The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-06-11-PCChair Clayton Larson Commissioners Andrew Holewa Samuel Scott Roberta Thompson Clayton Zimmerman Angela Hames (Alternate) EN HILLS Arden Hills Planning Commission July 6, 2011 1245 W. Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 651.792.7800 www.ci.arden- hills.mn.us City Vision A strong community that values our unique environment, our fiscal soundness, and our tradition as a desirable city in which to live, work, and play. Agenda Regular Planning Commission Convenes 6:30 PM Call to Order — Role Call 1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 2. MINUTES A. June 8, 2011, regular meeting 3. PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 11 -014; Variance; Bryan Lillehaugen; 1145 Amble Drive — Not a Public Hearing B. Planning Case 11 -015; Site Plan Review; Marsha and Brian Burgeson; 3759 New Brighton Road — Not a Public Hearing Lexington Avenue — Public Hearing 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 5. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council B. Planning Commission Comments 6. ADJOURNMENT A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Planning Cases are available online at: http: / /www.ci.arden - hills.mn.us /planningcases July 6, 2011 Planning Case Map WflE MEMO 2101/11L.__ ;VII MEM mitv.14,1, Paimenessimm Ego% ME& MEMOIMM MinglintO, 11119MBI EraiOnle MUM re PC# 11-014 Bryan Lillehaugen Variance 1145 Amble Drive MEW milesomr/Aussilli 111115mitimmk 1111111 1.1111 BlignEWL pessamerriAll, III glare -41' —411111E E.. lit, 4/te, NE , 4 fl min 4111in trAlittionn ria.und"" Amo. INIM 1i minni111111 111111111111ffik IIiftIIII 1111111111111111L • 1111111131 11111111111K 11111113111111a Iltiiiiiii kw's, IIIIIlIlIIItk %ono ,- EN HILLS Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS,MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY,JUNE 8,2011 6:30 P.M. -ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Clayton Larson called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Clayton Larson, Commissioners Roberta Thompson, Andy Holewa, Clayton Zimmerman, Samuel Scott and Angela Harries (alternate). Absent: Samuel Scott (excused). • Also present were: City Planner Meagan Beekman; Councilmember Fran Holmes; Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher; and Recording Secretary Tina Borg. APPROVAL OF AGENDA—May 4, 2011 The Agenda was approved as presented. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. May 4, 2011 —Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Zimmerman stated on page 4,the sixth paragraph from the bottom, the word"stated"should be placed after City Planner Beekman. Commissioner Zimmerman stated on page 5,the first paragraph, the second phrase"on their concept" should be removed from the third sentence. Commissioner Zimmerman stated on page 7,the first paragraph,the word"fir" should be changed to "fit"and in the second paragraph, the word "stated"should be inserted after City Planner Beekman and, the word "Feasible" should be changed to "infeasible". ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—June 8, 2011 2 A. Approval of Minutes (continued) Commissioner Zimmerman stated on page 8, the fourth paragraph, the word "stated" • should be inserted after City Planner Beekman. Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to approve the May 4, 2011, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as amended. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 11-011; Preliminary and Final Plat, Zoning Code Amendment, and Master and Final PUD for Phase 1; TAT Properties and Select Senior Living; 1201 County Road E—Public Hearing City Planner Meagan Beekman stated the applicant has requested a Zoning Code Amendment, Preliminary and Final Plat, and Master and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) to subdivide the property at 1201 County Road E into two parcels and reuse the existing building as assisted senior housing. She provided additional background information. The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application meets the requirements of the Zoning Code, advances the goals, and principles within the Guiding Plan for the B-2 District, and would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole. • City Planner Beekman stated Staff offers the following findings of fact for this proposal: General Findings: 1. If the proposed Zoning Code changes in Planning Case 11-011 were approved, nursing homes and assisted living would be a permitted use, under certain circumstances, within an approved PUD, in the B-2 District. 2. The Master and Final PUD process allows flexibility with the implementation of the City's subdivision and zoning regulations. 3. The proposal is not anticipated to adversely impact nearby properties through nuisance, noise, dust, glare, or unsightliness, and will not otherwise adversely impact the health, safety, and welfare of the community because the use is located in a commercial district that has been identified as an appropriate location for a mix of uses including multi-family housing. 4. The proposal is anticipated to decrease parking and traffic on the site compared to a student housing or hotel use. 5. The proposal is in keeping with the principles of the Guiding Plan for the B-2 District due to the existing configuration of the site, and the addition of Lot 2 as a development opportunity in the B-2 District. 6. There are no delinquent property taxes, special assessments, interest, or City utility fees due upon the subject parcel. Proposed Special Requirements for Nursing Home and Assisted Living facilities in the B- 2 District: 7. The building to be used will be upgraded to meet all applicable building and fire codes. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—June 8, 2011 3 3.A. Planning Case 11-011; Preliminary and Final Plat, Zoning Code Amendment, and Master and Final PUD for Phase 1; TAT Properties and Select Senior Living; 1201 County Road E—Public Hearing(continued) 8. Each room will have its own bathroom. 9. The capacity of the building will not be exceeded. Planned Unit Development Review Findings: 10. Lot size, building and landscape coverage, and setbacks are met by the proposed plans. 11. All parking lot and landscaping requirements are met or exceeded by the proposed plans. 12. All Zoning regulations are met or exceeded by the proposed plans. 13. The design standards that can be applied to this application are substantially met by the proposed plans. 14. Required number of parking stalls is exceeded by the proposed plans. 15. The project is subject to park dedication requirements. City Planner Beekman stated Staff recommends approval of Planning Case #11-011 for a Preliminary and final Plat, Zoning Code Amendment, and Master and final PUD at 1201 County Road E subject to the following conditions: I. The project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by • the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. ''he applicant shall file the Final Plat with Ramsey County within one year of City approval, or the approval for the Final Plat shall expire, unless extended by the City Council prior to the approval's expiration. Extension requests must be submitted in writing to the City at least 45 days prior to the expiration date. 3. A development agreement, drafted by the City Attorney, shall be signed by the property owners of both Lot 1 and Lot 2 prior to the execution of the Final Plat. 4. The applicant shall provide drainage and utility easements, in favor of the City, in accordance with 1130.05 of the City Code,prior to the execution of the Final Plat. 5. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a ten-foot wide pedestrian easement along the property line adjacent to County Road E, within which the six-foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed. 6. A 25 by 25 foot easement shall be granted, in favor of the City, at the corner of County Road E and Lexington Avenue for the purpose of a future civic monument/gateway feature. In exchange for the easement, the City shall not ask the developer to pay for any portion of the feature at the time it is installed. 7. The applicant shall provide for park dedication in an amount of$133,350. The park dedication shall be paid in full prior to the execution of the Final Plat, or the property owner shall enter into an agreement for a payment plan that is in accordance with Section 1130.08 Subd E of the City Code. 8. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits, including, but not limited to, NPDES, Rice Creek Watershed District, Ramsey County, and City Erosion Control Permits. Copies of all necessary permits shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of any development permits. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—June 8,2011 4 3.A. Planning Case 11-011; Preliminary and Final Plat, Zoning Code Amendment, and Master and Final PUD for Phase 1; TAT Properties and Select Senior Living, 1201 • County Road E—Public Hearing(continued) 9. Fire Hydrants shall be located within 150-feet of the Fire Department Connections (FDC)to each building on Lot 1 and Lot 2. 10. The applicant shall submit a financial surety in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for 125 percent of the cost of materials and installation of the landscaping plan prior to the City issuing any development permits. The City shall retain the financial surety for at least two years after full implementation of the landscaping plan. The financial surety shall only be released upon successful inspection of the landscaping by the City Planner, which shall only occur during the growing season. 11. The applicant shall obtain a certificate of occupancy for Lot 1 within one year of the approval date of the development agreement, or the Master and Final PUD approval shall expire, unless extended by the City Council prior to the approval's expiration date. Extension requests must be submitted in writing to the City at least 45 days prior to the expiration date. 12. Lot 1 shall comply with Chapter 1306, Special Fire Protection Systems, of the State Building Code, which requires the installation of a fire sprinkler protection system that complies with NFPA 13, subject to the approval of the Fire Marshal, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 13. Lot I shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 14 of the City Code regarding property maintenance, subject tot eh approval of the Building Official, prior to the . issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 14. Permanently affixed bicycle racks shall be provided near all primary entrances to the building on Lot 1, subject to the approval of the City, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 15. The applicants shall install additional landscaping and a three-foot decorative wrought iron fence between the parking located in the front of the building on Lot I and the sidewalk, subject to the approval of the City Planner. 16. The applicant shall remove all portions of the bituminous parking lot on Lot I that is not required by the Fire Department for access to the rear of the building as part of the development of Lot 1. 17. All exposed soils, not considered improved hard surfaces or perennial planting areas, shall be seeded or sodded, with an approved grass mixture. 18. The applicant shall submit to the City shared maintenance agreements between Lot I and Lot 2 prior to the issuance of building permits for Lot 2. 19. Traffic management shall be implemented at the eastern most driveway, subject to the approval of the Public Works Director, to effectively provide efficient and safe ingress and egress to Lot 2. Traffic management devices may be installed at the time of Lot 2 development, subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. 20. The applicants shall agree to waive their right to appeal future assessments related to the installation of landscaping, street lighting, benches, and other pedestrian features associated with the County Road E streetscape improvements, in an amount to be negotiated with the applicant. 21. The applicants shall provide to the City temporary construction easements for implementing the County Road E streetscape improvements, provided the City repair and replace any disturbances on applicant's property. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—June 8,2011 5 3.A. Planning Case 11-011; Preliminary and Final Plat, Zoning Code Amendment, and Master and Final PUD for Phase 1; TAT Properties and Select Senior Living; 1201 County Road E—Public Hearing(continued) City Planner Beekman stated Condition 6 should read: Prior to ten years elapsing or upon any future PUD approval of the parcel the City may incorporate a civic feature into the northwest corner of County Road E and Lexington Avenue. Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if there were State or County licensing requirements for nursing homes. He stated these requirements should be met prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. City Planner Beekman stated there were licensing requirements that would need to be met and this is included in Condition 11, although it does not specifically state these. Commissioner Holewa stated the intersection of Lexington and County Road E is a high traffic area and does experience backups currently. He expressed concerns that the development of both properties would further increase the traffic problems in this location. Mr. Steve Manhart, Traffic Engineer for RLK Inc., stated he had looked at this intersection during the peak a.m. and p.m. hours. He expressed some concerns about the stacking that currently occurs at Lexington Avenue and County Road E but there are things the City could do to alleviate some of these problems. He suggested the City talk with the County about alternatives for timing or sequencing lights in this area. The study did look at different business types for Lot 2 because the occupants of the property are not identified at this time. Based on the information available the traffic generated will not have a significant impact on the traffic. Commissioner Holewa asked why there was no traffic in the a.m. if there was retail on Lot 2. Mr. Manhart stated the typical hours for retail are later morning to late evening. With an opening time of 10:00 most retail businesses will not have traffic to or from the facility until 9:00 or later and this is considered to be after the peak a.m. hours. The traffic study looked at the peak hours only. Commissioner Holewa stated there was a lot of traffic movement in Arden Hills during the mid-day and he asked if the mid-day traffic had been considered. Mr. Manhart stated only the a.m. and p.m. peak hours were looked at. Commissioner Hames asked if the Rail Road tracks and passing trains had been considered in the traffic analysis. Mr. Manhart stated the trains had not been considered in the analysis. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—June 8,2011 6 3.A. Planning Case I1-011; Preliminary and Final Plat, Zoning Code Amendment, and Master and Final PUD for Phase 1; TAT Properties and Select Senior Living; 1201 County Road E—Public Hearing(continued) Commissioner Holewa asked if development on both sides of County Road E were considered in the traffic analysis. Mr. Manhart explained the traffic analysis took into account all available information and this included a full build of the Arden Plaza site. Commissioner Thompson asked if the comments sent to the City by Mr. Brausen had been addressed. City Planner Beekman stated Staff would need to look into these comments further and she could not address them directly at this time. Commissioner Thompson requested Staff talk with the developer in regards to the possibility that a light may be put in place in the future and this might lead to the necessity to realign the curb cuts. Mr. Joel Larson, Select Senior Living,reviewed the proposal for an assisted living facility to be located in the Holiday Inn facility. There will be approximately 150 beds. They would like to have flexibility in the number of beds they have available for each category. . They are currently looking at 14 independent rooms, 106 assisted living rooms, and 30 memory care rooms. They are also looking into options for the pool and the ability to open it for public therapy. The yare also proposing a similar streetscape plan as Presbyterian Homes has in other locations. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if there were regulations on the number of caregivers that would be required for the number of rooms and the type of care that was provided. Mr. Larson stated there are regulations and based on the types of rooms they are proposing there will be approximately 25 daytime employees including maintenance, housekeeping, and chefs. Chair Larson asked how this proposal was different from past proposals brought forward. Mr. Davidson, TAT Properties, stated at this time there is an identified user for the Holiday Inn property that is not a temporary use. Having the property subdivided will enhance the development for lot 2. Lot 2 will be clearly defined as to size and location. There are no tenants identified at this time. Conceptually there could be a 20,000 square foot facility on Lot 2 but this will be something that is determined by the tenant. The actual size of the facility could be smaller. Commissioner Holewa stated the reports show the traffic after full build would be less than the traffic that is generated by a hotel. The property has not been a hotel for a number of years. Over the last few years the Holiday Inn has been used as student ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—June 8, 2011 7 3.A. Planning Case I1-011; Preliminary and Final Plat, Zoning Code Amendment, and ® Master and Final PUD for Phase 1; TAT Properties and Select Senior Living, 1201 County Road E—Public Hearing(continued) housing and this use has not produced an increase in peak time traffic because the students were bussed. Mr. Davidson clarified if the facility were to be a fully operation hotel then the amount of traffic generated from this use would be the same or less than the traffic projected by the proposal. Commissioner Holewa asked for clarification regarding Condition 6. City Planner Beekman stated as part of the Guiding Plan, a civic monument or gateway sign had been included on the corner of Lexington Avenue and County Road E. What will be located on this particular corner has not been identified at this time. The Arden Plaza development is expected to include an Arden Hills gateway sign. If this occurs then a different type of civic monument would be created for the north corner Chair Larson opened the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. Chair Larson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. The being no comment Chair Larson closed the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. Commissioner Zimmerman stated Condition I I should be amended to also require all applicable State and County licensing be in place prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Commissioner Holewa stated traffic will continue to be a problem for County Road E and Lexington. The B-2 Guiding Plan does have a traffic signal proposed in this location to alleviate traffic issues but this may not happen. He suggested in the future the traffic counts be reviewed over the mid-day as well because there is significant traffic in Arden Hills during this time Commissioner Zimmerman moved and Commissioner Thompson seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 11-011 for a Preliminary and Final Plat, Zoning Code Amendment, and Master and Final PUD at 1201 County Road E, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as amended by the conditions in the June 8, 2011, Planning Case Report and the amendment to Condition 6 and Condition 11 recommended by the Planning Commission The motion carried unanimously (5-0). B. Planning Case 11-010; Zoning Code Amendment regarding Detached Garages; City of Arden Hills—Public Hearing ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—June 8, 2011 8 3.11. Planning Case 11-010; Zoning Code Amendment regarding Detached Garages; City of Arden Hills—Public Hearing(continued) City Planner Beekman stated current regulations do not allow detached garages to be located between the home and the street, yet lakeshore lots tend to be narrower and deeper than non-riparian lots, and it is often not practical to add garage and storage space in the side yard of these properties. Furthermore, the definition of "front yard" often differs between the homeowners, who see the lakeside as their front yards, and the City, which views the street-side of the home as the front yard. She reviewed the language changes being proposed that would allow detached garages in the front yard of lakeshore lots. Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Chair Larson asked if this amendment would reduce the number of variance requests in the City. City Planner Beekman stated the number of requests will decrease but lakeside lots are narrow and the 40-foot setback is significant for these homes. They would still need to request a variance if they are not meeting the setbacks. Chair Larson opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Chair Larson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. Mr. David Freed, 3136 Hamline Avenue, Arden Hills, stated he supports the amendment because he feels having the garages detached and not in front of the lake improves aesthetics and safety. Chair Larson closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Commissioner Hames moved and Commissioner Zimmerman seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 11-010 to amend Section 1325.01 Subd 3 to permit the construction of detached garages in the front yards of lakefront lots under certain circumstances as presented in the June 8, 2011 Planning Case Report The motion carried unanimously (5-0). C. Planning Case 11-012; Zoning Code Amendment regarding Section 1355; City of Arden Hills—Public Hearing City Planner Beekman stated on May 6, 2011, the Governor signed into law new legislation that revises the criteria City's must use when reviewing variance requests. In order to remain in compliance with State Statutes, the City must update its Zoning Code to incorporate the revised variance regulations. As part of this update, Staff is recommending that Section 1325.03 Subd.3.C. be omitted from the Zoning Cod, as it pertains to specific requirements for height variances, which are no longer necessary ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—June 8, 2011 9 3.C. Planning Case 11-012; Zoning Code Amendment regarding Section 1355; City of Arden Hills—Public Hearing(continued) given the new variance review criteria. She provided additional background and other recommended changes to the Zoning Code. Chair Larson asked if the intention of Section 1355.01 Subd. 2 was to outline when a public hearing may be required. City Planner Beekman stated this was the intention of this section. She stated Staff would look at the wording for this and make additional changes prior to the City Council meeting. Chair Larson asked for clarification on when the time starts for the 15-day time frame for finding an application complete in Section 1355.05. City Planner Beekman stated at the time the application is submitted, Staff has 15-days to determine if the application is complete or not. If the application is incomplete the applicant will be notified and the time would restart at the time the application is resubmitted. Chair Larson stated Section 1355.04 Subd. 4.C.7 referenced temporary double family dwelling. He asked if this was something that was approved by the Planning Commission or the City Council. City Planner Beekman explained the approval for this would be the same as any other variance request. The wording in this item is taken from State Statute and it is something new to the statutes. This item is to accommodate those emergency situations where family members may need to stay for an extended period of time. This is new language and other communities are just starting to look at their Codes and making the necessary changes. Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Chair Larson opened the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. Chair Larson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. The being no comment Chair Larson closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Commissioner Zimmerman moved and Commissioner Hames seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 11-012 to amend Section 1355 of the Zoning Code and omit Section 1325.03, Subd.3.0 in its entirety, as presented in the June 8, 2011,Planning Case Report. The motion carried unanimously (5-0) ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—June 8, 2011 10 D. Planning Case 11-013; Zoning Code Amendment regarding School Uses in the R-1 District; City of Arden Hills—Public Hearing City Planner Beekman stated in January 2011, the City Council approved a number of amendments to the City's Zoning Code. The purpose of these amendments was to incorporate the TCAAP Zoning Regulations into the rest of the code. In doing so, it was necessary to amend Section 1320.05 of the Zoning Code, which indicates which land uses are allowed in each district. A recent review of the Zoning Regulations made Staff aware of a discrepancy between the language of the Code and the intention of the January 2011 amendments. At the present time, the City's Zoning Regulations allow schools and school-related uses in the R-I District, but do not specify a minimum lot size for these uses, or define what a campus-style development is. Staff is recommending a Zoning Code Amendment that would add special regulations for school uses in the R-1 District, and specify a minimum lot size for these uses, as well as define what would comprise a campus. She reviewed the proposed language amendments. Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Chair Larson opened the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. Chair Larson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. The being no comment Chair Larson closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. • Commissioner Zimmerman moved and Commissioner Hames seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 11-013 to amend Section 1320.04, Subd 1 and Section 1320.075 to the Zoning Code to regulate school uses in the RI District, as presented in the June 8, 2011, Planning Case Report. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. Planning Case 11-008; Concept PUD Discussion; Arden Plaza, LLC; 3583 Lexington Avenue—Not a Public Hearing City Planner Beekman stated Arden Plaza and CVS Pharmacy are requesting a concept review of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for the approved Arden Plaza Master PUD. The applicants are proposing several changes to the original plan, and are requesting feedback from the Planning Commission as they move forward with the PUD Amendment process. She provided additional background information on the project and reviewed the proposed changes. Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments Mr. Pete Keely, Collage Architects, explained the proposed changes in detail to the Planning Commission. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION-June 8,2011 11 4.A. Planning Case 11-008; Concept PUD Discussion; Arden Plaza, LLC; 3583 Lexington Avenue—Not a Public Hearing (continued) Chair Larson asked if the elevations for the CVS Pharmacy were preliminary or if these would be the actual elevations. He also asked if the concerns expressed by Staff in regards to the EFIS and the ability to redesign this. Mr. Jon Lennander, Velmeir Companies, stated the proposed building does have more architectural enhancements than the standard CVS Pharmacy building. The building has more brick and glass than the standard building and the elevations were raised in order to hide the top of the facility from the road since the property is at a lower elevation than the surrounding roads. CVS has stated they do not want to change the EFIS any further. Their standard color is a bright yellow and they have compromised by changing this to a lighter color so that it would not stand out too much. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if the CVS would be a 24-hour facility. He also asked if CVS would own the property or lease it. Mr. Lennander stated CVS will not operate as a 24-hour facility and they would be leasing the property. Commissioner Thompson stated the elevation increase is appreciated and looks good but • she would like to see more character added to the frontage. She stated the entrance looks nice and the rest of the building should have this type of character. She also stated the additional green space was appreciated. Mr. Lennander stated they would continue to work with CVS to accomplish these changes. CVS would like to keep costs down as well. Chair Larson asked how the two-tier drive-up window would work. Mr. Lennander stated the lane closer to the building would be used for those people who need to talk with a person and the second lane would operate similar to a bank drive-up with the use of the tube to transfer prescriptions. Commissioner Holewa expressed concerns about the traffic in the area since there would not be a traffic light added. This area currently has traffic problems and the County has stated the traffic counts will not warrant the addition of a traffic light. Adding more retail and commercial space will increase the traffic. Commissioner Hames stated Building 2 shows it will be a restaurant. She asked if there was a tenant identified for this building or if it would remain empty. Mr. Steve Wellington stated once the changes have been approved they would be able to launch a marketing campaign to fill the building. There has been some interest in this area and he will be following up with this and try and have a tenant identified before the building is complete. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—June 8, 2011 12 4.A. Planning Case 11-008, Concept PUD Discussion; Arden Plaza, LLC; 3583 Lexington Avenue—Not a Public Hearing(continued) • Chair Larson suggested the developer provide visuals of the site lines for the next meeting with the Planning Commission and the City Council in order to clarify how the facility will look. Commissioner Holewa asked if there would be significant tree loss with this plan and if the parking lot would still have the islands with trees. Mr. Wellington stated he did not know the amount of tree loss but the landscaping plan does have additional trees being planted than what will be required. The plan does still include the parking islands and trees as well. Commissioner Homes asked if the circular pavers in the parking lot were decorative or if this would operate as a roundabout. City Planner Beekman explained the circular pavers were a decorative feature. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Councilmember Holmes updated the Planning Commission on City Council activities • including the approval to extend the deadline for Arden Village to pull building permits, the direction to Staff to prepare a Notification Policy, the approval of Planning Case 11- 009 for a Final Plat and Easement Vacation for the Fox Ridge Subdivision, the update regarding the proposal for a Vikings Stadium, and the Bethel University Habitat for Humanity project. She stated the City Council met with Minnesota Fish and Wildlife regarding Round Lake. They are currently doing studies to determine the best way to make this lake usable and remove the sediment. The Nigh to Unit is scheduled for August 2, the Council approved extending the Traverse Business Center approval, and there will be a public hearing on July 11 in to consider giving Municipal Consent for the Highway 10 and Highway 96 interchange project. Commissioner Holewa asked when Interstate 694 would be improved to three lanes and if the Lexington Avenue Bridge is improved would it need to be worked on again with the additional improvements for Interstate 694. Councilmember Holmes stated she does not know the answer to this at this time. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—June 8, 2011 13 ADJOURN Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to adjourn the June 8, 2011, Planning Commission Meeting at 8:36 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: July 6, 2011 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #11 -014 — Not a Public Hearing Applicant: Bryan Lillehaugen Property Location: 1145 Amble Drive Request: Variance PC Agenda Item 3.A Requested Action The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a 408 square foot addition in the rear and side yard of the home located at 1145 Amble Drive. The structure would encroach ten feet in the required side yard setback of 40 feet. Background 1. Overview of Request The applicant is the owner of the home at 1145 Amble Drive. The property is located in the R -1 District, and is a corner lot. The existing home is setback approximately 40 feet from the front property line, which abuts Amble Drive, and 30 feet from the side property line, which abuts Pleasant Drive. The existing home is a nonconforming structure because the current Zoning Code requires a 40 -foot setback from both property lines abutting public streets on a corner lot. The home was constructed in 1979, and the original building permit indicates that the home was conforming when it was built, meaning that the City's ordinance for corner lots has been amended since that time. The applicants are requesting a variance to construct a 408 square foot addition. The single - story addition would extend 24 feet off the rear of the garage, and fill in the eastern corner of the existing home. The addition would not decrease any of the existing setbacks of the principal structure. While the addition would remain in line with the existing setbacks of the home, a variance is required because the property currently encroaches ten feet into the 40- City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 6, 2011 IlMetro- inet. uslardenhillslPlanning\Planning CasesI2011111 -014 -1145 Amble Drive - Variance - (Pending)I07-06-11 - PC Report.doc Page 1 of 6 foot side yard setback, as would the addition. The proposed addition would meet all other setback requirements. The applicant has submitted a letter addressing the variance criteria (Attachment A), an aerial of the property with the addition drawn in, and elevations of the proposed addition (Attachment C). 2. Site Data ............... ............... ............... ............... Low Density Residential Single Family Detached Residential R -1: Single Family Residential .35 Acres (15,246 Square Feet) The property is relatively flat. 3. Surrounding Area North Low Density Residential R -1: Single Family Residential Single Family Detached Residential South Low Density Residential R -1: Single Family Residential Single Family Detached Residential East Low Density Residential R -1: Single Family Residential Single Family Detached Residential West Low Density Residential R -1: Single Family Residential Single Family Detached Residential Plan Evaluation 1. R -1 Regulations, Existing Conditions, and Proposed Redevelopment A. Lot z Si e & Dimensions Meets Requirements eet e q l r ements The lot is 15,246 square feet; 160 feet wide and 133 feet long. B. Structure Setbacks — Variance Required The existing home is setback 40 feet from the front property line, and 30 feet from the exterior side property line along Pleasant Drive. Principal structures on corner lots require a setback of 40 feet from both property lines that abut a public street. While the addition would not alter the setbacks of the existing structure, a variance is required because it would expand !�}y, :;; }:;'•;: •::'S:;. +,;x44,, .'..wi4 '::::0 I�`.::i::>4 ?' av�a. •su.r.•x.Vrii.i�:ia 1. Minimum Lot Area (sf) 14,000 2. Minimum Lot Size (ft, width /depth) 95/130 3. Height (ft.) 35 4. Lot Covered by Structure 25% 5. Min. Landscape Lot Area 65% 6. Minimum Building Setbacks Front yard 40 Side Yard Interior - Principal (Min/total both yards on lot) 10/25 Side Yard Exterior — Principal (Corner Lot) 40 Side Yard Interior - Accessory 10 City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 6, 2011 IlMetro- inet. uslardenhills1Planning1Planning CasesI2011111 -014 -1145 Amble Drive - Variance - (Pending)I07-06-11 - PC Report.doc Page 2 of 6 the size of the structure within the current setbacks. The addition would be setback 45 feet from the rear property line. C. Lot Coverage — Meets Requirements The existing impervious coverage on the property is approximately 26 percent. The proposed addition would increase the impervious coverage to 29 percent. City Code limits impervious coverage to 35 percent. D. Structure Height — Meets Requirements The proposed addition would be a single story off the back of the existing garage and would not exceed the 35-foot height maximum for principal structures. 2. Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements The proposed addition is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. 3. Tree Preservation The proposed addition would not require the removal of any significant trees on the property. 4. Additional Review The Building Official has done a preliminary review of the submitted materials and has no objections to the application. A building permit will be required prior to any construction taking place. Variance Evaluation Criteria On May 5, 2011, the Governor signed into law new variance legislation that changed the review criteria City's must use when evaluating variance requests. The new law renames the municipal variance standard from "undue hardship" to "practical difficulties," but otherwise retains the familiar three- factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. Also included is a sentence new to city variance authority that was already in the county statutes: "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan." p Therefore, in evaluating variance requests under the new law, in order to find a practical difficulty, cities should adopt findings addressing the following questions: • Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance? • Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 6, 2011 1 I Metro -inet. us l ardenhills IPlanningl Planning Cases 12011 I11 -014 -1145 Amble Drive - Variance - (Pending)I07-06-11 - PC Report.doc Page 3 of 6 • Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? • Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? • Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? As was the case before the new legislation took effect, economic considerations alone cannot constitute a practical difficulty. Furthermore, the new law clarifies that conditions may be imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Findings of Fact Staff offers the following fourteen findings of fact for review: General Findings 1. 2. The lot size meets the requirements of the R -1 Zoning District. 3. The lot meets the width and depth requirements for the R -1 Zoning District. 4. The property is a corner lot. 5. The applicant is proposing a 408 square foot addition to the rear of the home, which would encroach 10 feet into the 40 -foot required side yard setback for corner lots. 6. The proposed addition meets all other zoning and setback requirements for principal structures in the R -1 Zoning District. 7. The proposed addition is outside of the 100 -year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. 8. Tree removal for the proposed garage would not require any mitigation under the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Variance Findings: 9. The variance would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City's ordinance because the request minimizes the impact of the addition by maintaining the homes existing setbacks. 10. The variance would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan because it meets the City's housing goal of encouraging redevelopment that is complimentary to and enhances the character of the City's established neighborhoods. 11. The variance request would put the property to use in a reasonable manner because single - family homes are a reasonable use in the R -1 District, and the addition would maintain the home's existing setbacks. 12. The property is unique in the City because it is a corner lot, and the home was conforming when it was constructed. The practical difficulty was not created by the landowner, but rather the City when the Zoning Code was amended to require a 40 -foot setback on corner lots. Had the Zoning Code not been amended by the City, the proposal would not require a variance. 13. The proposal will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because it is a small addition, which would maintain the existing home's setbacks. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 6, 2011 I I Metro -inet. us l ardenhills IPlanningl Planning Cases 12011 111 -014 -1145 Amble Drive - Variance - (Pending)I07-06-11 - PC Reportdoc Page 4 of 6 14. The construction and location of the garage is not based on economic considerations alone, because the homeowner has increased their expense in order to minimize the size of the addition that requires a variance, and enlarge another portion of the home that does not require a variance. Staff Analysis The findings of fact for this variance support a recommendation for approval. The applicants originally planned a much larger addition off the rear of their garage that included a second story. After the variance process and review criteria were discussed, the applicant redesigned their project to reduce the size of the addition and minimize the encroachment. Furthermore, the home was originally constructed in conformance with the City's ordinances. When the City amended the Code to require a 40 -foot setback in the side yard of corner lots, it made the home nonconforming. Had the City not amended the setback regulations, the proposal would not require a variance. Therefore, the need for the variance was not created by the landowner. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance, Staff recommends the following five conditions: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission. 2. The applicant shall use best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion at all times during construction. 3. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 4. The addition shall match the color and architectural styling of the rest of the primary structure. 5. The applicant shall obtain approval or a waiver from the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to the issuance of any building permits. Options 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 11 -014 for a variance at 1145 Amble Drive based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the five conditions in the July 6, 2011, report to the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 11 -014 for a variance at 1145 Amble Drive based on the following findings... 3. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 11 -014 for a variance at 1145 Amble Drive: a specific reason and /or information request should be included with a motion to table. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 6, 2011 IlMetro- inet. uslardenhills\PlanninglPlanning CasesI2011111 -014 -1145 Amble Drive - Variance - (Pending)I07 -06 -11 - PC Report.doc Page 5 of 6 Public Hearing Although a public hearing is not required for a variance, the Commission may allow public comments. Notice Although a variance does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within three - hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property. Resident Comment The City has not received any comments regarding this planning case. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on June 23, 2011. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by August 22, 2011 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 -day review period. The City may extend the review period beyond the 120 days, with the applicant's permission. Attachments A. Application and Supporting Materials B. Air Photo and Photographs of the Site C. Plans and Aerial of the Site City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 6, 2011 I \ Metro- inet. uslardenhills1PlanninglPlanning CasesI2011 111 -014 -1145 Amble Drive - Variance - (Pending)I07-06-11 - PC Report.doc Page 6 of 6 Attachment A Application and Supporting Materials ,_, EN HILLS July 6, 2011, Planning Commission Meeting EN HILLS 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 Telephone (651) 792 -7800 Fax (651) 634 -5137 www.ci.arden- hills.mn.us For Office Use Only Planning Case No. Submittal Date Application Completed Date Accepted by Receipt Number Council Decision Council Decision Date 0.32D l co 2011 LAND USE APPLICATION Applicant Information Applicant: Address: 1I`IC ,N.�. (r Telephone No.: Fax No.: CS 636 tco gc?) &s )8Fs -7 oC Other: C � �'4 cD - .a i ``( Email Address: t1Ite cHQ.- -��,•- �.�-•�. Property Information `Q "- c- L l � °INC' lda Pro • e Owner: r f c‘,""N (e r— P C. ►^�� Owner Address: f I `I C P■A,we...._ r (YNK) cS Owner Telephone No. 6S 1 636, ogl Address of Property Involved: 119 ` N Other: 4 , 5 1 ac d - - ) a ) Le • al Description: Property ID No.: Type of Use:. Zone: Property Acreage: T Ape of Request* LJ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ($600 + $1,000 escrow) L:3 Conditional /Interim Use Permit or Amendment ($300 + $600 escrow) CI Preliminary Plat ($600 + $25 per lot + $1,500 escrow) CI Final Plat ($400 + $25 per lot) u Rezoning ($600 + $1,000 escrow) ZI Concept Planned Unit Development ($300) LI Site Plan Review ($250 + $600 escrow) u Vacation of Easement or Right -of -Way ($400 + 600 escrow) Variance (Zoning Code) ($300 + $600 escrow) L:J Appeal of Administrative Decision ($100) ❑ Apportionment of Assessments ($30) u Land Use Requests — Not Already Specified ($200) ❑ Master Planned Unit Development ($600 + $2,000 escrow) LJ Final Planned Unit Development ($200.00 + $600 escrow) CI Planned Unit Development Amendment ($350 + $2,000 escrow) ❑ Zoning or City Code Amendment ($600 + $1,000 escrow) CI Minor Subdivision (lot split/consolidation) ($450 + $1,000 escrow) Revised: 12-0640 Page 1 of 3 Brief Description of Request (please also include a typed, detailed letter explaining the project): P-0-6 t. *' Nt."- -(\�\� /y /y K � \ 5 �' {eqx� {ALL e-4--0,- `� �` A LID() e "t c? ,....-13) c 1) t g`e- 014.4^ . C, L SQ► I ,t, c?)( .k e ; ,r,... C <5 (ea ,1/4? ' a *Certain applications are subject to review and approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Contact RCWD directly at 763- 398 -3070 for additional information. *The land use application fees do not cover building, sign, or other permit fees that may be required upon approval of a land use application. *All applications will be subject to additional fees for reimbursement of consultant costs associated with filing, reviewing, and processing of application in the form of an escrow to the City. Filing & Information Requirements The City requests that you make a pre - application meeting with the City Planner to discuss the application process, requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the City Planner or Planning Commission, a certified survey of the property is required for all applications. The Planning Commission and /or City Council may still require a certified survey. A checklist for other required information is also available. Complete /Incomplete Applications An incomplete application will delay the processing of land use requests. The application approval time commences and an application is considered officially filed when the City Planner has received and examined the application and determined that the application is complete. A decision on whether the application is complete or incomplete shall be made within fifteen (15) working days following the submittal of the application. When the application is deemed to be "complete" it shall be placed on the agenda of the first possible Planning Commission meeting provided that all required public notices have been sent and published. Payment of Fees The undersigned acknowledges that she /he understands that before a land use application can be deemed complete, all required information and fees (including all deposits) must be paid to the City. If additional fees are required to cover costs incurred by the City, the City Planner has the right to require additional payment from one or more of the undersigned, who shall be jointly liable for such fees. Such expenses may include (but are not limited to) direct city payroll and overhead costs, fees paid to consultants and other professionals, and the cost of printing, mailing, and supplies. The City may withhold final action on a land use application, withhold building permits, and /or rescind prior action until all miscellaneous fees have been paid. Applicants are advised that an escrow deposit is required at the time of the submittal of the land use application to offset costs associated with the proposed project. Unused portions of an escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. Notice of Meeting Attendance In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a designated representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the next available agenda. Revised: 12 -06 -10 Page 2 of 3 Agenda Deadline and Meeting Schedule The deadline for submittal of land use applications is required according to the schedule outlined below. There are no exceptions. Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the first Wednesday after the first Monday of each month at 6:30 PM, though please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. City Council meetings are held typically the last Monday of the same month at 7:00 PM. Meetings are held in the Council Chambers at the City of Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112, unless otherwise stated. Applicants are advised that additional meetings and /or workshops are scheduled when necessary upon approval of the Planning Commission. 2011 SCHEDULE ( *subject to change) APPLICATION DEADLINE DATE* TENTATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE* (Generally held on the Wednesday after the first Monda at 6:30 ..m. TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING * DATE* (Generally held on the last Monday at 7:00 p.m.) v... z.r�r: ✓9 vr .•.4ai.4 h.^> i. ° _�rr_- .,. �. � ^.�? . z i- -; a- - �.. . p„.3�,h s p:.a . x.. , . . > ?' ., . . .,,» ' « 'ir.r,. . 3' .,#i. . . .)>s .. y a ,•cd .;. .', _x , ?a ,r „ ,.,.._ s. s � l a n_� s u>' J,...z ;. sy. • 4 .._.; ..x a. l ..y;''•,�,.+. " '� >• - =�ixM. Y i ,fi " ,4s . .:. �. vY . .a" =.0 . - �. ',+ , . 4 ? • � e _ s '.?h.. + . i ; ; • :. a%r. a t¢k : A.>�;;r .f'• ha� r . . �'' �R: va. ,ri i, � Sx n. ' � .x �,� ,_r a, �J + ; re,x9 s i' �r r <. k p "F.... •t: v _`. 'Av_ . .x _ � ' • ; � . k e. bru' a Fry e' b u- a 23 ,.+r � k .T. Kn .x s.�. :_x .a. „ x .,:. _�. x. n_.:-"✓,t. . . <, .,-?.. i�x:,i . r -.:, ,.. -a-r r :- ..._x _. . .` rf , .Z �K _'i, r,. ., rs +r^... a «_ . k , . :, � .s N.- : r.. «-.. �., 4 _ .. `� � : ,.> « _ ,a ,. ,� ,� . 9 ti.. n . �,3 . 1 '• > 1�� _ , .,id , . 1 �,' >, ., =, t ..z s, v.,.]. . ) . , '.. ' =, , �> "a.S� �4 .?L >', ' re , 1 v : -_ + �r.., ?. . tv.', :. . ' , Y . ✓= > ✓v. >, ,« +, yif:. ' '• ✓•.r: : � , �„i. , �> , r' :,..�' � n , ,,'> ,,n?_a i�',: . , ,� i » x. ; ra�., uns � , , , 4 � ,a .. .�a . . 9 • : " ..ry,'.. . .`� . " V �. , �. . ' ,r : :' ., : «.'?K't aXi- t ' . ri s ' +c_". „.» x.._ _.Y'4 . z, r ,� �.^ ,5� v 2.v,:.:. ,�.,,t, , a z.. :•.. i . > . . F r v ? «. .; ? '4 ,r1:. h,��,.s. . em.Kr?s. r,; , uu ', _ ,��. .- , . . _ ,n t,, ✓. t:�" ,., v� _ , . . Y.• , . . .H_:+». •'„ ..�:at. . eJta a�, .s,,. .. .Sr . i y�..�i45' '' z ,, .^� . .i , f, r., , >" � A£? ' in :;._ 's,., a� ..,_ � . I. .+S_",_i . ..E. .:» .-S, � . . . .vr +,__ , , � _,_ v ... � ;,+ . . > -x .( � . -.' : . . . x . .: -Y`.�h r,y�e� 4 ` . . .. .,. ds+u � � x.. ; �n . u.' , :�.: E:r : ..,,, .... , -r.#.. March :;>.'x.�ri_ ,rvJr:� hr..�1-�, �.�. -h_ r'- ,_: a . ;r4 .- _'xa,r 'v ,a:c.:: `•.. , •#f i',,A` '-iri>ylN.!v .i`zr ,. . . ?✓«z . vd: � " ; v , ,�. r,, . J�v , . x',h . ;C r, v _,r ?.'. ,v , �+e- . �n�. . 3,= •':t?,,.:si > �� -�'r 4r'v x, _ , ' , i%"k a. .n P , ' + �'e. ' �X,. :✓ . •. '. Sf'Y . . ' _. +. - •, � �> , ��, ` '�v #".�. . . . >'✓', ;. , ,?x .'� . - 'i. ' , „ ° h;,�,. ., J v 'xs v ,_ �, `t•.. ,.Fc3.Tv3 +' r' 1• r �� xv h i i � 'u d/,- i i �X.. k • de. �.,n - ..r,., .. s.�`ta•>ff -,. .. ,. .,a >2d°•d:.i' . > - ,'�' -r'r � 3'a.:. '.. ,. 'e l : tU,' ? ':S. *� -a ! +M :.t W Yi � ' '9 r�_ _. _ fk^.4 : , : -.. 2. , �. y1'. . ',,. , :k ;?r t,omv �, . +� .T. }a � i+.x l>.s'`... . .24 : , ) : . , ; ✓. n : c .� •i• ' ,.as,+,,.". : .-"-��,, , , - ,'1�''' "�r,.M ?�. +m° a. ., , 4+ , a u ? �", Y , .,J Ltf�li?. A hsa aa , J,. ! rx _v ': a,.i : : a ' I' •5v . 'h)>>+'. _A+ i� •n ,' '> �., ' a z v_�•" :, �v ✓'z- fi s �.."v `nY.'h.,+ r• r�`.�i'_: � ,� , . fi. 'P,.ai•� ,, r $ . . � e a '�•.S:. r.1',8 ;.,. 5v,',yaxrr. T e.� ) 7'„_ W h $i� n:.:.�a . ,. t� � +. > , � : b „, + agr ,. rb> . n. _ .. . . 1 f�y.5 •, . ,r r s a »'a� ;i�; , r.,. :,�; . v ��.£.-,.�'z•'..v�`+� .> a , a„=�. . . r�a�'-s "• : ,G . . r;T _ ? ,� YJ. d 1 -.= "ii lA • 1.....??. 4 .r,.,.,k.. , J$y �h .uCwk'�ce• S+F�. .. , ... .a.'?.. ... . ,.. . .. �k. �v. 3o�s ..`o 'G,.adcitv�.� A. r i A p, i l 2-.�. 5 r . r „ v : � , C� � �- I, t .,✓ . . :( : -« ./. >_ a ,4. �u f, l: , : .1 ::�,» � S r P yt v ,r� 3'v >z. . L ,_ix- , e �s Ge> -. .. . J.r. ..a. >.,=�r • . ..,. _. � .. . . er. , , ; . :_- '_, _ .e,1 " - � +: , h Y - ^»> ,-_: . _ ° . ,� .' a:^f. - :. p.. . � ,..!!��.. �. .£_... � : _. . x „ .x> « h, 'n ,v!..:»h >,,- , ' fs � '>z+ . �, ". a n x '4, .^y x x �: r � ' '*''.h,: ... . % .,✓. . ,'>....�. .. , � ., . r _ .,a . . r r %r-r, " ,a+ , ,;a,.,, . . ,, , ,. ✓ "_. .. ., m� ,a x . . .. ..r ,. .s z b ....; n,.7 May 2 �'..��p.,,,: . v , -;_e, . t'•, . .�r.v :,: � Y o � ,`✓ .ra '.> Y .» +,_.. :.:_ . , i ;. �r . �?: .?� ,, �r_. . �« �.,'. 11 , , v4 . Yn,JT_-• f. ��. v. u ,' 4 _• v ` , "� r-tn !✓, ': � Yar � _., h, ',Hi • >. � i, , �::, yG+ , ,,.> ..,.a. ._r .. .,,:..,, ;.e • ,t. 4�.r _i>: t.�, «_y ,'e�" ,r' - M. ... ., _ _-„ .' _, a _ •.i .. -. J. _r 'c :x s NM . ,iF i�� ,v� .,,:.. v ... , " _ J...«f . ,. } 9. � Y � f�J), ,S4.'�.y+',�.a . . .,'�x. ,,> .. 5.,A r JJ 'P v . r' fvix_'+ , ai yw ✓✓.rS:,.;' C • r l >Ac' 1 , � . s , ! - . .g::� _` v' . , . aA .,v . • „'' i '''vXJ } x : r June 8 ,, �'la' �^i ',l�✓" n" r Y 4ka .'. i+ . ..v ,'v:. �yv T « .�: ,"+ .Y ` ( a, . � H,'� .a . �e xT.�* "i. ,i . .+.. yr .Ks..f :'l. J K !+, "`.r i,r' -sn' i � , ' . r M}'S 'hid.s.'4 . n' ,.. , �2�r {'.`, ..f .^G�« � � ✓'� ' ,2 : "z,,._: .' «�.t . . eu ��r�- ._ .h�?((.i.S. . ., .» �r �-0. ✓ r " ,?✓ a s' - "a`Y . 5 • , �. j X �, :�,-. lr,. �� ' June 27 s✓ ' .. _ _ >: .. .. ,,. Zs'v: ,. _�:. ,. a , ..3'f ,_... ? a.. 'v4__ r k -f ✓i -1,.- , u ._ ,. ..,,1_' . ..,- J. , '1nR, .l , .. .Svc ,. . � ,..5. .. n i� m .,.. 4.s >j ,�xt3�: i S ,.. >, _, x's ...?.s{ «. ;i,. , ,r ...... :....... . %r': r,'_._�' :�' . r,i.,..__,.. .�_.. - r i .N .� .. - - x_.- c � ... am.:'F. .J'".. , _: .. ,..._ ....,..%r'� :«�...:, k,' x .. r° . -... :,,.... .r_.__. _ >_ .#_.._. r ._,. .» ... _ ...i. .., -..: � - rr,r., .f. ,. _... r _ . _ ... . .x z_ .: ^... ,,.�.{ _. _ . ._ _ � �. >.+. ,a „ �...., ..T' ,..k.;�, -. �':.a.:..- c X, , H a .. .» ..,..1' _ ,±;-. ... x:_ 1...a J ,.. , _ a.. _ .. a , ..... u. r..._ {', ,•,.... ._ :>_ v >_iri _9. .__. ..... ,.v., n ,. r .. > _•r r.. .. ^s. ,F,.J _r , ..: .e - 1>_kP r,.. ... 5,_... :_a ,..A .. ..,...v, .. _Y,�. . .. m ,. .. - . __,_ _. .�i,...,u //,e , h.. _ r, :3,''.. >. , Ja,,.v, ., n. xn... . ,r. , ?U. .. . , , ,. , S. , _.., .v. ., Jr. _, ,,rx- .. .v_. ,,, ,. ,.as .!_, .- f1_ ✓r .. yvi'v> - 'P .>y.: �1...v r,..., _ � L. , .. . }r � f ._ _ ... . M «_. , _ ,.. ,.. , .%�::.+.. +:? ,r ,.:1:___ ._ ..:. xx 5 -. "s .. .._ ..1 a''s +, A,V , ..,. T.'„� '. ... � .r "... ✓_� , v ..,,h n.e _ _l. ,m . .. 4� _4 r NG.+✓"iN?`w '�>'N r ,kv,�.« ,� _ n ,�_ ... � z_a ,. , _ s,,s , _ -, � _ n..s! . . r>. . _2 ,. ... 3 ,. n.f, . ? , . > i ,, ✓.. ,., ,f.,_�,. � , .. h,ij,:v ..!1,.,- ...:i>,..._...,e..,_x 1 -..Y n... ,s'a'x."._,. ,rn..SYfr.- !,,✓`�. .....,v.v...,._n...... as � �Yrr'._, „ .vn S• .Y.. -u, .Y.<. -5c- ,i :. ;r -.JS'. .r_ v..a sr ,,: >.. Sy<.•.... : .. .. .! "Y.- ,,__, «v.. ... _v0 ,4a ... 1.., .. y �'F°i .,a_ _ h , .rte it . _ _ u» � ,. ,Kr:_:. . +a .qd.�, ),. .- '�k-.- t.,., __ ....... . ,'>�da�'�",:, ;'z#'ra•:. ,. _ �#` E 3; r. .. ,n _.....a _.Y... .•ns. '�" .. n_ ._ « _ > «_Y. ., .,.. ';�k,� C > ... ,-- .�r.:_ ✓,{. ).... ,+-u .. e, __n. r X , .« .. .. .. >r. ...G_,a. `�'.,. ,.. -�,,.. .ai...., /'J v.:i.. _ a4 . 4 nJ,Y.. •✓: ,+.. ,, -: _ t :.._, . - .. , ., .. _ .. «. . ., .. -. «. >•, � t .. .: .. x`xrxi � v , ..... ,� �, : - - _, .. r . M'"s±v ., ires..,:•x . s ", . v v •�' n. ......A ?e� lG ,_,�.. 111 ,Y ,4.,, .. .3 S 'xS. _h > R.. P. n _ ;y,J,,,, h. , ".. T .i. _ v, h. ..,.. ,- � .e, >.?,.» _. ^ v, v .. .,_o ,. >Y� Y%v�._5 �f'i :. n «. _.... .._. xr. .. _ a ...,+. -a i � .. A!..,. J,��;. e?-vv. .. _., •f' ,n 'L.n ) s Yx xv. », xS „- �''i`rr't, i., ', ,J'i :.a gg - x:•%'.� xi v, >. vS"x ... , .W __;3 _ .Nih i , n5 M•,: -1, �`i,.f a, A '. . ,. '. ], � o.n vnJ ., _ _. a ...> N+. > ,.. X` , _^.�rr,vi ,:r/ , .: s. . :>, ,. £. d � , M. of .- � . .,n'v' '�.� _x.Ti :_�.. i.. v.�T, i,�. SV� �y )�yil P _. 2:`Ji. ,JiTx +fri .. , ,. M4�•"a7C ,.'t;R,yA'i �:. ,�,,5 s /, ,:.. ,. ...: v•Y��,._ ✓ „ .r ,l.� q _az�_, .....Ffi° August 3 .Y'. xx, . Y7.>.e .?_ :f.. A..,>^'f -5� ,Y... � F' SS' .i• � .: :�' .3u F.- Y_v:i l':>•',x�, .•. �,..:,• 2+L- � r '✓.' . { .,,i„ . atJ- a .. . r r t,:: _ GN,.,�x"+v;�. ✓. ..: : -..r.° x,_ �1_'`'Li v,r ,. :..: ..: ,s,.: ,.� r'�'2,.0 _... , ?.. e.c« .a. .✓ -r«�. a . , u3`�' -�'.., - r`�,='� . -.. x,. � �._i: ! ., s . .; 1'.- vx , >.. a -: is. .i.. }. -.!, .. > '-lr :, :nj': y>:, :+h,,,, ., ,h,."'S! �; ,?,rY., } ?. iT, ,aPa?:^ d'. - - •]is.. ;S' ' ,,r� Yh �.:•r ._ VV >TJS1:2. }+ .. rl. +v, r' -'+` -' �.h .rr'i:! S_.. rd .. .:u.- x �, { : sTa. ,�, a. �. ._X __,s�_" -, "✓>,1:�., ,� 3„ 'x': ��v ,+a.s:. -rY.. . ti4, ..'•.?i "•r• ��. .-+,3 1,. 'd � S �•:Ylx,- ... J, h_ . +v � �,4 5 "15�.. -: -. S" 1 ' auA ... ,i. 'fi,, > .,s ✓✓' 8Ji . = rya.J. .'T. v :1.: 4 - �:4w✓' :,vs "' _... �'�', . :,k! � .rvi' '' ? , Y,. -.T.= ? fY: ,��'�j '},� s�•. �.,iyN�.. � 35 � 3r3� •�:. �_.1 sJ ..?�,`Ji.av i ? >y ,'jf?XAJ,. ^, �. �{ .5y2 R�� Sr,j, ».p''��vv�, 5Y1. :,+,, .. .- 2�'+ra'•; _. s �J1. ;�_...,5i +mss July 5 Au ust 29 r :'' ,_ „x,^,..': a+ - "'rte'. 9 �,� -.r r, � r >,.., S . ... «,. _.. r ..x,+ .sf.r. r _rr,. 5.. _ .. ,_ ..., . ..r ... >__:, ..._, u,av, S .. ..s=`.. . . ..> . > , s� r >....,r>r_s.v .. >„ M .... r.f ... _.,, fr. r..:.._....,,. r.�' . ,. .. �,...,.xs =S. Vin_ _.h. ),.l_,.J..c. .. ii :3:.. :,.. v�e- .. . :.. _... .. _. .. „ ..r :.......✓... ;? .)... ,..,.. .. _. 1. .. >...:... r' _l _....r.. ,..,_.. r, .:. � .. .. .... ....... _....i... Y. ^, > , ... ._:ii......, f _, 3. .:. :,: .., .. _ ,•i /.. ,.:. .:. '. ,.., " .� .: ,.. .+... , _ _!•. .0 / 4 Y- .:� -, :YT'... .. .::. a... A. . -�- T.....,, . ?.. __._ f _r,r....� . ",, ..:.., .. l v -... rr '�' � .� ,'.:L,., r. ,.:�., . r..: .v. _. September 6 , x r. m. u v r_ � •r . ✓n v...«.... r, . , ,..•v. ,:>. ._.:s..,, r...v _•a v ? , , .c .,Y: >,_�... _„ ., .:•_ _ ..._ si:...,. ,n , .... _,.z, ».. n ...,... .t. . ,n h .,,.. :. "';� _ r ,:r ^,. ........�7__l _ .. , .._. Ji ...:r -'J . , , ,.3'�i3.: ..,2.. .._.+ ., >'S. ,. ,., I.,..v .K..'a, ,+�r'.. ..,. _1i. la .. sl .x:.sr. ; :..:r -' n. 3. ..t. ,p ., > . . . .x3. � '+' ..__.>?� ....... . .... ... GS..:_ _ 2 .,.y, - �,. •e �....J .. r,.. .i "�., _._ -x.i xJ'-. F....�_,rv._. ., as ' ,r.. .... G r _ -,. _ .._ E v « ..^ A -« e. «....:r sl. s. "._..✓.. "1< ?. ,t' r'^.� ,., :.v,! .,x5!{._ .' H � , , � ,_,>.T...h, ...,. _. r: �,..,_ r y a _..._ _ a;. .✓, r,?_ -, .. ., , ,- T, nv. A i... ,. u.. .,!'.. c.z, Rexs .t. _ rk'sY s,�>. .. v':,. ti.li: i �_ - ";, v,o+.. 'u4' _ • -_. x. ,L..,.. .'T+, YvaY, {;,yJy ''.. >.. ... t.:. __ . .. _ a;. >• N»un �: r 5. % "i: ., . , ,v. _ �'_ . _K:. +•„{ h�•: Y - ,!r . +i V. « ,. s ....t� .::,,!.•' .Rr „A._ e �:,.. �'+, r> v.. .»>1n. ,;..i..i+:, ::IKla.•J .� , �. r ,.?1:?T, ., Xi ,. .✓, r y%,. 1� ` .. ., n, si,J,.f . s +'✓"' .. ,. a'*kes . :. _ ,v � ''1. .. a✓>. .,...a,._..... .... , i. ... v ( S :A .:rl...x g,.' .>+. , ", .� ij� r.:. •may ,,�,; ...: ..., r1ai v.'. :, :. /J.'�:, ., October 5 October 24 :. . .. , a ._... . ..::.a:.n.:.. f..._ ./. ...,kJ ,•r., .. ^ Ps.0 .. ..v r t .>-•., .r ., _. � 3.�✓. »a. .. .s. . .. s ..z .F ., ti::✓ ; ..:. ," . ,.> > .<z . , . . _,, . 2 y','. r_ ,h .. , . __„ „ �" •. +,:A.. .r� . I « v. � , ._ . , ........ r .., ...•.. ,v _ r. s.�4rJ� . � a ._ f i. , .. i.: December 7 ... . .._r v - k e December 26 November 7 ..n... ...?- ,.n..., ,. ,. 1rrr /' .......... _.3........r ...s..:.., ...... :: '?r�._Fr:::.�:r, • _':..,. .:.:.: _ .. ....- '.. _ i. ''. ii x > , f _ Acknowledgement and Signature I acknowledge that I have read all of the information listed in the City of Arden Hills Land Use Application and fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. gitAi Property Owner Signature equired) Date Applicant Signature (If different than the property owner) Date Please contact the City Planner at (651) 792 -7800 if you have any questions regarding this application. Additional copies of this application form are available on the City's website: http: / /www.ci.arden- hills.mn.us Revised: 12 -06 -10 Page 3 of 3 June 13, 2011 Arden Hills Planning Commission City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 Dear Planning Commission: Bryan & Debra Lillehaugen 7 745 Amble Drive Arden Hills, MN 55112 h- 651 -636 -6089, m- 651 - 260 -7214 lillepad @comcast. net We are writing to request a building variance for our property located at: 1145 Amble Drive Arden Hills, MN 55112 We are looking to add on to our existing garage, putting an additional stall directly behind the right side of the current garage. The addition would extend the current lines of the side of the garage and back of the house to "fill out the rectangle." The current garage encroaches on the setback from Pleasant Drive on the right side of the house. When the house was built, the setback was 30', but with the change of code to a 40' setback, it put the structure in non - compliance. Our original desire was to add a 2nd level above both the existing garage and the proposed new garage. Due to the setback issues, we have altered the plans to build only the one -level structure in the area in question. The addition will help us to keep the property cleaner by allowing interior storage — versus the current exterior area that is viewable along the whole length of Pleasant Drive. We really like our neighborhood and Mounds View School District, and would prefer to make the changes to our property versus moving out of the area. We would like to be able to increase the value of our property while making it more functional for our usage. Please carefully consider this variance request. Sincerely, Bryan and Debra Lillehaugen Attachment B Air Photo and Photographs of the Site ,_ EN HILLS July 6, 2011, Planning Commission Meeting 449 oft ,,-...:71, 449 oft Attachment C Plans and Aerial of the Site EN HILLS July 6, 2011, Planning Commission Meeting cC r. 0 0 s.r N O • as s.a O -0 g 8'14 ,0 . 43 Qi 0 v o is w o2 Ca 4. 0 .3eu cCS 0.0'0 cr1 v' v� : cC'O d tn Ems.. O•sM -0 ris cC u i 0 C 0 >"O 0 "=3U 0cw -0N a •o .3 d +d.? 3 › Q gbto o v 0 Q o- ,06 c !V V Q 11 1111111111111111:hiiiiii- RIGHT ELEV,4TION 9 LEFT ELEVATION •L-V6 O SIG1SNO.SS, 3G CINV Mat. 3, NI SNCIIICINO0 sNcisrow. 'srtouvoi.sads NV-7. -177 01. ,13,1111G 1,7,3N3 .3_LON 111111111 GZO-Ei INV-Td 1.31, ELEV,4TION SCALE, i'.0" 3WPS a01 3191SNOdS -?� 3.2 aNv CISI, ='t, N; SNCIlIaNCJ at, SNCISN3WIC -rr A=1 .0.A Ol aacn'1S .0 .01.09.11NJ_, ,31CN ?1=9WnN N7ld „Cie —,6317 „o-,ZZ PROPOSED \ 9 In 0 d 0 „;,9 —,LI 0 0 N dr BREAKFAST U • 1 aaslva 3A01-0. L -- L - - - -- F - - - -- O O O r O L-- - - - --- ..o 6 ox q 01 w STEEL BEAr-1• DROPPED? FROF'OSED LIVING h , s I 0 O r 1"1,4IN LEVEL FLOOR FLAN EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: July 6, 2011 PC Agenda Item 3.B TO: Planning Commission FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #11 -015 — This Request Does Not Require a Public Hearing Applicant: Marsha and Brian Bergeson Property Location: 3759 New Brighton Road Request: Site Plan Review Requested Action The applicants are requesting a site plan review to construct a 903 square foot detached garage on the property located at 3759 New Brighton Road. The proposed structure would replace the existing 580 square foot garage and would be the only accessory structure located on the site. Background 1. Overview of Request The applicants own the residential property located at 3759 New Brighton Road. The property is zoned R -2. They are proposing to demolish their existing 580 square foot garage and build a 903 square foot detached garage in the rear yard. No variances are required for the proposed detached garage. The Zoning Code permits up to two accessory structures on a property provided that neither exceeds 728 square feet in size. In addition, Section 1325.01 Subd. 7 of the City's Zoning Code allows for a single accessory structure, not to exceed 1,458 square feet, if approved through a Site Plan Review. The home was constructed in 1938, and the existing garage was constructed during the 1940s. The existing garage is currently set back five feet from the side property line and does not meet setback regulations, which require a ten foot setback for accessory structures. Both the home and garage were constructed prior to the current zoning regulations. The existing garage is legally non - conforming; however, the proposed project would bring the property City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 6, 2011 1lAhdocsl lahAHdata\Planning \Planning CasesI2011111 -015 - 3759 New Brighton Road - Site Plan Review - (Pending IPC Report.docx Page 1 of 7 into conformance with the present code because the new garage would be relocated to meet the minimum ten -foot side yard setback for accessory structures in the R -2 district. The depth of the new garage would be expanded from twenty -seven feet to forty -two feet. It would remain in the rear yard of the property and would be situated fifteen feet behind the dwelling unit after relocating the existing building footprint five feet to the west and six feet to the south. The proposed garage would be located eleven feet from the nearest side property line. All other setback requirements would be met. The new structure would be expanded vertically but would not exceed fifteen feet in height. The applicant has stated that the siding and roofing materials of the proposed garage would match that of the existing home. The applicant has submitted a letter addressing the details of the application, a landscape plan for the property, elevations of the proposed structures, and photographs of the site (Attachments A and C). There are no known variance requests on file for this property. 2. Site Data Low Density Residential Single Family Detached Residential R -2: Single and Two - Family Residential District .69 Acres (30,056.4 Square Feet) The rear yard elevation is at a lower grade than the front yard elevation 3. Surrounding Area North Low Density Residential R -2: Single and Two - Family Residential District Single Family Detached Residential South Low Density Residential R -2: Single and Two - Family Residential District Single Family Detached Residential East Low Density Residential R -2: Single and Two - Family Residential District Single Family Detached Residential West Neighborhood Business & Low Density Residential N -B: Neighborhood Business & R- 2: Single and Two - Family Residential District Neighborhood Business & Single Family Detached Residential City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 6, 2011 I I Ahdocsl l ah I AHdata I Planning \Planning Cases 12011111 -015 - 3 759 New Brighton Road - Site Plan Review - (Pending )IPC Report.docx Page 2 of 7 Plan Evaluation 1. R -2 Regulations, Existing Conditions, and Proposed Redevelopment A. Lot Size & Dimensions — Not Impacted The lot is 30,056.4 square feet, 100 feet wide and 300 feet long. The lot meets all R -2 lot size requirements. B. Structure Setbacks — Meets Requirements The existing detached garage is five feet from the side property line, and therefore encroaches five feet into the side yard. The proposed garage would meet all setback requirements and bring the property into conformance with the zoning requirements, eliminating the setback encroachment of the existing garage. C. Lot Coverage — Meets Requirements The existing structure coverage does not exceed the R -2 coverage limitations. 1. Minimum Lot Area (sf) 11,000 2. Minimum Lot Size (ft, width /depth) 85/120 3. Height (ft.) — Principal Structures 35 4. Height (ft.) — Accessory Structures 15 5. Lot Covered by Structure 25% 6. Min. Landscape Lot Area 65% 7. Minimum Building Setbacks (ft) Front yard 40 Rear Yard (Principle) 30 Rear Yard (Accessory) 10 Side Yard Interior - Principal (Min/total both yards on lot) 5/15 Side Yard Interior - Accessory 10 Side Yard Corner 40 Chart 2: Lot Coverage Existing Proposed R -2 Regulation Square feet % Square Feet % Square Feet ° �0 Dwelling 2,512 8.36% 2,512 8.36% Garage 661 2.20% 903 3.00% Total Structure 3,172 10.56% 3,415 11.36% 7,514 25% Driveway 1,644 5.47% 1,775 5.9% Total Lot Coverage 4,816 16.02% 5,190 17.27% 10,520 35% Remaining Landscape Area 25,240 83.98% 24,866 82.73% 19,536 65% Lot Size 30,056 30,056 30,056 D. Structure Height — Meets Requirements The existing dwelling does not exceed the 35 foot height limit, nor would the proposed garage exceed the 15 foot height limit. The plans provided by the applicant suggest that the height of the building is 13.75 feet at grade, which falls below the 15 foot maximum City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 6, 2011 ILAhdocsl lahlAHdatalPlanning \Planning CasesI2011 I11 -015 - 3759 New Brighton Road - Site Plan Review - (Pending) IPC Report.docx Page 3 of 7 height for accessory structures in the R -2 District. The applicant has stated that the current uneven elevation of the site would be corrected to the extent that the height of the proposed garage would not exceed 15 feet. 2. Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements The proposed addition is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. 3. Additional Review This application may require Rice Creek Watershed District approval prior to the issuance of any building permits. If the site plan review is approved, a condition has been added requiring RCWD review prior to the issuance of building permits. Site Plan Review Evaluation Criteria The Zoning Code allows for a property owner to construct a single accessory structure, not to exceed 1,458 square feet in unusual circumstances, if approved through a Site Plan Review; however, the Code does not define unusual circumstance, nor does it specifically identify criteria for evaluating a site plan for the purpose of granting approval of a larger accessory structure. The approval is largely left up to the discretion of the Planning Commission and City Council. The purpose of the site plan review process is to ensure a higher quality project than could be achieved by following the letter of the Zoning Code. In the case of this application, the proposed garage is 903 square feet. The property owners could fit two accessory structures up to 728 square feet each on their property, which would likely have more of a visual impact than this single structure. The Code regulates that the exterior finish must be compatible with the existing structure and the neighborhood. The applicant has indicated that the exterior of the proposed garage will match the color and material of the existing principal structure. Findings of Fact Staff offers the following sixteen findings of fact for review: 1. The lot meets all other minimum requirements of the R -2 Zone. 2. The existing dwelling does not encroach on any setbacks. 3. The existing garage encroaches five feet into the side yard setback. 4. A site plan review is required for the detached accessory structure. 5. Garages and accessory structures are permitted within the R -2 Zone. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 6, 2011 IlAhdocsl lahlAHdatalPlanning \Planning CasesI2011111 -015 - 3759 New Brighton Road - Site Plan Review - (Pending )IPC Report.docx Page 4 of 7 6. The proposed accessory structure would reduce the existing non - conformity of the lot by removing the non - conforming garage and constructing a new garage that meets all setbacks. 7. The maximum structure coverage meets the requirements of the R -2 zone. 8. The minimum landscaped area exceeds the requirements of the R -2 zone. 9. The existing dwelling does not exceed the 35 foot height limit. 10. The proposed garage would not exceed the 15 foot height limit for accessory structures. 11. The plan suggests that there would be fill brought to the site to create an even grade for the proposed garage. 12. The driveway would be expanded five feet lengthwise to meet the front of the new garage. 13. The existing dwelling and the proposed garage are outside of the 100 -year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. 14. The proposed garage would be 903 square feet. 15. The exterior finish will match the principal structure. 16. The lot is unusual in that it is unusually large, and there would be enough room to construct two 728 square foot accessory structures on the property without a variance. 17. The proposed garage would create less impact and be more attractive than what is presently on the property. Staff Analysis The findings of fact for this Site Plan Review support a recommendation for approval. If the Planning Commission wishes to make a recommendation for denial, the findings of fact must be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this site plan review, Staff recommends the following seven conditions: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission. 2. The applicant shall obtain all necessary grading and building permits prior to beginning construction or demolition on the site. 3. The applicant shall use best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion at all times during construction. 4. The height of the structure shall not exceed 15 feet. 5. The applicant shall obtain approval or a waiver from the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to the issuance of any building permits. 6. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 7. The property shall be limited to a single accessory structure. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 6, 2011 1 I Ahdocsl l ah I AHdata I Planning \Planning Cases 12011111 -01 5 - 3 759 New Brighton Road - Site Plan Review - (Pending )IPC Report.docx Page 5 of 7 Options The findings in this report support approval of the site plan review. If the Planning Commission wishes to recommend denial the findings should be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 11 -015 for a Site Plan Review at 3759 New Brighton Road based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, and the seven conditions in the July 6, 2011 planning case report. 2. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 11 -015 for a Site Plan Review at 3759 New Brighton Road based on the following findings of fact... 3. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 11 -015 for a Site Plan Review at 3759 New Brighton Road: a specific reason and /or information request should be included with a motion to table. Public Hearing Although a public hearing is not required for a variance or a site plan review, the Commission can allow public comments. Notice Although a site plan review does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within three - hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property. Resident Comment The City has not received any comment from residents. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on June 13, 2011. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by August 12, 2011 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day review period. The City may with the petitioners' consent extend the review period beyond the 120 days. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 6, 2011 IlAhdocsl lahlAHdatalPlanning \Planning CasesI2011111 -01 5 - 3759 New Brighton Road - Site Plan Review - (Pending) IPC Report.docx Page 6 of 7 Attachments A — Application and Supporting Materials B — Air Photo and Photographs of the Site C — Plans and Surveys City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 6, 2011 IlAhdocsllahlAHdatalPlanning \Planning Casesl2011I11 -015 - 3759 New Brighton Road - Site Plan Review - (Pending)IPC Report.docx Page 7 of 7 Attachment A Application and Supporting Materials EN HII,LS July 6, 2011, Planning Commission Meeting EN HILLs 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 Telephone (651) 792 -7800 Fax (651) 634 -5137 www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us For Office Use Only Planning Case No. Submittal Date Application Completed Date Accepted by Receipt Number Council Decision Council Decision Date 49,k IA— X15 ASV all SF ill 2010 LAND USE APPLICATION Applicant Information Avplicant: Address: �-16C1 a-- 1394 bN Ta0 Telephone No.: Crej � _ �� _ � (� tr, j Other: (44 Fax No.: Email Address 01.��_(��C�(� Property Information Property Owner: 1V4 PrP--42k1A� � /11.1 13 t+1 Owner Telephone No. • t4:3-3 r 55U2- '003Oter73o JWiiLt. Address of Property Involved: �' New BR t&flVY1 \ 752 _Leal Description:__ Property ID No :_._7�3Q _.� !-12 ik3 G� vQ� Type of Use:__ � C:€1\11-At.., Zone_ gt .._ _._ Property Acreage: LA".fcu_'h,�ly M 55 .2-30( Owner Address: Type of Request* Li Comprehensive Plan Amendment ($600 + $1,000 escrow) u Conditional /Interim Use Permit or Amendment ($300 + $600 escrow) u Preliminary Plat ($600 + $25 per lot + $1,500 escrow) u Final Plat ($400 + $25 per lot) u Rezoning ($600 + $1 ,000 escrow) CI Master Planned Unit Development ($600 + $2,000 escrow) u Final Planned Unit Development ($200.00 + $600 escrow. } Li Planned Unit Development Amendment ($350 + $2,000 escrow) u Zoning or City Code Amendment ($600 + $1,000 escrow) u Land Use Requests — Not Already Specified ($200) L:J Minor Subdivision (lot split/consolidation ) (($450 + $1,000 escrow) Site Plan Review ($250 + $600 escrow) u Vacation of Easement or Right -of -Way ($400 + $600 escrow) u Variance (Zoning Code) ($300 + $600 escrow) u Appeal of Administrative Decision ($100) u Apportionment of Assessments ($30) Revised: 12 -11 -09 Page 1 of 3 Brief Desorption of Request (please also include a typed, detailed letter exptaining_the project): W114,0 LA6 'Pc 6-11,1,1/41 v[:9f AM0( . 66 54s-t kAJY TQ�DF. YKOf� uN� -- '(ADD tL4-' LN?k *Certain applications are subject to review and approval by RCWD directly at 763- 398 -3070 for additional information. *The land use application fees do not cover building, sign upon approval of a land use application. *All applications will be subject to additional fees for reimbu filing, reviewing, and processing of application in the form of �j . Vii. %!.. \ :.., /lr.. \ \?:✓/i - ..,,, :;•J.l.-:nv�.; i::•: ..�:'."....;;"•�- : :•:• ":•`.�'t• �•;•l v::.•,�: ::;i "::• +.:r r. Jv:::.r ....:. v.,J- � \•.?v:: •:iLrv:,.3� -.: v.:v vx.:....: 4. ;..::::,r .• ::.. 1:n +5:. J..d�. r ... :. .... x .. . .. ..... rJ....., ....n ...5. ...y..... . .r r ^. �.J w. It v :t. , -..♦ .. .,•./ \\•. ... �... ...4 . %{.,�. \.,.� \ .r ?i �,;.•ylr A l• .��.;iln r \.��.�?�:�v,.,,;.�} \ �i•' a:, : //? }a. ?.:�/•: ��,.,. / /.\\�� /.Y\\>. : / /.- "�.,. ! �- \\qlf� .n:x;/�;.,^�.,,,. J. v..�•:z: /:. � -; l � / /..., ,. JTCY6 ��, �%�:'. �+n` '%- !.�C..: /..i }!.?i�4 ?i::::•:4Gi.: :�'�??- :i }i1.iIX -:: ii: -:.r •:SFI•�:::v.+r�?:- ....• a •.: � . .. Filing & Information Requirements 1O\3 9 G.i, �Ll It Contact e required 3iated with ..,.:. 9.. :c }:.�5.� ^ <:.'..:�J.•'.�?:<`.,: is abF.:. w>:-: o-:} Y.' t�..:,:-:>' Sdl c•} F:• ::.;:.:.�ZF�::- .:XLc < ?i:.:: ?E�r - }:•: The City requests that you make a pre - application meeting with the City Planner to discuss the application process, requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the City Planner or Planning Commission, a certified survey of the property is required for all applications. The Planning Commission and /or City Council may still require a certified survey. A checklist for other required information is also available. Complete /incomplete Applications An incomplete application will delay the processing of land use requests. The application approval time commences and an application is considered officially filed when the City Planner has received and examined the application and determined that the application is complete. A decision on whether the application is complete or incomplete shall be made within fifteen (15) working days following the submittal of the application. When the application is deemed to be "complete" it shall be placed on the agenda of the first possible Planning Commission meeting provided that all required public notices have been sent and published. Payment of Fees The undersigned acknowledges that she /he understands that before a land use application can be deemed complete, all required information and fees (including all deposits) must be paid to the City. If additional fees are required to cover costs incurred by the City, the City Planner has the right to require additional payment from one or more of the undersigned, who shall be jointly liable for such fees. Such expenses may include (but are not limited to) direct city payroll and overhead costs, fees paid to consultants and other professionals, and the cost of printing, mailing, and supplies. The City may withhold final action on a land use application, withhold building permits, and /or rescind prior action until all miscellaneous fees have been paid. Applicants are advised that an escrow deposit is required at the time of the submittal of the land use application to offset costs associated with the proposed project. Unused portions of an escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. Notice of Meeting Attendance In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a designated representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the next available agenda. Revised: 1 2-1 1 -09 Page 2 of 3 Agenda Deadline and Meeting Schedule The deadline for submittal of land use applications is required according to the schedule outlined below. There are no exceptions. Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the first Wednesday after the first Monday of each month at 6:30 PM, though please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. City Council meetings are held typically the last Monday of the same month at 7:00 PM. Meetings are held in the Council Chambers at the City of Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112, unless otherwise stated. Applicants are advised that additional meetings and /or workshops are scheduled when necessary upon approval of the Planning Commission. 2010 SCHEDULE ('`subject to change) APPLICATION DEADLINE DATE* ........................ ......................... January 4 March 1 .............. July 6 September 7 November 1 TENTATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE* (Generally held on the first Wednesday after the first Monday at 6:30 p.m.) y Februa ry April 7 June 9 .t- August 4 p October 6 December 8 Acknowledgement and Signature TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE* (Generally held on the last Monday at 7:00 p.m.) February 22 April 26 June 28 August 30 October 25 December 27 I acknowledge that I have read all of the information listed in the City of Arden Hills Land Use Application and fully understand that I • am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. Property Owner Signature (Required) Applicant Signature (If different than the property owner) Date Date Please contact the City Planner at (651) 792 -7800 if you have any questions regarding this application. Additional copies of this application form are available on the City's website: htt Revised: 12 -11 -09 Page 3 of 3 :,1 /www. ci. arden - hills. nn. us Marsha and Brian Burgeson 3759 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112-3214 Home Email mburgeson@usfamily.net June 13, 2011 Meagan Beekman City Planner/Recycling Coordinator City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills Mn 55112 Dear Ms. Beekman, We are writing this letter regarding 3759 New Brighton Road, and our garage on that property that we wish to demolish and rebuild. It was built in the 1940's and is falling apart from the inside out and is also undersized for parking two ve- hicles with any additional storage. We wish to move the footprint an additional 6 feet in from the property line (making it a total of 11 feet,) move the structure back five feet and add height, of which will not exceed 15 feet. We will match the siding and roofing materials to the existing house. Most of our neighbors have been notified. Sincerely, nd Brian Burgeson Attachment B Air Photo and Photographs of the Site EN HILLS July 6, 2011, Planning Commission Meeting • O • bA as O 'C O • D1 CD ON • ,.., O 0 ¢+c� 0 �., •}' 0 1:12 Q .O .0 a O c Q � O E . 0 cc E'er .--, O cnN ccf cd ,, Q N O p O c c O 0 0 4-1 O O $, E 'C c0 b 4-4 1:31-4 O o cN cd O 0 O 60 ' V U U U `i' O o ms E E-� 0 6 ° V 1 W V cd Q � O 64 0 O CCS CC3 •ry cid i., 0 0 0 0 U c� O O, • • ON • O cc3 0 Pc U 7, 0 •5 0 O 0 U, O U - •"" O E 0 0 0 o E-+ O N «3 cd to O 0.G O . r.), 4-6 p O o O 0 0 U cA c�3 it o 0 O ,�U 0 E^0co 0 0 ON cd an U U bUA�� " U 6,.,,C.7 N U U 0 0 ft, E-+� U W ,o � N U o Q 0 0 O O W U 0 ront an • side views of existing gars: _••; Attachment C Plans and Surveys EN HILLS July 6, 2011, Planning Commission Meeting #44 Alo (II • - . • . • ...••• , , I' ....r...„ • ..,..,..,,..,___.....,.,...„_,,....._...: t D r Vie kkit'l • • • •••••• r- • r • - • •••• ••••-• • • - -r• • •••• • r. • r •••• r-r. • sr,,,•■•••••.. ••••, - •,•••.,,, • • .• • •••••-, • •••• • -•• • --r-,••••--• • *--•••••■,,, r••••,.. . f . . . yr-. • *r* sr, , s 7, vt. • �` R�EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: July 6, 2011 PC Agenda Item 3.0 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #11 -016 Applicant: Arden Plaza, LLC (Dennis Trooien) Property Location: 3527 Lexington Avenue North Request: Final PUD for Phase 1 Amendment, Preliminary and Final Plat Requested Action Continue this item to a future meeting. Background The application was not complete in time to include on the July 6, 2011, Planning Commission agenda. Staff requests that the Planning Commission table Planning Case 11 -016 until such time that a full review can be completed on the proposal. A motion to table to a future meeting is necessary because this item had already been noticed as a public hearing for this evening prior to it being pulled from the agenda. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 6, 2011 IlMetro -inet. uslardenhills1Planning\Planning CasesI2011111 -016 - Arden Plaza - PUD Amendment (Pending)I07-06-11 - PC Report - Arden Plaza - TABLED.doc Pa e 1 of 1 g EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: July 6, 2011 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner SUBJECT: Report from the City Council PC Agenda Item 5.A June 13, 2011, City Council Meeting The City Council unanimously voted to grant a three -year extension to the Traverse Business Center. The Planning Commission did not review this extension because it did not involve an amendment to the development plan, only the development agreement. The City Council unanimously approved Planning Case 11 -013 to amend Section 1320.04, Subd. 1 and add Section 1320.075 to the Zoning Code to regulate school uses in the R1 District. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval for this item at their June 8, 2011 meeting. The City Council directed Staff to begin working towards updating the City's website. The Community Development department will head -up the process; however, a small committee is being formed that will help with the initial process of determining the process and scope of work. June 27, 2011, City Council Meeting The City Council unanimously voted to approve Planning Case 11 -010 to amend the Zoning Code to allow detached garages in the front yards of lakeshore lots under certain circumstances. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval for this item at their June 8, 2011, meeting. The City Council unanimously voted to approve Planning Case 11 -011 for a Preliminary and Final plat, Master and Final PUD, and Zoning Code Amendment to allow the subdivision of the former Holiday Inn property and the reuse of the existing building as an assisted senior housing facility. The Council will approve the development agreements for Both Lot 1 and 2 at a later City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 6, 2011 \\ Metro- inet. us \ardenhills\Planning\Planning Commission \CC Reports \07 -06 -11 - PC report - CC report.doc Page 1 of 1 meeting. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval for this item at their June 8, 2011, meeting. The City Council unanimously voted to approve Planning Case 11 -012 for a Zoning Code Amendment to update the City's variance, and other land use application, procedures. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval for this item at their June 8, 2011, meeting. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 6, 2011 \\ Metro- inet .us \ardenhills\Planning\Planning Commission \CC Reports \07 -06 -11 - PC report - CC report.doc Page 2 of 1