HomeMy WebLinkAbout8A, Planning Case #12-013 - Variance at 1185 Benton Way EN HILLS
Request for Council Action 8A
Prepared By: Matt Horton, Community Council Meeting Date: August 27, 2012
Development Intern
Planning Case #12-013—Variance at 1185 Benton Way
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
N/A N/A N/A
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council approve Planning Case #12-013 for a variance at 1185 Benton Way based on
the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the following four 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 applicant shall obtain approval or a waiver from the Rice Creek Watershed District
prior to the issuance of any building permits.
4. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code.
Supporting Documents:
1. Memorandum dated August 27, 2012, from Matt Horton, Community Development Intern.
2. Attachment A—August 8, 2012, Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
3. Attachment B—Simplified Plan.
4. Attachment C—August 8,2012, Report to the Planning Commission.
"EN ILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 27, 2012
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Patrick Klaers, City Administrator
FROM: Matt Horton, Community Development Intern
SUBJECT: Planning Case#12-013
Applicant: Peter Vujovich
Property Location: 1185 Benton Way
Request: Variance
Requested Action
Motion to Approve Planning Case 12-013 for a Variance at 1186 Benton Way, Based on the
Findings of Fact and the Submitted Plans, as Amended by the Four Conditions in the August 27,
2012, Report to the City Council.
Background
1. Overview of Request
The applicant is the owner of the home at 1185 Benton Way. The property is located in the
R-3 District, and was constructed within the Hunter's Park PUD development.
The applicant has submitted a proposal to construct a 574 square foot addition to his home at
1185 Benton Way. This proposal is substantially similar to a variance request that was made
by the property owner, and approved by the City, in 2007, but which was never built.
The addition would be located between the existing home and detached garage. A portion of
the addition would be constructed over an existing deck. Three variances are needed to
complete the proposed project. The minimum side-yard setback for this property is 5 feet
with a combined minimum of 15 feet on both sides. The proposed addition would maintain
the minimum 5 foot setback, but would reduce the combined total of both side yard setbacks
to 10 feet. Secondly, the structural lot coverage is required by Code to not exceed 25
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for August 27, 2012
\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2012\12-013-1185 Benton
Page 1 of 4
percent; however, the proposed addition would result in 27 percent lot coverage by structure.
Thirdly, the landscaped lot area is required to be a minimum of 65 percent where the
proposed addition would leave only 61 percent.
The applicant has submitted a letter addressing the variance criteria an aerial of the property
with the addition drawn in, and elevations of the proposed addition(Attachment Q. Since
the Planning Commission meeting,the applicant has also submitted a simplified plan
(Attachment B) that eliminates their past proposal on the drawing and makes the plan easier
to understand. While the plan has been simplified, the proposal itself has not changed since
the Planning Commission's review.
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."
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?
• 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
The Planning Commission offers the following sixteen findings of fact for review:
General Findings
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for August 27, 2012
\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2012\12-013-1185 Benton
Page 2 of 4
1. Although the 8,250 square foot lot was approved as part of the Hunters Park PUD, it does
not meet the minimum requirements of the R-3 Zone.
2. The existing dwelling meets all property line setbacks. The existing detached garage
encroaches on the front yard and southern side yard setbacks.
3. The proposed addition would reduce the combined side yard setbacks from 17.5 feet to
11.5 feet. The southern side yard setback would be reduced from 11.5 feet to five feet.
The northern side yard setback would remain at six feet. A variance is required if the two
side setbacks do not equal fifteen feet or more.
4. The proposed addition does not encroach on the rear or front setbacks.
5. The structure coverage is proposed to increase from 18.9 percent to 27.0 percent of the
lot. A variance is required to exceed 25 percent structure coverage on the lot.
6. The landscape area would be reduced from 65.1 percent to 60.7 percent of the lot. A
variance is required to reduce landscape area below 65 percent.
7. The dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height limit.
8. Dwellings are permitted structures within the R-3 Zone.
9. The existing dwelling and the proposed garage are outside of the 100-year flood plain,
wetlands, and easements.
10. The Planning Commission and City Council approved a substantially similar proposal for
the property in 2007.
Variance Findings:
11. A dwelling and addition are reasonable uses within the R-3 Zone.
12. The nonconforming lot size for the R-3 Zone, which was approved as part of the PUD,
and the substantial amount of shared open space that is part of the development, presents
a unique situation that warrants the requested variances.
13. It is unlikely the proposed addition would have a negative impact on the property or the
neighborhood. The addition will not reduce the northern side yard setback, and the
southern property line is adjacent to common space that is owned by the Hunters Park
Homeowner's Association. The nearest dwelling unit to the south of the subject property
is approximately sixty feet away.
14. The increase lot coverage is unlikely to have a negative impact because of the shared
adjacent shared green space to the south of the subject property. There is a total of seven
acres of Homeowners Association common green space throughout the neighborhood.
15. The proposed plans and setback variance for the dwelling do not appear to be based on
economic considerations alone.
16. The applicant has received approval from the Hunters Park Architectural and
Environmental Committee for the proposed addition.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their August 8, 2012, meeting
(Attachment A) and unanimously recommends approval of Planning Case 12-013 for a variance
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for August 27, 2012
\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2012\12-013-1185 Benton
Page 3 of 4
i
at 1185 Benton Way, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the
following four 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 applicant shall obtain approval or a waiver from the Rice Creek Watershed
District prior to the issuance of any building permits.
4. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code.
Options
1. Approve the proposal as submitted.
2. Approve the proposal with conditions.
3. Deny the application with reasons for denial. If the City denies the petitioners request, "...it
must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time it denies the request."
4. Table for additional information.
The findings of fact in this planning case report support approval of the variance request. If the
City Council chooses to deny the variance, findings that support this motion must be stated for
the record prior to voting on the motion.
Deadline for Agency Actions
The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on July 23, 2012.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by September 22, 2012 (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. August 8, 2012, Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
B. Simplified Plan
C. August 8, 2012, Report to the Planning Commission
http://www.ci.ardenhills.mn.us/planninjzcase
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for August 27, 2012
\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2012\12-013-1185 Benton
Page 4 of 4
Attachment
August 8, 2012, Draft Planning
Commission Meeting Minutes
EN HILLS
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for April 25, 2011
'It
EN HILLS
Approved:
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY,AUGUST 8,2012
6:30 P.M. -ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Vice Chair Roberta Thompson called to order the
regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present were: Vice Chair Roberta Thompson, Commissioners Andrew Holewa, Clayton
Zimmerman and Janet Stodola(Alternate)
Absent: Chair Clayton Larson, Commissioners Angela Harries, Samuel Scott
Also present were: City Planner Meagan Beekman; Community Development Intern
Matt Horton, Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher, Councilmember Fran
Holmes; and Recording Secretary Debbie Wolfe.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA—AUGUST 8, 2012
Vice Chair Thompson stated the agenda will stand as published.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. July 11,2012 - Planning Commission Work Session Meeting
Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Holewa, to approve
the July 11, 2012 Planning Commission Work Session Meeting as presented. The
motion carried unanimously (4-0).
PLANNING CASES
A. Planning Case 12-013 — Variance Request: Ed Bacig, 1185 Benton Way — Not a
Public Hearing
Community Development Intern Matt Horton reviewed the applicant is requesting three
(3) variances to construct a 574 square foot addition at 1185 Benton Way. The addition
would be located between the existing home and garage with a portion of the addition
over an existing deck. The addition would reduce the combined minimum side yard
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—August 8, 2012 2
setback below the required 15 feet, reduce the lot landscaped area below the minimum of
65 percent and increase the structural lot coverage area above the maximum of 25
percent.
Background
Community Development Intern Matt Horton reviewed the applicant is the owner of the
home. The property is located in the R-3 District and was constructed within the
Hunter's Park PUD development. He provided aerial photographs of the property,
ground level photographs and a site plan.
The applicant has submitted a proposal to construct a 574 square foot addition to his
home. This proposal is substantially similar to a variance request that was made by the
property owner, and approved by the City, in 2007, but which was never built.
The addition would be located between the existing home and detached garage. A
portion of the addition would be constructed over an existing deck. Three variances are
needed to complete the proposed project. The minimum side yard setback for this
property is 5 feet with a combined minimum of 15 feet on both sides. The proposed
addition would maintain the minimum 5 foot setback, but would reduce the combined
total of both side yard setbacks to 10 feet. Secondly, the structural lot coverage is
required by Code to not exceed 25 percent; however, the proposed addition would result
in 27 percent lot coverage by structure. Thirdly, the landscaped area is required to be a
minimum of 65 percent where the proposed addition would leave only 61 percent.
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 Q.
Hunters Park Homeowners Association
Community Development Intern Matt Horton provided a review of the Hunters Park
Homeowner's Association. In the early 1970's the City approved a PUD to create the
Hunters Park neighborhood and homeowner's association. The single family portion of
Hunters Park is built on approximately 29 acres of which seven acres are shared green
space, almost three acres are used for shared driveways, and the remaining 19 acres are
divided into 84 single-family residential homes.
The Hunters Park PUD used the flexibility permitted in the PUD process, and the
neighborhood was designed with varying lot sizes, structure setbacks, and lot coverage.
In flexible PUD developments like the Hunters Park neighborhood, it is not uncommon
for the PUD to include an alternative set of regulations that supersede the underlying
zoning regulations. In the case of the Hunters Park, alternative lot layout standards were
not created, which means that the underlying R-3 regulations were left in place. Since
most of the structures and lots do not meet the R-3 Zoning regulations, virtually any
change to the structures in Hunters Park required a variance and a PUD amendment.
Furthermore, it can be difficult to apply the R-3 regulations to lot sizes that do not meet
the minimum R-3 lot size.
The City Council considered approving an alternative set of regulations for the Hunters
Park neighborhood in 1985. However, it was determined that an alternative set of
regulations for Hunters Park should not be created because the lots and structure layouts
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—August 8, 2012 3
were so varied in the original PUD that it would be very difficult to create a standard that
is less complicated than the existing process. The City Council did, however, approve a
process for evaluating future changes to structures in Hunters Park:
1. If additions or alterations to the homes do not require setback or coverage variances
from the R-3 Zone, only a building permit issued by the City shall be required. This
removed the need for a PUD amendment with every change.
2. If additions or alterations to cluster homes do require additional variances of any kind
from the R-3 Zone,the standard variance procedure set by the City shall apply.
3. In both cases, the Architectural and Environmental Committee of Hunters Park
Homeowner Association shall review and approve the proposed addition of alteration
before submitting the same to the City. It shall assist individual homeowners in
determining if a variance is required for proposed alterations. According to the
planning case files, the Hunters Park Homeowners Association approved this process
along with the City.
Plan Evaluation
1. R-3 Regulations, Existing Conditions, and Proposed Redevelopment
a. Lot Size &Dimensions
The lot is 8,250 square feet, 55 feet wide, and 150 feet long. Although
approved as part of the Hunters Park PUD, the lot does not meet the minimum
size requirements in the R-3 Zone.
b. Structure Setbacks—Variance Required
The existing dwelling meets the R-3 structure setback requirements. The
existing detached accessory structure encroaches into the front yard and
southern side yard setbacks; however, no changes are proposed to the
accessory structure.
In the R-3 Zone, a total of fifteen feet is required between the two side yard
setbacks with at least five feet on one side. With the proposed addition, the
northern side yard structure setback would remain at approximately six feet;
however, the southern side yard setback would be reduced from the current
11.5 feet to five feet. The total side setback would be reduced from the
current 17.5 feet to eleven feet.
c. Structural Lot Coverage—Variance Required
The existing structural coverage on the property is approximately 18.2
percent. The proposed addition would increase the impervious coverage to
27.0 percent. City Code limits impervious coverage to 25 percent.
d. Landscaped Area—Variance Required
The existing landscaped area on the property is approximately 65.1 percent.
The proposed addition would decrease the landscaped area to 27.0 percent.
City Code requires the landscaped area to be over 65 percent.
In this type of residential PUD, it is not uncommon for an individual
residential lot to not conform to the lot coverage regulations. Shared green
spaces are often used to offset the coverage on a lot,particularly when the lots
are smaller. The Hunters Park neighborhood includes seven acres of shared
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—August 8, 2012 4
private green space. It is unlikely that the neighborhood as a whole exceeds
the lot coverage limitations; however, that cannot be verified without a
neighborhood-wide review.
e. Structure Height—Meets Requirements
The proposed addition 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
This application may require Rice Creek Watershed District approval prior to the
issuance of any building permits. If the variance is approved, a condition has been
added requiring RCWD review prior to the issuance of building permits.
The Hunters Park Architectural and Environmental Committee, along with the two
adjacent neighbors, have approved the proposed addition.
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."
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 this variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance?
• Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan?
• 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
Community Development Intern Matt Horton offered the following sixteen findings of
fact for review:
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—August 8, 2012 5
General Findings
1. Although the 8,250 square foot lot was approved as part of the Hunters Park PUD, it
does not meet the minimum requirements of the R-3 Zone.
2. The existing dwelling meets all property line setbacks. The existing detached garage
encroaches on the front yard and southern side yard setbacks.
3. The proposed addition would reduce the combined side yard setbacks from 17.5 feet
to 11.5 feet. The southern side yard setback would be reduced from 11.5 feet to 5
feet. The northern side yard setback would remain at 6 feet. A variance is required if
the two side setbacks do not equal 15 feet or more.
4. The proposed addition does not encroach on the rear or front setbacks.
5. The structure coverage is proposed to increase from 18.9 percent to 27.0 percent of
the lot. A variance is required to exceed 25 percent structure coverage on the lot.
6. The landscape area would be reduced from 65.1 percent to 60.7 percent of the lot. A
variance is required to reduce landscape area below 65 percent.
7. The dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height limit.
8. Dwellings are permitted structures within the R-3 Zone.
9. The existing dwelling and the proposed garage are outside of the 100-year flood
plain,wetlands and easements.
10. The Planning Commission and City Council approved a substantially similar proposal
for the property in 2007.
Variance Findings
11. A dwelling and addition are reasonable uses within the R-3 Zone.
12. The nonconforming lot size for the R-3 Zone, which was approved as part of the
PUD, and the substantial amount of shared open space that is part of the development,
may present a unique situation that warrants the requested variances. There are no
unique topographical conditions.
13. It is unlikely the proposed addition would have a negative impact on the property or
the neighborhood. The addition will not reduce the northern side yard setback, and
the southern property line is adjacent to common space that is owned by the Hunters
Park Homeowner's Association. The nearest dwelling unit to the south of the subject
property is approximately sixty feet away.
14. The increase lot coverage is unlikely to have a negative impact because of the shared
adjacent shared green space to the south of the subject property. There is a total of
seven acres of Homeowners Association common green space throughout the
neighborhood.
15. The proposed plans and setback variance for the dwelling do not appear to be based
on economic considerations alone.
16. The applicant has received approval from the Hunters Park Architectural and
Environmental Committee for the proposed addition.
Staff Analysis
Community Development Intern Matt Horton provided the staff analysis. The findings of
fact for this variance request does not specifically support a recommendation for denial or
approval. A single family home is a permitted use in the R-3 Zone, and the addition is
not an unreasonable use in the R-3 Zone. The variance is unlikely to create a negative
impact on the neighborhood or City because there is already a structure on the property,
the proposed addition will not be significantly closer to any nearby structures, and the
additional lot coverage is likely offset by the shared green space throughout Hunters
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—August 8, 2012 6
Park. It does not appear that the variance is based on economic considerations alone.
Additionally the property owner has received approval from the Homeowners
Association for the addition and also had prior approval from the City for a similar
addition.
As is often the case, the evaluation criteria that states "The plight of the landowner is due
to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner," is the difficult
evaluation criteria. The fact that the original PUD does not include specific standards for
this neighborhood is somewhat unusual, and applying the R-3 regulations does make it
difficult to upgrade these generally smaller homes. The relatively small lot size does
make altering the structure difficult under the R-3 regulations. However, there are not
any unique topographical conditions related to the variance. Before making a motion for
approval or denial, this specific variance evaluation criteria must be addressed for the
official record.
If the Planning Commission recommends approval on this variance, Staff recommends
the following four 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 applicant shall obtain approval or a waiver from the Rice Creek Watershed
District prior to the issuance of any building permits.
4. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code.
Options
Community Development Intern Matt Horton reviewed the findings in this report are not
specific enough to fully support approval or denial of variances one. With a motion to
approve or deny the variance request, the following criteria must be addressed for the
record:
1. The circumstances in this planning case are/are not unique to the property because .
The above criteria must be addressed prior to making one of the following motions:
1. Recommend Approval with Conditions — Motion to recommend approval of
Planning Case 12-013 for three variances 1185 Benton Way based on the findings of
fact, the submitted plans and the four conditions in the August 8, 2012, planning case
report.
2. Recommend Approval as Submitted —Motion to recommend approval of Planning
Case 12-013 for three variances 1185 Benton Way based on the findings of fact, the
submitted plans, and the four conditions in the August 8, 2012,planning case report.
3. Recommend Denial — Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 12-013 for
three variances at 1185 Benton Way based on the following findings of fact . . . . . .
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—August 8, 2012 7
4. Table—Motion to table Planning Case 12-013 for a variance at 1185 Benton Way: a
specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table.
Commissioner Zimmerman noted the PUD at that time created smaller lot sizes than
normally would be in a R-3 District.
Commissioner Holewa asked if the City Council had approved the application in 2007.
He asked if the City Council approves how long would the applicant have to complete the
project and it is one year. Commissioner Holewa stated he would be voting in favor of
this would not like to see this come back again.
Councilmember Holmes asked if this is the exact same plan as presented in 2007. City
Planner Meagan Beekman stated the plan and the conditions are the same.
Commissioner Stodola asked if the decks are included in the lot coverage. Community
Development Intern Matt Horton stated only the portion of the deck with a roof is
included in the structural lot coverage. The back patio is not included.
Commissioner Zimmerman stated this would not be an issue with a standard size lot as to
the amount of structural lot coverage.
Mr. Ed Bacig, 1185 Benton Way, Arden Hills appeared before the Commission. Vice
Chair Thompson asked if there are any changes from the 2007 plan. Mr. Bacig stated the
mud room connecting the garage is the only thing added. The landscaping would not be
done. Vice Chair Thompson asked what the material would be for the back patio and Mr.
Bacig stated pavers would be used. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated uncovered
patios and decks are not considered as structures.
Community Development Intern Matt Horton stated 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. The City has not
received any comments regarding this planning case.
Community Development Intern Matt Horton noted the City received the completed
application for this request on July 23, 2012. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the
City must act on this request by September 22, 2012 (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.
Vice Chair Thompson stated aspects of how the lots were laid out in the original
development, smaller lot sizes, the amount of green space in the entire development.
Commissioner Stodola stated she recently drove through the area and was impressed with
the way the houses are becoming more individual. Commissioner Zimmerman stated if it
would have been a standard R-3 lot no variance would be needed. Vice Chair Thompson
noted the Hunters Park Association has approved this plan as well as the surrounding
three neighbors.
Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Zimmerman seconded a motion to
approve Planning Case 12-013 — Variance Request: Ed Baciu, 1185 Benton Way.
Commissioners find that the circumstances in this planning case are unique to the
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—August 8, 2012 8
property because of the PUD process creating sub-standard lots in the R-3 district
causing undue hardship not caused by the landowner. The motion carried
unanimously (4-0).
UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
None
REPORTS
A. Report from the City Council
Councilmember Holmes reported the City Council voted unanimously to approve the
design and quote for a gateway sign to be installed on the southwest corner of County
Road E and Lexington Avenue, in front of the new Walgreen's pharmacy building.
Fourth Dimension signs will be manufacturing and installing the sign in the next 6-8
weeks. Staff is working with a landscape architect to design landscaping to be installed
around the sign base. She noted there will be more added in the future at other locations.
Councilmember Holmes stated community meetings have been held regarding the B-2
District and work is being done on the plan. Last night was Night to Unite and she
attended a number of meetings. Roland received a certificate of recognition at
one of the meetings who picks up trash during his daily walks.
Councilmember Holmes stated the Council is working on TIF guidelines and developing
the goals and staff is working on getting the Council Chambers sound system.
Councilmember Holmes noted a resolution was approved giving Ramsey County support
in purchasing the TCAAP property.
B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests
Vice Chair Thompson stated the Valentine Park improvements are working in handling
the rain.
Commissioner Stodola stated the codes need to be reviewed to allow more flexibility for
the Hunters Park area in the guidelines so a project such as presented tonight isn't such an
ordeal. She sees a need for smaller lots for those not wanting to maintain large lots.
Councilmember Holmes stated the Council has looked at detached townhomes, which are
smaller.
Commissioner Zimmerman stated the zoning codes have evolved over the years. The
comprehensive plan for the City also covers this. For the Pulte development the Met
Council wanted to have more homes per acre than what Pulte wanted.
C. Staff Comments
None
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—August 8, 2012 9
ADJOURN
Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Holewa, to adiourn
the August 8, 2012, Planning Commission Meeting at 7:00 p.m. The motion carried
unanimously (4-0).
Attachment
Simplified Plan
,AVEN HILLS
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for April 25, 2011
Attachment
August 8, 2012, Report to the Planning
Commission
lMt*-
-AV EN HILLS
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for April 25, 2011