorandum dated June L 2005 by Peter Hellegers, City Planner. The additional comments below apply tirst to the 17 spccific conditions upon which thc staWs recommendation is contingcnt, and then to other section of the mcmorandum. At thc outset, many of the 17 conditions dcal with the technical details of implementing a complcx projcct, for which the stall is to be commcnded, and which call for no special comment from us, as intcrcsted as we arc in the projcct. This applics to Nos. 1 -3, X, 10, 11, and 13-17. Our comments on thc other conditions arc as follows: No.4: Uscs proposed tc.)r thc development. We agrce that only one busincss should bc permitted to occupy anyone lot, but do not find it acceptable that onc business may occupy as many as six lots. Although office uses . arc currcntly proposed, NB zoning includes clinics, a host of rctail uscs (specifically 33 arc namcd in thc ordinance), and restaurants with a Spccial Use Pcrmit. The staff analysis on page 4 states "If ... the Planning Commission did not want a retail use, which is otherwise pennittcd in the NB district, a condition should be addcd to the PUD documcnt. .. W c strongly advocatc the addition of such a condition, applicable to retail and restaurants. A retail business owning as many as six or even thrcc units could occupy an entirc building. Morcover, it is possible, indced likely, that individual owncrs may attempt to sublease a part of thcir spacc to another busincss, especially with the eleven walkout units having separatc lower cntranccs. We strongly oppose this and urgc the Planning Commission to do the same. Notc on page 5 it says "If thc desire of the Planning Commission is to maintain thc units as one user pcr unit, then a conditions should be added to the PUD document to that etTcct'" 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 wc oppose any replacement of office use by retail, we regard this condition as irrelevant. Under it, and if the acceptability of a busincss 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 bc onc rctail business. . No.6: Points out that restaurants could occupy space within thc dcvelopment with a Spccial Usc Permit. As with No.5 abovc, if retail and restaurant uses arc prohibited by a provision in the PUD document, as wc advocatc, this condition is ilTclcvant. 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 tor 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 foml of an upright panel about 3 x 5 with a light over it or the horizontal elongated "optional" panels ahout 2 x 10 shown on the building elevation sheet. A very similar development in Lakeville hy the same company with substantially identical building elevations uses much more discrete wall signs, per the photographs we have submitted. If this works in Lakeville, it can work in Arden Hills. We strongly recommend that the Planning Commission specity that type and size of all sign (only) only for this development. Notwithstanding the staffs interpretation of how the square t()Otage of the tree standing entrance monument sign would he calculated, ifs the 30 wall signs and not the entrance sign that represent our concem. No. 12: Recommend submission ora revised lighting plan. As stated in our previous submission, we recommend elimination of the light pole and the southenunost three or more parking stalls adjacent to lot 20, which is the closest to residences at 1389 and 1390 Arden View Drive. As pointed out on page 12, the lighting . proposed along the south houndary of the development is in excess of requirements tor adjoining residential property. Comments on sections of the memorandum other than the 17 specific conditions: I) Access. As pointed out in the Plan Review Comments under item "0" on page 13, and notwithstanding the equivocal approval implied in the traffic study, access to the development from Hamline A venue will be prohlematie and will contribute 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 15 of Attachment 4b-3, the TratTic Impact Report, to ''Construct larger than required radius (50 foot radius iffeasiblc) on the northwest and southwest comers of the Hamline A venue/Karth Lake Circle/Site Access intersection to improve tranic t10w in and out of the site." No such radiuses arc 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 plat to show such radiuses and that they be constructed. 2) Landscape lot area. In our May 24 comments under "Drainage:' we questioned the applicanf s claim of "40.3% open space" and requested professional eonfimlation. As indicated in item . 4A on page 13, staff has calculated the landscape lot area to be closer to 33(Yo, about 5,000 square feet helow 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 teet in area. Replacement of 15 parking spaces in three areas selected by statI' but not specifically identified would increase landscape lot area to at least 35%, still well below the ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION-- JUNE 1,2005 1 I claimed 40'X,. If this is done, our identification of parking spaces adjacent to Lot 20 . and closest to residcnees on Arden View Drive for removal should be included in the number. 3) Other recommendation. In several cases other than idcntified above, staff has recommended inclusion of conditions in the PUD document that mayor may not be included in the 17 specitic 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 trces (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 housc 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 hc 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 fclt betrayed hy the City. He expressed concem about the number of buildings and he felt it would be an invasion of his privacy. He exprcssed concem about the lighting and the efteet 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 tor this pat1icular area and he requestcd they cnsure that the people that lived on Keithson Drive that there would be . proper steps taken prohibiting any retail or restaurants from commg into the development. He expressed concem 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, 1390 Arden View Drive, outlined negative impacts not considered: Need for an additional otlice building in Arden Hills is not justitied in proposal or marketing study. Is there a real market need f()r more otlice space in Arden Hills? Will poor tratlie 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 tor loss of property values and quality of life of surrounding residential properties not taken into account in the hig economic picture. She asked the Planning Commission to look at the bigger dctails in their decision tonight. She proposed they erect an 8 to 10 foot high benll along the southem 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 15 parking spaces; adds attractive setting to development; consistent with herm on east em border of development; utilizes surplus soil ti-om grading; no soil removal; eliminates retaining walls and their maintenance: promotes good water drainage with proper sloping; retains rolling hill appearancc of Highway 96 developments; contributes to screening requirements of 60% opacity year-round without using fences. Advantages for Homeowners: Conceals pm1ial view of developmcnt and Highway 96; tempers the sounds from parking lot and Highway 96: provides consistent landscaping with existing . townhouse herms; reduces some loss of property values; prevents nuisance headlight glare from parking lot and south drivc. She noted "'good bemls make good neighbors". Mike Giel, 4534 Keithson Drive, statcd he had lived in his home f()r 15 years and he was not opposed to an acceptable development of this area, but exprcssed concem for the ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 1, 2005 12 safety with respect to traffic for the residents on Keithson Drive and the townhomes. He . expressed concem about having two "u" turns in this area. He noted this was not only dangerous, but it was a major imposition tor 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 concem and he did not understand why the County would accept a "u" turn on Hamline and then another "U" tum up the road. He noted Mounds View High School used this area as a major thoroughfare to getting to school. He statcd 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 facc 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 trom the neighborhood so it did not disturb the quality of neighborhood life. He expressed concem about the pedestrian trail to the west of the property and that it not take . the appearance of an alley way. He indicated they used the trail at least twice a day. He expressed concern about the tenced in trash dumpstcr and the brick wall of the westernmost units of the development, which was 10 fect from the edge of the t()ot trail. He suggested a benll along the western side. He requested the trash dumpster be located somewhere other than the westem 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 A venue North, stated she lived one block south of Highway 96 and had lived in her home f(lr seven years. 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 hy the traffic. She expressed concem about the safety of the kids that were waiting at the bus stops. She also expressed concem about the speed the County SheritTuses on Hamline Avenue. James Pinckney, 1425 Arden View Drive, stated there appeared to bc tour areas of non- compliance in this development, and he did not see any variances from the developer. He asked for justification from the developcr as to these non-compliances. He asked if the developcr had look cd at all of the possibilities for landscaping. 11c expressed concern about the traffic study and the potential future and existing traffic problcms. He stated traffic from the TCAAP project was just starting to build and he believcd Guidant was less than half way into their expansion and hiring tor 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 he an increase in traffic in the City in the next five years, but he was conccmed they were not addressing two major projects that added to the traffic right now (TCAAP and Guidant). Jim Clark, 452X Keithson Drive, expressed conccm ahout the traffic. He asked them to . take into consideration the winter months and the hlind spot on the road. Hc helieved therc would be an increasc in traffic accidcnts in the area with this development. He stated he liked the nice, low protile of the buildings on the north side of Highway 96 off of Hamline and suggested they have low protilc buildings in this development also. He noted in the future he believed Hamline would be generating considerable more traffic ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE l, 2005 13 . once the TCAAP area was dcveloped. He also expressed concem ahout his propcrty value decreasing. He believed the development would look better and tit in better where the shopping center was located up on Highway 96. Jan Cather Weavcr, 1435 Arden View Drive, stated she would also likc a herm as previously suggested. She exprcssed concem rcgarding the landscaping on the front side of Highway 96. She asked how the buildings would be landscaped so thcy did not look like a shopping mall or rental units with all of the asphalt. She expressed concem 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 takcn into consideration the increase of trattic in the next tive to ten years. She expressed concern that Arden View Com1 would be used as a "u" tUlll. She stated she bought her home because it was a quiet neighborhood and expressed conCClll about the human ecology of Arden View Drive and Arden Hills. Mike Black stated with respect to traffic, they had a report fi'om a professional engineer trained in traffic and there was a very detailed report done tor this area. He stated based on this zoning, land use and development, the tratlic heing generated from this project would not have a significant impact to the traffic. He indicated during high traffic times, people would seck the easiest way in and out so there might be an occasional "U" tum. He stated this was no different than anywhere somebody went. lIe suggested the City have their engineer review the report. He noted the study had also becn reviewed by the . Ramsey County Engincer, 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 thcre today and providing a second way of ingress and egress was a must to make this development a viahle project. He stated it was better to provide for disbursement of traHic rather than having one access point and he did not believe they could get the County's pernlission to cut an access into Highway 96. He noted witJi the benn, thcy would need a minimum of 70 teet, which was not possible unless the residents wanted pm1 of the berm on their property. He indicated they could look at a slight benn, but he was not sure it would work and thcre was a concem with proper drainage also. He suggested they walk along the huffer 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 property values and in fact, helievcd the property values would rise. He noted this was a high end, quality office development and the value of this development would increase the property values in the area. He stated they wcre 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 the walkway along the westerly edge, they would look at that area and attempt to provide some curves in that walkway with additional landscaping, noting they were limited in space. With respect to the dumpster location, all of the dumpsters would be bricked and roofed with a wood gated front. Those dumpsters would bc small accessory huildings that would be visually pleasing. He stated ir they could tind another location, they would work with staff on . that. With respeet to quality of life, he helieved one reason they were here tonight was because they recognized the quality of life in this area and they saw a strong market tor this type of a development. He statcd they have had a trcmendous amount of calls rcgarding this developmCllt and knew that this developmcnt was going to be successful. He indicated with any development, the wildlite and neighborhood would be disturbed, ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION -- JUNE 1,2005 14 but this area was ideal tor this type or 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 trom the ordinances. He notcd they had 40 perccnt open space and he helieved they wcre wcll 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 thcy were willing to accept all of the conditions noted in statTs report. Vice Chair Zimmerman asked about unit tumover. Mr. Black statcd these units would be handled the exact same way as a townhome association would handle vacant units and the maintenance would be an ongoing rcsponsibility of the association. Commissioner Bczdicek asked if they had completed a feasihility study. Mr. Black replied their teasibility study was their experience and being ahle to successfully build and close these types of developments, as well as a tremendous amount or phone calls they had received. He noted they would complete this project in two years. Commissioner Bezdicek asked if they would have a cel1ain 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 thcy were eontident that they would procecd with the tirst phase and did not see any reason why they would not start the second phase. He stated they have had 10 units that have already heen asked about. . Commissioner Larson asked if thcre would be any multi-tenant units. Mr. Black replicd therc would be no multi-tenant units and they were not proposing that typc of a sct up. Mr. Caldwell rcquested they not adopt this tonight unless they wcre going to inelude the provisions in the PUD document they were recommending. Vice Chair Zimmerman closed thc public hearing comment at 9:32 p.m. Commissioner Zimmerman statcd he believed with the additional tive rccommcndations given tonight by staff and the comments made hy at this puhlic hearing, this needed to be tabled for fm1her evaluation. Hc indicated he had studicd this t()r a couplc of days and there were a lot of things brought torward tonight that had not becn considered and by tahling this would give everyone a bctter chance to understand how this project worked. Commissioner McClung concuned with thosc comments. He stated he lived in this part of the City and the traffic has suhstantially changed in the past tew ycars. He helicved they had some serious traffic challenges that necded to be looked at. He ex pressed conccrn ahout the trail and having ten feet hetween the huilding and the edge of the trail was not user friendly. lie suggcsted they provide more dcpth hetwecn the trail and the building. He stated he was not comt'()11able approving this tonight due to the additional conditions given by staff tonight as well as the commcnts received by the public. . Mr. Clark stated they could continue this to the July 6 mecting and thcn turn this around to the July 11 City Council meeting. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 1,2005 15 Commissioner Bezdicek moved, seconded hy Commissioner McClung, to table the . public hearing on Planning Case No. 05-]2 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 buck to the original July 6, 2005 meeting date. The motion catTied unanimously (6-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. REPORTS A. Planning Commissionc."s Commissioncr 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 reccnt City Council actions. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Bezdicek moved, seconded hy Commissioner Larson to adjoulll thc mecting at 10:00 p.m. The motion curried unanimously (6-0). . , . ~ . ~~HILLS CITY OF ARDEN lULLS. MIl\'l\ESOT A JOINT :\lEETING OF THE P ARKS. TRAILS AND RECREATION COl\'lMITTEE AND THE PLANNING COMl\llSSION TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2005 7:00 P.M. CUl\:lMINGS PARK RECREATIONAL FACILITY 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Henry called the July 2(>, 2005 joint mecting of the Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee and Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: PTRC: Chair Bill Henry; Committee Members Lal1ny Baumann, Jim Crasswellcr, Derrek Hames, Dave McClung, Rich Straumanll, Joani Wemer, Cindy Wheeler, Roger Williams and Steve Zilmer. Planning Commission: Chair Dave Sand; Vice Chair Clayton Zimmerman; Planning Commission Members Clay Larson, Elizabeth Modesettc, Roberta Thompson and Dave :vlcCI ung. . OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Moore, Operations and Maintenance Director; Michelle Olson, Parks and Recreation Supcrvisor; Scott Clark, Community Development Director; Peter Hel1cgcrs, City Planner; Grcg Brown, City Engineer; and Bonita Sullivan, Recording Secretary. MEMBERS NOT PRESENT: APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agcnda was approved by conscnsus. 2. APPROV AL OF MINUTES . Approve .T une 28, 2005 Minutes. MOTION: The Committee approved the June 28, 2005 minutes as presentcd by consensus. Thc motion carried unanimously. 3 PRIORITIES Chair Henry stated that the PTRC is cUlTently working to develop a missiol1 statcment and a list of project priorities tor the City parks and open spaccs that would be based on the Committee's . suggestions and recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan. He further explained that the PTRC is trying to create a vision and a process for the Committee to bring issues forward to P ARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATIOO\i COMMITTEE MEETING JULY 26, 2005 Page 2 of7 . Council for consideration. He stated that the Committee would like to jointly discuss ideas on how to stimulate funding while developing trail conncctions in various pm1s of thc City. He stated that the Committee is working through the pieces, noting that there is a need to get the big picture and then work to determine how to improve what is already there. He stated that the PTRC, as a Committee, is intercstcd in learning what the Planning Commission's priorities are and see how it works together with thc PTRC goals. Commissioner Sand stated that the Planning Commission is intcrestcd in knowing what the PTRC priorities are and what the Committee would recommend with respect to maintaining what the City alrcady has. Mr. Moore reviewed the trail maintenance process stating that thcy are starting to maintain the trails the same way they do for City strcets. He explained that the maintenancc process is done on an annual hasis noting that the trails are crack-scaled annually and next year scal-coating tor the trails would be included as a budgeted item. He referenced thc signage noting that staff would have samples of the new design for trail signs available for review noting that the signs would he similar, in design, to the cxisting park signs. He indicated that the signs would be installed in September. Chair Henry asked the Planning Commissioners to review their prioritics for the City of Arden Hills. . Commissioner Zimmerman stated that the Planning Commission is moving towards a more proactive process in how the City reacts to various requests and reviewed with the Committee. Commissioner Sand contirmed noting that the Commission has been working through some of the major City projects with the Economic Development Authority. He stated that much of their work is hased on reaction to development requests adding that the Commission has been discussing the idea of updating the dcsign guidelines and standards for PUD projects. He stated that the guidelines currently list cel1ain types of materials noting that stucco-type products are not included in the current guidelines. He refcrenced TCAAP stating that one of their recommendations is to hire a consultant to assist thc City in detennining and updating the design guidelines. Community Development Director Clark concUlTed noting that the City still has a 20-pcrcent vision plan that would rcquire further clarification of spccifications and would involve coming to an agreement on housing densities, infrastructure, and traffic impacts. He stated that each would have a redevelopment design guideline attached and rcviewcd. Chair Henry asked if there is a master plan that the Planning Conmlission works from. Commissioner Sand stated that the Planning Commission works with wbat is outlined within the Comprehensive Plan. . Community Development Director Clark stated that one of the bigger issues for the City is development in and of itself, in terms of acceptance within the community. He stated that when . PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETl:\G JULY 26, 2005 Page 3 of7 . looking to the future there is a need to come to somc type of 'value' understanding in terms of how the City would deal with development projects. Commissioner Sand agreed stating that the City of Arden Hills is somewhat divided in its population where a portion of the population wants Arden Hills to remain nIral and a portion of the population would like to have more modemization and amcnities provided. He stated that the City has housing and operating needs noting that there is an opp0l1unity here to bctter educate the Community as the City works through this proccss. Commissioner Thompson agreed stating that there is a real need to determine what the vision is for the City of Arden Hills. She explained that by not having a clear vision of what the City wants for its' future creates a form of competition between those who want the area to remain rural and those who would like to see some amenities brought into the City. She stated that having a clear vision would help to give a better understanding of what is happening within the residential and commercial communities of Arden Hills. Committee Mcmber Hamcs suggestcd that Planning Commission review the City's track rccord on various developments and the rcactions of the community to that development as a part ofthc process for developing guidelines and standards. Commissioner Zimmerman clarified the Planning Commission's basic responsibilities noting (\ that it is the Commission's rcsponsibility to review new development proposals and requests to ensure that they rollow thc guidelines outlined within the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Henry asked what the Planning Commission's vision is tor the Parks and Trails north of Highway 96. Community Development Director Clark explained that this would be part of the 20-percent noting that the plan is clear that the main trail, internal to the TCAAP area, would go along and conncct to Rice Creek corridqf. He stated that in rcvie\ving this trail both the PTRC and the Planning Commission would havc to determine whcre to connect this trail in the south areas of the City. He stated that the City has to review and update the Comprehensive Plan noting that the changes are due to the Metropolitan Council by 2008. He suggested incorporating all of these items into the Comprehensive Plan noting that this would give them the ability to tie some of these items together for a better overall vision and plan. Commissioner Sand commended the PTRC for park and trail signage noting that this is the best thing that has happened for the Parks in over ten years. Hc referenced the TCAAP property and urged the Committee to really listen to the residents of Arden Hills as they start the process of planning for this area. He stated that the City, the Commissions and Committees should listen to thc needs of the people who live and work in this area before they hear the needs of groups outside of Arden Hills. Committee Member Williams agreed and proposed a closer relationship hetween the Planning (' Commission and PTRC as they move closer to the planning process for the TCAAP property. PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING JlIL Y 26, 2005 Page 4 of7 . Community Development Director Clark indicated that the Economic Development Commission is ClllTently discussing the TCAAP area noting that ultimately the area would have to be renamed. He stated that discussions would soon begin to discuss the marketing and promotion of the area. He stated that this process would be done in stages with the first being how to promote name recognition for the City of Arden Hills and secondly detennine the name for the development. He stated that the sports facility concept is one of the big issues that would be discussed noting that it has always been very clear that the City of Arden Hills is not going to purchasc the property. He stated that currently the discussions have been very gcneral in nature adding that the initial discussion is planned for the Septemher City Council work session and encouraged both groups to attend the work session and listen to the discussion. City Planncr Hellegers invited the PTRC to participate in the annual Planning Commission bus tour. He stated that he would forward an email to each of the Committee Members that would include the datcs, times, and subjects of the tours. 4. OTHER ITEMS A. Highway 10 Bridge City Engineer Brown statcd that he has prepared a budget view to determine the feasihility of what a trail placed under the CP Rail Bridge would cost. He indicated that this has bccn a . concern for several ycars and recently came up in a discussion with the Council as a part of the ongoing County Road E discussion. He explained that he contacted the County and CP Railroad to discuss the bridge and the finances. He indicated that the proposed trail was approved as long as it did not impact the bridge. He stated that thcy did a quick structural review of the bridge abutment and pier and determined that they could install a trail six to eight foot trail between thc abutment and pier. He indicated that CP reviewed the proposal approximately one month ago and came back to the City stating that the trail looked feasible and that they were comfol1able with the possibility of adding the trail. He stated that the rough cost estimate is approximately $130,000, plus an additional $100,000 for a path to the wetlands area for a total minimum cost of $230,000. He indicated that he spoke with Mr. Moorc and Ms. Olson regarding the costs and it was detennined that the next logical step would be to detel111ine the budgct and whether it would be viable to run the trail up to County Road E and the Vento crosswalk. He stated that the Master Plan does include a trail that would go all the way up to Highway 96 adding that there is talk of pushing this project out to 2007. He noted that the roadway up to and north of the railroad bridge is already curb and guttered, which would require minimal grading with a two- toot buffer strip. He stated that the City's tirst interest was to present an option tor a crossing over the bridge and then shoot for a County Road E or a Highway 96 conncction. He noted that Highway 96 is a regional trail and it is their hope that thcre would be some f0I111 of connection with County Road E. He reviewed the State funding process and trail size with the Committee and Planning Commission. He indicated that an 8-foot trail would be an acceptable width that would allow multiple uses and would include a few additional restrictions on clear zones and safety zones. Hc stated that this could add some additional costs to the project noting that it would be matched with State aid funding. He asked the PTRC to review the proposal and . provide the Planning Commission with their feedback. PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATIOi\' COMMITTEE MEETING JULY 26, 2005 Page 5 of7 . Committee Member Hames asked if anyone has looked at the pattern of use noting that both Bethel and the High School utilize the east side both ways. He explained that traditionally people who use this area tend to cross at County Road E2 and sometimes at Valentine, which is a pretty dangcrous traffic area that extends from the Railroad Bridge. He noted that County Road E2 is congested pretty much all day and expressed conCClllS about the safety of the residents. City Engineer Brown stated that if the trail is curbed or protected by a bulTer the site line and safety issues should go away. Committee Member Hames askcd if there would be any liability issucs with Bethel. City Engineer Brown clarified that the road is a County road and that Ramsey County would carry the liability. Commissioncr Thompson asked if there has heen any discussion with Bethcl College as to how the crosswalk is used. She suggested considering a pedestrian cross bridge. Ms. Olson noted that the pedestrian cross bridge was considered as an option through City Council and reviewed. City Engineer Brown clarified that Ms. Olson and City Administrator Wolfe arc looking for budget recommendations noting that County roads are eligihle for state funding and could be matched. . Committee Membcr McClung stated that this is an important connector adding that if there is a way to possibly do something along Snelling up to County Road E where the City would have connections east/west and north/south then the City would be tied together and they could then move forward to try to connect into the regional trail system. He stated that this should be designated a high priority item and that the PTRC should continue to push for the trail connections. Chair Hemy asked what would happcn to Highway 10 south of Highway 96. City Engineer Brown cxplained that Highway 10 would go over the top and Old Highway 10 would intersect with the existing frontage road. He further explained that it would then become a four-way interscction onto Highway 96 and that it would maintain a contiguous four-Ianc intersection. Hc indicated that there is approximately 30 to 40 feet of right-of-way along this area and reviewcd. Chair Henry asked ifthere would be an entrance into the TCAAP area at Highway 96. Community Development Director Clark stated that the entrance would come across from North Heights Lutheran and the other location would be an overpass on Highway 10, or west of Highway 10 and Highway 96. Committee Member Williams noted the possibilities and asked what the next t> would be to keep this proposal moving forward. City Engineer Brown indicated that the City could reasonahly ask for the CP Railroad passage . and then try to build something that would connect to Highway 96. He noted that one of the problems with going beyond this point is due to the rural nature of the area beyond this point. . PARKS. TRAILS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING TIjL Y 26, 2005 Page 6 0[7 . He noted that if the road is urhanized they could bring in curbing as a banier versus a ditch and reviewed. He stated that if they do a curh the drainage issues would also have to be address noting that this could all be packaged into one request for T21. He urged the PTRC to communicate their ideas and suggestions to the City. Community Development Director Clark noted that the PTRC should take some form of action this evening if they want to get something in front of Council for consideration, as the Council plans to discuss this item at their first meeting in August. City Engineer Brown askcd ifit is key for the trail to be 8-fcet or 6-feet. Chair Henry stated that if they are going to do the trail they should do it at 8-feet. Commissioner Zimmennan suggested putting together a packet that identifies each priority within the project and its associated costs. He explained that this would providc an avenue to include everything they want adding that it could end up that all or a portion of the project would be approved. Commissioner Sand clarified with City Engineer Brown that his figures are assuming an either/or option. City Engineer Brown contirmed and suggested that they either decidc to do one side at a time or do both sides at the same time. . Chair Henry asked City Engineer Brown if it would make more sense to focus on one side first. City Engineer Brown stated that either way, the project would bc expensive. He stated that he is leaning towards thc decision to pick one spot, near County Road E2, design a connection that is as safe as possible and them move south. Motion by Committee Member McClung, Second by Committee Memher Zilmer, to recommend, as high priority, that the City Council investigate a trail from County Road E through the Bridge to Highway 96 and to direct staff to detennine funding options. Motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commissioners agreed with and supp0l1s the recommendation and motion made by the PTRC. B. Gateway Signs Mr. Moore stated that the Council has directed Staff to come up with designs for the Gateway signage. He stated that hc has three design options for the Committee to review. Committee Member Hames stated that the City Council has approved one location for the gateway sign at County Road D and Cleveland. He explained that the sign couldn't be larger than four feet. He reviewed each option with the Committee noting that all utilize the Kasota stone in various ways. He noted that the examples are drawn to scale adding that Option 2 mcets all of the requirements for the gateway sign. He explained that the width of the sign could vary . depending on the proportions noting that the design they choose would be used at all locations. He revicwed the materials noting that all signs would be a colored cement or stucco finish with PARKS, TRAILS Ai\D RECREATIO:\' COMYiITTEE MEETING JUL Y 26, 2005 Page 7 of7 . green lettering adding that Option 2 would fit the best, especially with the County Road D and Cleveland restrictions. The Committee took a simple vote to dete1111ine each option and determined that Option 2 would fit the best and recommended moving forward with Option 2. Commissioner Sand asked if the signs would be lit. Committee Member Hames explained that the signs would have ground lighting that would sit at a 45-degree angle from ground level. The Committee agrced, by consensus, to recommend approval of Option 2 as the sign design for the Gateway Signs. Motion calTied unanimously. 9. NEXT MEETING AGENDA None. 10. ADJOURNMENT The Committee agreed, by consenSllS, to adjourn the meeting 9:06 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. . Respectfully submitted, Bonita Sullivan TimeSaver OJ{'Site Secretarial. Inc. . . ~ . --A~HILLS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES \VEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 7:00P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER Chair Sand callcd thc mceting to order at 7:08 p.m. ROLL CALL Prescnt were Commissioners Clayton Larson, Ken Bczdicek, Clayton Zimmenllan, Roberta Thompson, David McClung, and Chair David Sand. Absent: Commissioncr Elizabcth Modesettc. Also prescnt were Mayor Beverly Aplikowski; Councilmember David Grant, City Planner Peter Hellegers, and Recording Sccretary Kathleen Altman. . A. APPROV AI, OF MINUTES FRO 1\:1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 7. 2005. Commissioner McClung requested the following change: Page 2, paragraph 4 to read: "Commissioncr McClung suggcsted that the Planning Commission discuss amending the city zoning code at some future point so that issues such as this can bc approvcd administratively instead of having to come to the Planning Commission and Council." Commissioner Zimmcrman moved, seconded by Commissioner Thompson to approve the August 3, 2005 minutes as amended. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING CASE #05-19 - RICHARD KOTOSKJ AND KI1VI BRYSON D/B/A BRYSON \VOODS. 2233 DELL \VOOD STREET. ROSEVILLE. l\lN; PRELll\'lINARY PLAT (t 978 THOM DRIVE) Mr. Rellegers stated applicants were requesting a preliminary plat. He indicated the applicant is proposing to suhdivide the existing lot at 1978 Thom Drive, originally platted as Lot #20 under the Rohleder's 1 [omc and Garden Acres Plat of 1938, into three single . family lots. All of the proposed lots would meet the minimum area tor lots in the R-2: Single and Two Family Residential Zoning District. Staff recommcnded approval of the Preliminary Plat alter making a finding that the proposed variances arc not merely inconvcniences, the conditions upon which the variances arc based arc uniquc to thc ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 7,2005 ') . property, and the variances will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfarc and are in concc11 with City regulations; subject to the following conditions: 1. Recording with Ramsey County. The applicant shall file the Final Plat with the Ramsey County Recorder and shall provide the City with a recorded copy. 2. Compliance with City Code. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City Code and related ordinances. 3. Park Dedication. Satisfaction of thc park dedication requiremcnt as proposed by the City Council. 4. Necessary Approvals from Other Agencies. Thc applicant shall obtain all necessary permits [rom thc Rice Creek Watershed District, Ramsey County, the State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and any other governing agencies where applicable. Mr. Hellegers also recommended a condition #5 stating that the existing structurcs shall bc removed prior to the issuance ofhuilding pcrmits for new construction. Commissioner Larson asked if the zoning code required a minimal buildable area. Mr. Hellegers replied it called for minimulll lot sized, but not minimal buildable area. Commissioner Larson asked if the applicant has provided a layout as to whethcr thc house would tit on Lot 1. Mr. Helkgers presentcd applicant's proposal. . Commissioncr Larson stated he would not look favorably in the future variances to construct a homc on this lot becausc it was an odd shaped buildable area with a lot of easements. Commissioner Zimmcrman asked if there had been any eflort to calculatc the square footage on these three lots. He noted Lot 3 was already a wetland and if Lots 1 and 2 were huilt on, that would make Lot 3 even wetter. Chair Sand asked what the sideyard setback requirement was. Mr. Hellegers replied it was five feet. Commissioner Larson asked if habitable space can go up to six feet in R-2. Mr. Hellegers replied that was correct. Chair Sand asked if anyone had calculated thc buildable square footage on Lot I. He noted it appeared it was very tight to put a house on this lot. Commissioncr Thompson asked if there was anything from an engineering perspective that would he a concern on Lot 3. Mr. Hellegers replied here were no cnginccring concems and soil borings had bcen done. Chair Sand opcned the puhlic hcaring at 7:22 p.m. . Chair Sand invited anyone tor or against the Preliminary Plat to come forward and make comment. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 7,2005 3 . Richard K.otoski, applicant, statcd the lot was odd sized, but it was a large lot. He noted the building envelope of the lot was 6,1 75 square feet (VIr. Hellegers later stated the correct building envelope was approximately 3,087.50 squarc feet due to the triangular shape of the property). He stated the lot was perrect for a walk-out, two-story home. He presented two home examples. He stated they would not be asking for a variance and the lot was large enough for the type of home hc was proposing to bui Id. Commissioner McClung stated he \vas concemcd about thc buildable space and how applicant was going to deal with the grade change. He asked how that would he addressed. Mr. K.otoski rcplied the garage would be at the higher level and there would not he a significant amount of grading that would occur. He noted the lower level would be a walk-out to thc side. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if :vir. Kotoski had bought the property for development. Mr. Kotoski replied that \vas correct. Commissioner Larson asked if the drainage would be to the back of the lots. Mr. Kotoski replicd they would not be creating new drainage and the draining would be left as it was now. Commissioner Larson notcd they could not drain onto neighboring properties. Mr. Kotoski rcplied the drainage would bc kept on this land. . Commissioner Bezdicek asked if the drainage on Lot 1 would go to Lot 2, or away from the property. Mr. Kotoski rcplied the drainage would go to thc back of the property a\vay from it. Chair Sand asked ifthc grading plan was that submitted with the final plat. Mr. Hellegers responded applicant would need a water drainage plan so it would not affect neighboring properties. Chair Sand asked if this would be a condition of approval. Mr. Hcllegcrs replied they could add that as a condition of their approval. Chair Sand rcquested a condition be added that a grading and drainage plan be submitted and reviewed by staff and the City Engineer prior to any pellnits being issucd. Chair Sand asked what the property to the south or applicanfs property was. Mr. Kotoski replied it was the railroad. Commissioner Thompson asked if staIr had been in contact with the owners of Lot 19. Mr. Hellegers replied the rcsidents of Lot 19 had been notified of this public hearing, but he had not heard anything from thosc residents. Mr. Kotoski stated he wanted to plat this development with nice, acsthetic lots prcserving . as many trees as possible. Commissioner Bezdicek asked if the building envelopc would be 3,000 square-fcct. Mr. Kotoski responded that was correct. . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 4 . Commissioner McClung stated there was no interest from the Commission to come back and ente11ain variances for setbacks, etc. Mr. Kotoski stated he would not be coming back and request any variances for the homes because the pads were large enough to build on. Commissioner Larson stated he would not entertain a variance for decks or patios either. Mr. Kotoski responded a variance for these types of amenities would not he necessary. Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Commissioner Larson stated the Planning Commission has made a iinding that the proposed variances arc not merely inconveniences, the conditions upon which the variances are based are unique to the property, and the variances will not be substantially detrimental to the puhlic welfare and are in concert with City regulations. Commissioner Larson moved, seconded by Commissioner Bezdicek to recommend approval of Plalming Case No. 05-19, Richard Kotoski and Kim Bryson d/h/a Bryson Woods, 2233 Dellwood Street, Roseville, MN; Preliminary Plat (1978 Thom Drive) subject to the conditions as outlined in staff's September 7, 2005 report, the addition of the fifth condition for removal of structures, and adding the following conditions: That a grading and drainage plan must be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of any building permits; and ?? . Commissioner Zimmerman stated he did not feel this was consistent with the rest of the neighborhood and he did not believe the lots were large enough to work. He stated applicant had demonstrated that a house would fit on Lot 1 and Lot 1 fell within their guidelines. He stated he was not concerned about this because of the shape of the lot. The motion calTied (5-1 Commissioner Zimmerman opposed). B. PLANNING CASE 05-20: PAUL RUPPEL. 1541 MILLPOND CT.. CHASKA. MN: FIVE-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A DETACHED GARAGE (1911 GLENPAUL A VENUE) Mr. Hellegers stated applicant was requesting a five-foot side yard setback variance for a new detached garage in approximately the same location as the existing garage. Stall recommended approval of the five-foot side yard setback for a new detached garage after making the findings that the variance meets the hardship criteria and would not have an adverse impact on sUlTounding properties or the City as a whole. Commissioner Larson asked if this lot were clear and a new home was built on this site, what would be the garage space required. Mr. Hellegers replied there was no minimum garage space requirement, but from a functional standpoint, it would not be practical. Commissioner McClung stated if a new home was built today, it would probably have an . attached garage. Commissioner Larson stated in the community where he worked, they required a minimum of two car garage. . ARDEN HTLLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 7,2005 5 . Commissioner Bezdicek asked if the City has set precedence in this area previously. Mr. Hellegers responded the City has approved variances for similar variance rcquests in this neighborhood where the applicant was replacing an existing garage. Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Chair Sand invited anyone for or against the variance to come forward and make comment. There were no comments made. Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 7:51 p.m. Commissioner Thompson asked if thcy had heard anything from the adjacent resident. Mr. Hcllcgers respondcd hc had not heard anything from them. Commissioner Zimmerman moved, scconded by Commissioner Thompson to approve Planning Case No. 05-20, Paul Ruppel, 1541 Millpond Ct., Chaska, MN; for a 5-foot side yard setback accessory variance to allow for the construction of a new garage in approximately the same location as the existing garage and makes the findings that the variance meets the hardship criteria and would not have <HI adverse impact on SUlTollllding prope11ies or the City as a whole. . Thc motion calTied unanimollsly (6-0). C. PLANNING CASE 05-07: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS. 1245 'v. HIGH'V AY 96~ ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT (COVERED FRONT PORCH REGULATION) Mr. Hellegers stated previously the Commissioners discussed and considered Ordinance #366 which would amend section 6.C.2.d of the Zoning Ordinance by inserting new suhsection 6.C.2.d.3 into the Zoning Ordinance, allO\ving for front porches of up to ten feet and with a minimum setback of 25 feet from thc front or sidc-yard corner property lines, which mcet design standards to be allowed subject to staff review and approval in areas where the plats were created with setbacks less than 40 feet. He stated since it was not anticipated that whole neighborhoods had different setbacks thaOthe Zoning District standards the idea of a diffcrent allowance for covered front porchcs III such neighborhoods seems to bc fair. Therefore, staff recommends approval of Ordinance #366. Chair Sand opencd the public hearing at 8:09 p.m. Chair Sand invited anyone tor or against the amcndment to come lorward and make comment. . Joan Furlong('?sp), 704 Chatham Circle, stated they were looking to put a front porch on her home, as well as other residents in her neighborhood. She noted because of the setback, they wcre not allowed under the current code to put on a porch. She indicated they could put an overhang on their front stoop, but this was not what they wcre looking for. She requested the Commissioners approve this request. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 6 . Chair Sand asked if they were intending to increase the overhang and add a porch area which would mimic some of thc other homes in the area. Ms. Furlong rcplied that was correct and they would like it to be consistent with the design of thc rcst of the neighborhood. Commissioner McClung noted most of the homcs that had the overhang did not have porches. Ms. Furlong responded those residents who had the overhangs would like to add porches under their overhangs. Chair Sand stated from an aesthetic standpoint, a front porch \vollld add to the look and would improve neighborhood communication. He noted the Chatham neighborhood was a unique situation becausc when that neighborhood was built, the setback requirements were different than they were today. He stated he \vOllld not vote in t~lvor of this if it was just for the Chatham ncighborhood, but this would encompass the entire City. Hc believed it would increase the value of thc homes in the City and would bcncfit the City as a wholc. Commissioner McClung asked whcre clse in thc City did they have situations such as this. He stated he was not opposed to this, hut he wanted to make sure this was done right tor evcryone in the City. Chair Sand agreed they did not want to have this keep coming back. . Commissioner McClung stated he was concerned that the language thcy had in front of them was too specific to the Chatham ncighborhood. He suggested they look at the language further to make sure that it solved all of the problems in the City. Commissioner Zimmerman statcd this would allow all neighborhoods to have a porch as long as it met the requirements of 25 fect. Anyone \vanting a variancc of 25 feet \vould need to come to the Commission tor approval. Chair Sand indicated they could havc a second public hearing in order to clarify Commissioner McCl ung' s concerns. Commissioner McClung stated he hoped staff \vould be able to catch any potential problems out there that were not covered under the proposed language. Commissioner Larson stated in what they were doing was if they delete the PUD and SUP they could go to 25 feet, so thcy wcre incrcasing what was allowed under items 1 and 2 by five feet. He indicated he helieved this language would include most neighborhoods. Mr. Hellegers responded staff had found only one other neighhorhood, Benton Way, that had di ffercnt setbacks. Chair Sand notcd overhangs of one foot or less, had a tendency for water infiltration and a larger overhang was bettcr from a water safety standpoint. He stated he was not . adverse to holding a second public hearing, but he tended to be in favor of this request, however he did not want it singled out to the Chatham ncighborhood. Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 7 . Commissioner McClung asked Commissioner Zimmerman what language he was proposing to be stricken from the ordinance. Commissioner Zimmenmm replied he suggestcd striking the tollowing language "and were established through a planned use permit.. .'- Commissioner McClung stated he was concemed about the 25 foot requirement. Hc stated he wanted morc time to think about this and how it impacted other neighhorhoods. Commissioner Larson stated be agreed and it was their purpose to adjust the ordinances to retlect what people wanted to do with their homes and avoid varianccs. Hc stated he also wanted to be assured that thc requirements stayed and were not being changed. Hc suggested staff do a survey as to other neighborhoods that might he affected hy this change. Chair Sand stated it appeared the consensus was to vote on what they had striking the language Commissioner Zimmerman suggested or continue this to a second public hearing. Mr. Hellegers suggested they cut the language entirely and change scctions 1 and 2 to 25 feet. Commissioner Bezdicek suggested staff bring the proposed language hack to the Commissioners at their next meeting. . Commissioner Bezdicek moved, seconded by Commissioner McClung to Table Planning Case No. 05-07, City of Arden Hills, 1245 W. Highway 96; Zoning Ordinance Text Amcndment (Covered Front Porch Regulations). The motion carried unanimously (6-0). UNFINISHED AND NE\V BUSINESS None. REPORTS A. Planning Commissioners None. B. Staff None. e. Council Member Mayor Aplikowski and Council Membcr Grant updated the Commission on recent City . Council actions. . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 8 ADJOURNMENT . Commissioner Zimmennan moved, seconded by Commissioner Larson to adjoum the meeting at 9: 14 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). . . - ~ .. I' . ~l~~~}--III!I!S CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION \VEDNESDA Y, NOVEMBER 2, 2005 7:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER Chair Sand called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Introduction of Karen Barton, Community Development Director ROLL CALL Present were Commissioners Clayton Larson, Ken Bezdicek, Elizaheth Modesette, Clayton Zimmennan, Roberta Thompson, David McClung, and Chair David Sand. Absent: None. Also present were Mayor Beverly Aplikowski, Councilmember David Grant, Assistant to the City Administrator, Schawn Johnson, Community Development Director, Karen . Barton, and Recording Secretary Kathleen Altman. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Held on Julv 26, 2005 Joint Meetinl! Between Planninl! Commission and PTRC and September 7, 2005 Rel!ular Planninl! Commission meetinl!. Commissioner McClung requested the following change: September 7, 2005 Regular Planning Commission meeting, Page 7, change the second on the last motion to Commission McClung. Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Thompson to approve the July 26,2005 Joint Meeting between the Planning Commission and PTRC as submitted. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Commissioner Larson moved, seconded by Commissioner to Zimmem1an to approve the September 7,2005 Regular Planning Commission meeting as amended. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS . None. .. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 2,2005 2 UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS . A. Plannin2: Case 05-19: Brvson Woods. 1978 Thorn Drive - Final Plat Mr. Johnson stated Richard Kotoski and Kim Bryson d/b/a Bryson Woods have submitted the Final Plat for the subdivision of the property at 1978 Thom Drive. The property, originally platted as Lot #20 under the Rholdeder's Home and Garden Acres Plat of 1938, would be subdivided into three single-family lots. All of the property lots comply with the minimum lot areas for the R-2: Single and Two Family Residential Zoning District. Mr. Johnson reviewed the Final Plat and recommended approwal aft~r making a finding that the proposed plat is consistent with previous approvals ,for tile Preliminary Plat and is subject to the following conditions: " '1 p , 0U? A. Recording at Ramsey County. The develoR~r sh~n file the~i~al Plat with the Ramsey County Recorder and provide the City with a recorde'dcopy. B. Compliance with City Code. The developer shall comply with the applicable provisions of the City Code and related ordinances.," ",' , ~Jf1ib\+ ~0' C. Park Dedication. The ~eveloi!r s~la~11~~~nto ~ Pu~lic Use Dedication Fee Payment Agreement prIor to tIle CIty'sr~leaseofi~he FlIlal Plat. . D. Development Agreell1_ The d~veloper ~l~'~l enter into a Development Agreement with the City, which lliust be executed prior to the release of the Final Plat. , , '" .~.>>>: E.R'emO.M,<tW,tructuresf4\0;;jG,he developer is required to remove the existing st~'uctures P~~1:J9~thc CitY'~,lease of the Final Plat, unles~ a. surety is posted WIth the CIty to ensure removal of these structures w\thlll a reasonable " ' timeframe. I' 'F G d' d D . The grading and drainage plan must be revised in '. ra lIlg an rainage. , ,ccordance wi~,lphe recommendations of the City Engineer. Commissiol1er 4p;Ts98stated on Lot 1 at the last meeting, they had requested the house being proposed'~e'no variances. He asked if this was what the proposal was. Mr. Richard Kotoski; applicant, respond cd the south boundary was considered the back of the lot and the house shown would fit within the setbacks and no variances would be requested. Commissioner McClung asked if the existing structure could be removed as a pm1 of the conditions of approval. Mr. Kotoski responded they would prefer it not being required to be removed prior to the building pemlits being issued. . Chair Sand asked when they would be starting construction. Mr. Kotoski responded they wanted to start this fall so they had a model up by spring, 2006. _ ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 2,2005 3 . . Chair Sand stated he understood applicant wanted the removal of the existing structure to not be done at the release of the final plat, but rather at the issuance of the building permit. Mr. Kotoski responded that was correct. Commissioner Bezdicek asked if a building pemlit would be issued prior to the filing of the Final Plat with Ramsey County. Mr. Kotoski responded the Final Plat would be filed first. Commissioner Larson moved, seconded by Commissioner Thompson to recommend approval of Planning Case No. 05-19, Bryson Woods, 1978 Thom Drive, Final Plat after finding the proposed plat is consistent with previous approvals for the Preliminary Plat and subject to the six conditions as outlined in staffs NO,yember 2, 2005 report, modifying condition E. to read: Removal of Structures<':iii+Th~ev:eloper is required to remove the existing structures prior to the City's issuance of a bui'fcling permit, Imlcss a s~lret~ is posted with the City to ensure removal of tl;ese stx-uctures.ithin a reasonable hmctrame. . .' "~."~ The motion carried unanimously (7-0). " REPORTS A. Planning Commissioners . . The Planning Commissioners thal1lf~d the City sta;; for Jir clean np efforts after the September 21, 2005 storms.-'<'4T'fi _ ,~' Commissioner Modesette asked if the City wa~'it'going to sweep the streets before winter. She noted at the end of N~w Brighton road there was a lot of sand. Councilmember Grant replied hewou1$;infoml the q~~,staff of this. .. . ... < . B. Staff ....,J None.,<; c. '. <, "'f.: Council1Wember "~ <<-..: ..'.".: Councilmeltib~i:- Grantupdated the Commission on recent City Council actions. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Zimmennan moved, seconded by Commissioner Bezdicek to adjoum the meeting at 7:30 p.m. The motion caJTied unanimously (7-0). .