HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-09-11-WS Chair
Clayton Larson 1245 W. Highway 96
Commissioners Arden Hills, MN 55112
Angela Harries `RQEEN HILLS 651.792.7800
Andrew Holewa www.ci.arden-hills.mmus
Samuel Scott Arden Hills
Roberta Thompson
Clayton Zimmerman Planning Commission
Janet Stodola (Alternate) Work Session
November 9, 2011
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. New Commissioner
A. Introduce Janet Stodola
3. PLANNING CASES
A. Parks and Open Space District Discussion
B. Expansion of Nonconforming Structures Discussion
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
5. COMMENTS AND 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/planninqcaseE;
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 9, 2011 PC Agenda Item 3.A
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Mei-Ling Anderson, Community Development Intern
SUBJECT: Parks and Open Space District
Backl4rou
nd
The City completed its Parks, Trails, and Open Space (PTOS) Plan in 2002. The PTOS Plan
addresses demographic and recreational trends that affect the City's park, trail, and recreation
needs. It also outlines the City's vision and goals which are intended to guide the City's
programs, priorities, and decision-making. Several recommendations entail renovating and
adapting existing park space, as well as enhancing the accessibility of these resources. The Parks,
. Trails, and Recreation Committee and City staff have since made significant process in
beginning to implement the goals listed in the PTOS Plan.
In September of 2009, the City Council adopted the Arden Hills 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Among the goals listed in Chapter 6, "Land Use," are:
• Evaluate and amend the land use regulations to achieve the highest possible development
standards, enhance the natural environment, protect public health, support a vital mix of
land uses, and promote flexible approaches to implement the Comprehensive Plan.
• Provide a balanced mix of residential,park, open space, and commercial land uses.
Similarly, one of the policies in Chapter 9, "Parks and Recreation" is to "develop, maintain, and
encourage the use of a system of neighborhood parks and pathways that are safe and engaging."
The Comprehensive Plan identifies a total of 576 acres of park and open space, and categorizes
"Park and Open Space" (P/OS) as an existing and future land use designation. The City currently
owns and maintains 15 of these parks which cover 145 acres. However, at the moment, there is
not a distinct district set aside for parks and open space areas within zoning code regulations;
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for November 9, 2011
I W hdocs]lahW HdatalPlanningWIanning Cases12011111-017-Zoning Code Amendment-Parks and Open Space District(Pending)(Planning
Commission Memo-Parks and Open Space.docx
Page 1 of 3
these facilities are integrated into residential or business-oriented zoning districts as permitted or
conditional uses.
One way that the City of Arden Hills could better protect its park and open space amenities is
through the creation of a separate zoning district for these uses. This would allow the City to
provide clearer guidance for the regulation and protection of these areas. A park and open space
district would also assist in the implementation of the PTOS plan by solidifying its objectives
within the City Code.
Staff looked at several other cities across the Twin Cities metropolitan region to gain a sense of
how other communities regulate park and open space amenities. Burnsville, Brooklyn Park,
Roseville, Shoreview, White Bear Lake, and Mounds View are examples of cities that regulate
parks and/or open space as distinct zoning districts:
I
• Burnsville has two open space districts: a Park District and a Conservancy District.
• Brooklyn Park zones parks separately in their Conservancy District.
• Roseville has a Park and Recreation District.
• Shoreview has an Open Space District.
• White Bear Lake has an Open Space Conservation District and a Public Facilities
District.
• Mounds View's CRP (Conservancy, Recreation, and Preservation) District designates
land, which is considered wholly or partially unsuitable for development, for recreational
development in order to preserve natural features or to control density.
There is a variety in the purpose, length, and specificity of these ordinances,but there are several •
overlapping features as well. Staff inventoried and consolidated permitted uses, conditional uses,
accessory uses, procedures, and other provisions outlined in this sample set into a single list.
Using the findings of the PTOS plan in conjunction with this inventory of other city examples,
Staff prepared a working draft for the possible adoption of a new Parks and Open Space (P/OS)
zoning district to guide the regulation of Arden Hills' City-owned parks and open space areas.
Discussion
The draft for the parks and open space ordinance currently includes three primary sections:
1. A description of the intent of the ordinance;
2. A subdivision outlining permitted uses; and
3. A subdivision listing special regulations.
The intent of the ordinance and the list of permitted uses were designed to give the City
sufficient flexibility to adapt the use of these areas to the community's ongoing and future needs.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for November 9, 2011
IWhdocsl WhWHdataWlanninglPlanning Cases12011 V 1-017-Zoning Code Amendment-Parks and Open Space District(Pending)IPlanning
Commission Memo-Parks and Open Space.docx
Page 2 of 3
If the Commission wishes to proceed with the parks and open space ordinance, it would be
advisable to indicate whether the permitted uses within in the ordinance reflect an exhaustive list,
or if the wording should give the City additional flexibility to allow for unanticipated uses in the
future.
Additional points of discussion might include the following:
• How to address privately-owned park and open space;
• The lease of park and open space from the City by private entities;
• Other special regulations that might be appropriate.
Staff has included a draft Parks and Open Space (P/OS) Ordinance for Planning Commission
review (attached). Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission review the draft ordinance
and provide comment and direction on it. Based on the discussion this evening, staff will revise
the draft ordinance and bring it back either for further discussion, or present it at a Council work
session, for Council comment. In order to adopt the new District, the Planning Commission will
need to hold a public hearing and make a formal recommendation to the City Council.
Commission Action Requested
Review draft Parks and Open Space (P/OS) Ordinance and provide further direction.
Attachments
• Figure 9.1 Existing Regional Park and Pathway System Map
• Working Draft: Section 1320.13 — Special Requirements for the Parks and Open Space
District
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for November 9, 2011
l Uhdocs11ahW HdatalPlanninglPlanning Cases1201 P]1-017-Zoning Code Amendment-Parks and Open Space District(Pending)(Planning
Commission Memo-Parks and Open Space.docx
Page 3 of 3
Existing Regional Park and Pathway System
Figure 9.1
( OKA I _ ._.,. Future yitldife
iGortidor _ ..
Lw�
„ Y
F 1
.Sur,Fish
Lake
Highway 86 Regional Trail County Road 96
Round >
Lake _
Regional Trails 1± 1
Othe Pathways
r !' ti
Cjty County take Valentine Rd
Private
I
Regional Parks
1 matlt thlentirte
®Future Wildlife Corridor(Approximate) Lake
Arden Hills Parks&Open Spacesr
s CD
o�q
Qo�e
C
CD
CD
Count Road E
h
t0'
tr
I, Lake
Johanna
2030 Comprehensive Plan Update
Map Approved: September 28,2009 e�
ca
e
Source: City of Arden Hills,Metropolitan Council r Lake
Q I J Josephine
1 p
Mile O
.AID,HILLS Comprehensive Plan Update Ha'1�" ` G�DI on
1320.13 Special Requirements for the Parks and Open Space (P/OS) District. The Parks and
Open Space District is established to identify those publicly or privately-owned properties that
provide significant outdoor recreational or open space resources to residents of all ages, income,
and abilities These areas have been determined to be wholly or partially unsuitable for
development due to their value as recreational land location surrounding uses, restrictive water
tables drainage and soil conditions topography, significant and valuable vegetation, and/or
valuable wildlife habitat The creation of a comprehensive system of parks and open space is
intended to contribute to the wellbeing of community members by enhancing active and passive
oral en onment and
b preventing the
preserving
the natural outdoor recreational opportunities,
overcrowding of land due to development. The rovision aDDIV to this district are also
meant to preserve and maintain sensitive natural areas an ife habitat areas.
Subd. 1 Permitted Uses. The followi u Care ed within the P/OS District:
A. Ci -owned facili d recreatioNs h as but not
limited to:
(i) Pub arks beac . 1, sorts courts
o es exterior rinks a uatic faci ies.
(ii) Am at
ius ben& shelte it fac S.
(iv) unit
f"
�F
off-le
(vi tenor si
G (public or communi greenhouses, nurseries garden
heds.
4
(viii tore centers.
.(i ' kin areas.
Picnic areas picnic shelters gazebos.
(xi) Play equipment.
(xii) Public announcement systems.
(xiii) Storage buildings, sheds.
(xiv) Trash receptacles.
i
(xv) Warming houses, restrooms, changing rooms.
B. Cites-sponsored events.
C. Trail systems.
D. Public and private permanent open space, natural areas, arboretums,
conservation areas, wildlife management areas.
E. Private facilities and recreational amenities as a pproved by the City
Council.
F. Other public uses. r
G. Essential services renew4bl nergy s and utilities.
H. Ex ansion of exisUA es which are not �onformit with district
provisions. f
Subd. 2. Special regulations in the P/ s
A. The Cit VS %6C'tO rotec enhance the arks and open space
system, and sh ek ' ease theRAgunt of park and open s ace land
insofar as is practi "'F
se in the ct of im ede the use of ad'oinin
erties. � `
C.
.r ,. as must in cow liance with the Americans with
Disabi ct ' u ents.
„>
�4
./ �3h
�,ARENr�HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 9, 2011 PC Agenda Item 3.B
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner
SUBJECT: Expansion of Nonconforming Structures Discussion
Request Action
Staff is seeking direction on how to proceed with this discussion item, including feedback on
whether the revision is necessary, and if so, comment on how the language might be improved.
Background
At the February 22, 2011, joint work session the City Council and the Planning Commission
discussed several possible zoning code amendments. One such discussion item was the
allowance of certain types of expansions of nonconforming structures. At present, the City Code
allows for the repair, replacement, improvement, and maintenance, but not the expansion, of
nonconforming uses and structures. While this regulation functions well for the vast majority of
commercial uses in the City, it can make small improvements to nonconforming single-family
homes difficult, because any expansion requires a variance. Applications such as these make up
the majority of the variance applications that the City processes. It is possible for the City to
adopt changes to the Zoning Code, similar to the Front Porch Ordinance, which would create
circumstances where certain types of development could occur without the need for a variance.
One of the most common issues that arise when residents call to inquire about home
improvements is that their houses are already considered legally nonconforming; they were
constructed during a time when setbacks were not as great as they are now, and any expansion of
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Work Session for November 9, 2011
! P:IPlanninglPlanning Cases12011111-022-Zoning Code Amendment-Expansion Ordinance(Pending)111-09-11 PC Work Session-Exapnsion
Ordinance.doc
Page 1 of 3
d
the house is not allowed without a variance. For example, many homes constructed prior to 1970
or so, which include nearly all of the homes in the southwest corner of the City, were constructed
with 30-foot front yard setbacks; however, the City Code now requires a 40-foot front yard
setback. Similarly, homes constructed with five-foot side yard setbacks in the R-1 District now
have a ten-foot minimum setback. The City does not allow expansions within existing setbacks
of nonconforming houses; therefore, these homes cannot be expanded without a variance.
Because these are not unique situations in the City, many of these situations are not clear
candidates for variances. Residents can choose to submit a variance application, which takes
between 60 and 90 days to process, or may choose to forego the improvement to avoid the
variance process all together.
Some cities already have provisions that allow some flexibility through an administrative review.
For example, Roseville, New Brighton, Minnetonka, and Burnsville all allow additions to
nonconforming structures up to their existing setbacks under certain circumstances.
No amount of zoning text amendments will eliminate the need for variances altogether, or
change the fact that some people will want to make improvements to their home that are not in
keeping with the character of the community and therefore, should not be allowed. On the other
hand, allowing people to reasonably improve their homes and maintain value is an important
aspect of maintaining a community's housing stock.
Discussion
Staff has included aerial views of some properties in the City that are currently nonconforming in
order to illustrate the types of issues that arise for certain home owners. In all the attached
examples the structure on the property encroaches on a setback, which would prohibit the
expansion of that home without a variance. The purpose of the aerials is to facilitate discussion
on this topic.
Staff has also prepared draft language that would address the expansion of some nonconforming
structures under certain circumstances (Attached). This language can certainly be modified, and
Staff would be interested in knowing if the Planning Commission feels that there are certain
circumstances where these types of expansions should not be done administratively, but through
a more formal City process. Furthermore, Staff is seeking direction on other provisions the
Planning Commission would like to see within this amendment, if any.
With the recent revisions to State Statute regarding variances, and the subsequent amendments to
the City's variance procedures, the variance review criteria has become seemingly easier to
overcome in most instances. While this may make the variance process more accessible to some
residents, the process remains time and resource consuming for both the City, and those seeking
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Work Session for November 9, 2011
P:IPlanninglPlanning Casesl2011111-022-Zoning Code Amendment-Expansion Ordinance(Pending)111-09-11 PC Work Session-Exppnsion
Ordinance.doc
Page 2 of 3
exceptions from the Code. Minimizing the need for variances will remove road blocks to some
home improvement projects, by making the City process more efficient and less daunting.
Request Action
Staff is seeking direction on how to proceed with this discussion item, including feedback on
whether the revision is necessary, and if so, comment on how the language might be improved.
Attachments
• Aerial images of properties in the City that are nonconforming
• Section 1325.03 of the Zoning Code—Black-lined Version
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Work Session for November 9, 2011
P:IPlanningWlanning Cases12011111-022-Zoning Code Amendment-Expansion Ordinance(Pending)111-09-I1 PC Work Session-Exppnsion
Ordmance.doc
Page 3 of 3
Otz4 �
� V
w
01
O
C N
C p,
O Q
C O�
W
.k pNp.ro
O a N
O R.2
90. 'e
kka
C
O � C
•^�W d
f u
V
t0 V U
�'C O
�.�� ,�, .� .£ .+� •(y,ate+.W.
o a
•o o�n
ova
b
.boo
o a
you
o .
ca y o
N
'd b tT1
t., - N uV +
N ti
d G Q
>U
U
.yi Q
Pei
rz
c�N
a�
a,
d
�3 U
0
ro
ro
0
0
U
w
1294 O
.d O
O N
ro
C
O
�y T
w 7
G rOi,�
' O•F,
b U
O Rb
U y
H V
O w r
G w ro
O F�
ro �.
E$ E
ohE
V 7 O
ro U U
w.0 O
� �N
� ro
G o �
•� o Y v
A O ° �
lu O
c
r roy ro
M 0 o w
U
y ro o�
F �+
ro ros
C F
O N
¢b ro
Q
_ O
4
ro
a
w
a
g:
s
0
':s V
L
s
N
O�
O
C N
C �
U
w U N
ttz O L.
0 F�
764 " td y U
O
.p^N
'Eli
O�ti
y
d y
y0 C w
C d U
A' � N
eW y
m
UTG
13 7t �
rTQ U
O m
F �b
rl c o'°
b w
�.a m
f
O
N
T366
U k
C � 6
a UN
w O_
M
U� c
_ A
U
3fYC
U
O
ti
40t
\ �
Cd
{ �
\\
® 2j
a
\ t
, � .
.¥
\ ` /a
§ o ,
kd
§
a
}
�
? \ \ _
� \) ;
� *
� (] _
2 @\a
� � Inm 1706
��<«. . «� � • < e ; §
� {\
. \u
�\\
(./r
40
(\\
w_,_ j~ §
/ 3
c �
\
(
\
� \
\ .\
. \a §
y \ \ \ § \{ \
. \!\
� \ }R
s 666
t � \\�
o �
� \\�
«
c
« �
�
_
. �
\ x\ # ,
\ e
\\\
\k�
y /\�
47=
» ®
/
j
/
\ �
C,
a�/
,
\ �
+ ;
\\\
_
as
■ �< . : « ��k
>
�
~ � \\\
. .,
mew
» )\°
� \ �
0
« \ (
g .! /_
» sae
« > §t ®
/)&
-
g m
� 2)R
A \®
g ,
b �
W ��\
> x
\ (
f \ 3
;
: «
�� }
0
z
E N
rYt�+ ro
5 �
O
O_
❑ yy O
o a�
°c 7
o °�'_
o yb
o
U �^N
a
G
4 E
F pw
ti m N
y �
0 0 ,
•1��1 O 9
00 u
A
r.ri o00
p,mU
ebw
-a 40,
bbo
d w^
T
b
V O
m 7
� >a
�F
�xl o
a
U �
A
a
0
0
0.'
• ce
W
�s
U
a
o
E
0
0
v �
O�p
O ¢�
U U U
U
O tom. ti
U
O ��
•QW ctl
b w
O �
U
O
G O
O
cc
C O O
O L ca
'O U id
O
V r 0 u"U
O
W F U
O
z ' � G
U O
G� o
w
Eva
b W N
b�
G O
~O M M
T� G
id T�
b0�
U U U
G � 3
o
8 �s
W o°
a�U
A
G
O
U
W
City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code
Section 1325 - General Regulations
1325.03 Exceptions to the Minimum Requirements for All Districts.
Subd. 1 Setbacks.
A. Front Setbacks. Where existing principal buildings have a greater
setback than the minimum setback required herein, the front setback of a
new principal structure shall not be less than the prevailing setback in the
immediate vicinity. The administrator shall determine the necessary
minimum front setback in such cases. However, in no case shall a
residential building be required to set back more than sixty(60) feet.
B. Side and Rear Setbacks. Buildings may be exempted from side and
rear setback requirements provided party walls are used and if the adjacent
buildings are constructed as an integral unit, or if residential buildings are
to be constructed utilizing the "zero lot line" concept. Townhouse,
shopping center, cluster developments and components of institutional
facilities are examples of where this provision would apply.
C. Through Lots. The administrator may determine that one of the front
. yards may be deemed a rear yard and shall determine appropriate rear yard
setback regulations. Factors to be considered shall include topography,
location of structures on the lot, location of structures on adjacent lots, and
the type of streets or thoroughfares abutting the lot.
D. Lakeshore Setbacks. Minimum lakeshore setbacks are established by
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) for all
development abutting lakes. No building shall be located within the
minimum lakeshore setbacks as set in Section 1330.03.
Subd. 2 Permitted Encroachments.
A. Parts of the Principal Structure. In all zoning districts except R-2 and
R-3, features which are part of a principal structure, including but not
limited to eaves, cantilevered areas, cornices, canopies, awnings,
balconies, fire escapes and chimneys, may extend three (3) feet into the
required front, side, and rear setbacks but in no case shall these
encroachments be less than six (6) feet from any lot line. Decks,
uncovered porches, ramps, and steps may extend six (6) feet into the
required front, side, and rear setbacks but in no case shall these
encroachments be less than six (6) feet from any lot line. In R-2 and R-3
zoning districts, the encroachments listed in this Part A shall not be less
than three (3) feet away from any lot line. Required steps per the
Section 1325—General Regulations
Adopted: November 13,2006
Page 1 of 5
City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code
International Codes shall be permitted encroachments in all districts.
(Adopted 12120107)
B. Equipment Attached to the Ground or Other Structure. Recreational
equipment, gym sets, picnic tables, patios, barbecue grills, and clotheslines
which are more or less permanently attached to the ground or are attached
to some other structure having a location on the ground may be located in
side or rear yards provided these are not less than two (2) feet from any lot
line.
C. Intersection Visibility. On a corner lot, nothing shall be placed in the
clear vision area, and nothing shall be allowed to grow in such a manner
as to materially impede vision now or in the future between a height of
two and one-half(2-1/2) and ten(10) feet in the clear vision area.
(Revised 3118109)
D. Single and Two-Family Nonconforming Dwellings. For already
developed lots on which a principal structure exists, but is nonconforming
for reasons of setbacks or lot dimension, the principal structure may be
expanded provided that all of the following provisions are met:
1. the proposed addition extends no closer to a property line than the
pre-existing non-conforming structural encroachment currently on n the
site, •
2. The exterior materials of the proposed addition are consistent or
complementary in color, texture and quality with those visible on the
existing dwelling.
3. The roof of the proposed addition is properly proportioned to and
integrated with the roof of the dwelling.
4. 1"he addition does not adversely affect drainage on the lot or
neighboring properties.
5. Nonconforming height is not further increased.
6. Nonconforming impervious area is not further increased.
7. No new nonconforming conditions are created.
UzE. Covered Porches for Single-Family Detached Dwellings.
1. For already developed lots on which a principal structure existed
prior to May 1, 2006, the Covered Porch shall not be closer to the front
lot line and side yard corner as determined by the following
provisions:
Section 1325—General Regulations
Adopted: November 13,2006
Page 2 of 5
City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code
a. The Covered Porch shall be set back from the front lot line and
side yard corner at least the number of feet calculated by the
following formula:
Current principal structure setback in feet multiplied by .75 =
Covered Porch setback from the front lot line and side yard corner
in feet
(For example, if the principal structure is thirty-two (32) feet from
the front lot line,then:
32 feet * .75 = 24 foot setback from the front lot line and side yard
corner for the Covered Porch. In this case, the Covered Porch may
extend up to eight (8) feet from the principal structure into the
front setback)
For this subsection, the principal structure setback is defined as:
The setback from the front lot line to the front of the principal
structure, not including overhangs, awnings, eaves, garages,
stoops, sidewalks, bay windows, cantilevered areas, accessory
structures, attached garages encroaching on the front setback,
existing porches, or other extensions or projections not deemed
part of the principal structure.
b. A Covered Porch on a principal structure that is set back fifty
(50) feet or more from the front lot line shall be set back at least
forty (40) foot front lot line.
c. No Covered Porch shall be constructed closer than twenty (20)
feet to the front lot line without review and approval through the
variance process.
d. Required steps per the International Building Code shall be
excluded when calculating the dimensions of the Covered Porch.
2. For vacant lots where a principal structure is constructed after May
1, 2006, the Covered Porch shall not be closer than thirty (30) feet to
the front lot line or the side yard corner.
3. For already developed lots on which a new principal structure is
developed after May 1, 2006, and the new principal structure exceeds
the footprint of the original structure, the Covered Porch shall not be
closer than thirty(30) feet to the front lot line or side yard corner.
Section 1325—General Regulations
Adopted: November 13,2006
Page 3 of 5
City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code
4. For already developed lots on which a new principal structure is
developed after May 1, 2006, and the new principal structure does not
exceed the footprint of the original structure, the Covered Porch may
be set back from the front lot line and side yard corner a distance as
calculated in Section 1325.03 Subd. 2.D.La.
5. Building Permits shall be required before the construction of a
Covered Porch. The Community Development Director or
Development Director's designee must make the following findings
prior to the approval of a building permit for a Covered Porch:
a. The Covered Porch shall comply with the front and side yard
corner setbacks determined by Section 1325.03 Subd 2.D.l.a-d.
b. The Covered Porch shall comply with all other aspects of the
underlying zone, including the side yard interior setbacks and
impervious coverage limits.
c. The design of the Covered Porch shall comply with the
Covered Front Porch Design Guidelines in the Zoning Ordinance
Procedure Manual.
d. The exterior materials of the proposed Covered Porch shall be
consistent or complementary in color, texture, and quality with
those visible at the front of the principal structure;
e. The roof of the proposed Covered Porch shall be properly
proportioned to and integrated with the roof of the principal
structure and have no less than a 3/12 slope;
f. The base of the Covered Porch shall not be open; the base shall
be either a masonry perimeter foundation (note: frost footings will
be required for a building permit), or be screened by a solid fascia
consistent with the front of the principal structure or lattice with
openings no larger than two (2) inches by two (2) inches and
painted to be consistent with the front of the principal structure.
g. At least sixty-five (65) percent of the exposed Covered Porch
facade (excluding the foundation) shall be open or occupied by
screens and/or screen doors; and the fagade constitutes the area
from the floor level of the Covered Porch to the Covered Porch
ceiling; up to thirty-five (35) percent of the fagade may be solid
and may only be occupied by columns, spindles, and railings; solid
walls and glass (even partial) are prohibited.
Section 1325—General Regulations
Adopted: November 13,2006
Page 4 of 5
City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code
h. A Covered Porch within the forty foot front yard setback shall
not be converted to a four season porch.
Section 1325—General Regulations
Adopted: November 13,2006
Page 5 of 5
lt
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 9, 2011 PC; Agenda Item 5.A
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner
SUBJECT: Report from the City Council
September 26,2011, City Council Meeting
The City Council approved (4-1; Grant Dissenting) Planning Case 11-019 for a Hood Packaging
PUD Amendment to allow two silos and a storage tank on the property at 1887 gateway
Boulevard. The Planning Commission unanimously approved this application at their September
7, 2011, regular meeting.
• The City Council unanimously approved Planning Case 11-020 to grant Mounds View High
School a CUP Amendment and Variance to construct a scoreboard adjacent to the existing ball
field. The Planning Commission unanimously approved this item at their September 7, 2011,
meeting.
October 10,2011, City Council Meeting
The City Council unanimously voted to appoint of Janet Stodola as Alternate to the Planning
Commission.
The City Council unanimously approved Ordinance 2011-009, adoption of the Right-of-Way
Maintenance Ordinance. This item did not go before the planning Commission because it was a
revision to Chapter 3 of the City Code. State Statute requires a public hearing and Planning
Commission review of revisions to the Zoning Code only, which is Chapter 13 of the City's
Code.
The City Council unanimously approved the development agreement between the City and
Arden Plaza, LLC in regards to the redevelopment of Arden Plaza in Planning Case 11-015.
City of Arden Hills
. Planning Commission Meeting for November 9, 2011
PAPlanning0anning Commission\CC Reports\11-09-11-PC report-CC report.doc
Page 1 of 2
October 17, 2011, City Council Work Session
The City Council met with Bethel University and their consultant to discuss an internal master •
planning [process that the university is currently undergoing. The purpose of the discussion was
to update the Council on the process and receive feedback on items of interest as their planning
process proceeds.
The City Council discussed implementation of the Guiding Plan for the B-2 District, and directed
Staff to proceed with working with Bolton & Menk on developing a Phase I Implementation
Plan. The Implementation Plan will allow the City Council to determine enhancements along
County Road E which may include utility upgrades, access improvements, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, and streetscape amenities. Once completed, the Implementation Plan will allow the
City to move forward with improvement projects.
•
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for November 9, 2011 •
PAPlanning0anning Commission\CC Reports\11-09-11-PC report-CC report.doc
Page 2 of 2