Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-11-PC HILLS Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS,MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY,MAY 4,2011 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 (6:32 p.m.), Samuel Scott and Angela Hames (alternate). Absent: None. • 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 Chair Larson stated there are currently two openings on the Planning Commission and those interested will be able to apply on the City's website by Thursday, May 5. The Planning Commission will be interviewing for these positions in the near future. I The Agenda was approved as presented. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. April 6, 2011 —Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Holewa stated on page 2, Item 6, should read,"...are met by the proposed plan." Commissioner Zimmerman stated on page 3, the sixth paragraph, the word "The" should be replaced with "There". Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, to approve the April 6, 2011, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—May 4, 2011 2 Commissioner Zimmerman joined the meeting at 6:32 p.m. PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 11-010; Final Plat; Pulte Group; 4500 Snelling Avenue North —Not a Public Hearing City Planner Meagan Beekman stated the applicant is requesting approval of a Final Plat for the property located at 4500 Snelling Avenue North to subdivide the parcel into 39 conforming single-family lots. The applicant received approval from the City for Planning Case 11-006 for a Preliminary Plat and Comprehensive Plan Amendment on April 25, 2011. The Planning Commission held the public hearing and review on April 6, 2011, and unanimously recommended approval for Planning Case 11-006. She provided additional background information including the Final Plat has been revised from the Preliminary Plat as follows: 1. A trail easement has been extended through Block 4. Lot 18 to accommodate an east- west trail connection from Keithson Drive to the north-south trail to the east. 2. Block 1, Lot 10 has been further subdivided to create two outlots. The 50-foot wide "stovepipe"portion will no longer be included as part of Block 1, Lot 10. 3. The lot frontages of Block 1, Lot 3, and Block 4, Lots 9 and 10 have been widened to a minimum of 105 feet. 4. The right of way adjacent to Block 1, Lots 10 and 11, has been squared off to bring • the lot frontage on both lots to a minimum of 95 feet. City Planner Beekman stated Staff offers the following eight findings of fact for this proposal: General Findings: 1. The Fox Ridge subdivision is comprised of 20.07 net acres. 2. The Fox Ridge subdivision property is zoned R-1, Single-family Residential. 3. The City approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) on April 25, 2011, re- designating the property as Very Low Density Residential on the 2030 Future Land Use Map, subject to the approval of the Metropolitan Council. 4. The applicant is proposing to re-plat the property into 39 conforming single-family lots. 5. The subdivision will connect to the City's existing street system at three points: Snelling Avenue North, Keithson Drive, and Royal Hills Drive. 6. The proposed plan meets all of the requirements of the City's Zoning and Subdivision Codes. 7. The proposed plan is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, contingent on approval of the CPA by the Metropolitan Council. 8. The Final Plat application conforms to the approved Preliminary Plat as amended by the conditions of approval of the Preliminary Plat. City Planner Beekman stated Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat based on the findings of fact subject to the following nineteen conditions: ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—May 4, 2011 3 3.A. Planning Case I1-010; Final Plat; Pulte Group; 4500 Snelling Avenue North — Not a Public Hearing(continued) 1. 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. A drainage and utility easement shall be extended along the rear of Block 4, Lot 18, subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. 3. Execution of the Final Plat shall be contingent upon the Metropolitan Council's approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 4. A development agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to the City Council approval. The development agreement shall be executed prior to execution of the Final Plat. 5. The applicant shall construct an east-west boardwalk connection from Keithson Drive to the north-south trail east of the development, subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. The cost of the construction of the trail shall be deducted from a cash payment requirement of $133,248. The City shall use the park dedication to expand the City's parks, trails, and recreation system. 6. The applicant shall submit a financial surety, subject to the approval of the City Attorney, for 125 percent of the cost of the landscaping improvements prior to the issuance of any development permits. 7. The applicant shall submit a financial surety, subject to the approval of the City • Attorney, for 100 percent of the cost of site grading, retaining walls, utilities, and street improvements prior to the issuance of development permits. 8. The proposed project may require permits, including, but not limited to, MPCA- NPDES, Rice Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Health, MPCA- Sanitary Sewer Extension, Ramsey County and City Right of Way, and City Erosion and Sediment Control permits. Copies of all issued permits shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any development permits. 9. Final grading, drainage, and utility plans shall be subject to approval of the Public Works Director and City Engineer prior to the issuance of any development permits. 10. The plans shall be subject to Fire Marshal approval before development permits are issued. 11. The applicant shall complete grading activity and install the first lift of bituminous surfacing prior to the issuance of any building permits, with the exception of those homes along Arden View Drive. 12. Sanitary sewer and water shall be accepted by the City and ready for hookup prior to the issuance of any building permits. 13. The applicant shall submit a Development Plan, subject to the approval of City Staff, prior to the issuance of any building permits. The Development Plan shall provide as- built grading information together with the style and minimum elevations for the house on each lot. 14. There shall be no construction traffic out of the site at Royal Hills Dr/Arden View Dr or Keithson Dr. All construction traffic shall enter and exit the site from Snelling Avenue North, with the exception of the homes to be constructed along Arden View Dr. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—May 4, 2011 4 3.A. Planning Case 11-010; Final Plat; Pulte Group; 4500 Snelling Avenue North — Not a Public Hearing(continued) . 15. A copy of the home owners' association (HOA) documents shall be kept on file with the City, and shall clearly state that the HOA shall be responsible for maintenance of all retaining walls associated with the approved grading plan. The HOA documents shall also define the wetland buffer areas and prohibit any land alteration activity within them. 16. The City shall not be responsible for the maintenance of any outlots associated with the development. 17. The applicant shall be responsible for implementing the landscaping plan. All landscaping materials shall be put in place as the approved grading plan is completed with the exception of the required two front yard trees and three rear yard trees, which shall be the responsibility of the applicant to install at the time each house is constructed. 18. The applicant shall install wetland monument signs, subject to the approval of the Public Works Director,to adequately define wetland buffer areas. 19. The applicant shall construct a minimum of five home designs within the development. Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if the final plat included the road extension to Keithson • Drive or if an option to add one or two cul-de-sacs had been approved. Beekman the City Council had discussed the options of the dual cul-de-sac and the through street to Keithson Drive. The preliminary plat that was approved included an extension of Keithson. Chair Larson asked if the road would be in the designated location on the plat. City Planner Beekman stated the final determination for the road location will be determined by the Public Works Director. Commissioner Hames asked about the trail over the wetlands and if these would be constructed by the developer. City Planner Beekman stated the developer would be constructing a floating boardwalk over the wetland areas that will connect the road to the trail. It will likely be constructed out of a composite material. Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Scott seconded a motion to approve Planning Case 11-009 for a Final Plat at 4500 Snelling Avenue North, based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans and the conditions in the May 4, 2011, planning case report. The motion carried unanimously(6-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—May 4, 2011 5 A. Planning Case 11-007; PUD Concept Review Discussion; Select Senior Living; 1201 • County Road E.—Not a Public Hearing City Planner Beekman stated Select Senior Living is requesting a concept review of a possible Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Zoning Code Amendment at 1201 County Road E. The applicants are proposing to re-purpose the former Holiday Inn property into a mixed senior living use. They are requesting feedback from the Planning Commission on their concept on their concept in order to determine the interest in moving forward with a formal application. She provided additional background information on the proposal and the property. City Planner Beekman stated based on preliminary discussions with the developer and property owner, as well as review of the submitted documents, Staff has the following observations related to the proposed use of the site as a senior housing facility: 1. High density residential has been identified as an appropriate use in the B2 District, and this project would qualify as such; however, the activity generated on this site would certainly be less as an assisted-living facility versus other types of residential. 2. While reuse of the existing building may not be considered ideal in terms of carrying out the goals of the Guiding Plan, based on the two proposals the City has had to-date it seems that the private market is not finding it feasible to demolish and rebuild at this time. 3. The removal of much of the impervious surface and the "greening up" of the parcel could have a significant impact on the aesthetics of the property. • 4. This proposal offers an opportunity to implement the streetscape improvements along this portion of County Road E that are called for in the Guiding Plan. 5. The subdivision of the parcel into two lots allows for a greater intensity of use and an opportunity to implement many of the goals of the Guiding Plan, on what has been identified as one of the most important corners in the City. However, the vehicles access into and out of the corner parcel would need to be looked at closely to ensure that it would work. The number of vehicle trips that would be generated on the corner remains unknown until a future use is identified; however, conditions of approval could include a stipulation that a future use should not exceed the capacity of the driveway. 6. The exterior building improvements would need to meet the design standards for the B2 District. The City should ensure that the improvements were significant enough to make a strong visual impact on the building. Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments Mr. Joel Larson, Select Senior Living addressed the Planning Commission regarding the proposed development. He explained the number of rooms that will be incorporated into the building for memory care, independent care, and assisted living. He also explained the proposed updates to the exterior of the building and the interior rooms. All employee parking and deliveries would be in the back of the building. There would be new • landscaping installed including a pond, trails around the facility gazebos, and improved green space where the current outdoor patio area is for the restaurant. Some of the rooms will be split between two rooms in order to expand the size of the living area, there will be updated bathrooms and kitchenette cabinets installed in the rooms. The outside of the ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—May 4, 2011 6 . 4.A. Planning Case 11-007; PUD Concept Review Discussion; Select Senior Living; 1201 County Road E. —Not a Public Hearing (continued) • facility will support the streetscape look the City is looking for and this will be similar to the streetscape in Osseo. All the rooms will be brought up to code including fire sprinklers and extinguishers. He stated they have met with the Fire Marshal and Building Inspector and they are aware the updates that are needed. Commissioner Hames asked if the construction would be done from the inside out or from outside in. Mr. Larson stated the weather would need to be taken into consideration and they would be doing all the outside work in conjunction with the interior construction and the final landscaping would be done once all the heavy equipment had been finished on the site. The development is expected to begin at the end of May to early June and should be completed by early spring. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if these apartments would be rental units or for purchase. He also asked if Select Senior Living was a non-profit or for profit organization and if Medicare and Medicaid would be accepted at this facility. Mr. Larson stated Select Senior Living is a for profit organization. The proposed development would be rental units that would not be for purchase. This development is • designed for middle-class America and will accept Medicare and Medicaid as well as other forms of payment. Select Senior Living will be starting a new location in Mounds View and other locations in the metro area are at full capacity. Commissioner Thompson asked about the walking trails and the pond Mr. Larson stated the average age for residents is 82 years old. Most of these people are not doing a lot of activities but do enjoy going outside and taking short walks. The trails will go to the pond with stopping stops along the trail for them to sit and enjoy being outside. There will also be an open field area for grandkids of residents to play. Select Senior Living is planning on doing something with the pool area as well. This may include offering more therapeutic services to the community. Commissioner Thompson stated she would like to see the parking in the front of the building face the building versus facing the street. Commissioner Holewa asked how many full-time day employees were expected at the facility. Mr. Larson stated there will be approximately 25-28 full-time employees and about 20 of these will be day time positions. The facility will provide 24-hour care and the majority of employees will be first and second shift. This would include housekeepers, chefs, and assistants. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—May 4, 2011 7 4.A. Planning Case 11-007; PUD Concept Review Discussion; Select Senior Living; 1201 • County Road E. —Not a Public Hearing (continued) Chair Larson asked how this use for the Holiday Inn site fir into the overall Guiding Plan for the B2 District. City Planner Beekman the City adopted the Guiding Plan for the B2 District in October 2008. The Guiding Plan identifies the former Holiday INN parcel as a redevelopment opportunity and envisions a greater intensity of use on the site, including high density residential and retail. While not specifically stated in the Guiding Plan, it has been envisioned that the existing building on the site would be demolished at some point in order to make way for new development that aligned with the goals and principles for the B2 District. Current market conditions, as well as the solid construction of the existing building on the site, have made demolition of the building economically feasible from the standpoint of the private sector. There are many aspects of the current site layout of the parcel that conflict with the goals and principles of the Guiding Plan. The alignment of driveways and the location of the building make a future stop light location on County Road E challenging. The Guiding Plan calls for a greater intensity of use on the parcel, this is difficult to accomplish if the building remains in its current location and configuration. There are components of the current site layout, and opportunities for site improvements that are very much in line with the vision in the Guiding Plan. Opportunities exist to improve the exterior of the building and modernize the look of it as • well as significantly improve the landscaping and green space on the site. Chair Larson asked what the plans were for the remaining portion of the property. Mr. Davidson, TAT Properties, 2 acres will be retained by TAT Properties and will be developed based on a buyer for the property. The traffic expected by the proposed development is significantly less than what was expected by other development options considered for this property. TAT Properties will have traffic studies prepared that consider different types of businesses in this location so that consideration for the stoplight can be made. Commissioner Zimmerman stated he is in favor of this business plan and the proposed streetscape would be an asset for this area. B. Planning Case 11-009; Zoning Code Amendment Discussion; City of Arden Hills — Not a Public Hearing City PIanner Beekman stated at the February 22, 2011, Joint Planning Commission and City Council work session, one of the possible zoning code amendments discussed was a change to allow detached garages in the front yards of riparian lots. Staff was given direction to move forward with drafting possible language that would allow lakeshore lot owners to construct detached garages in their front yards under certain circumstances. She provided additional background information and stated Staff is requesting feedback from the Planning Commission on this language, and whether any revisions or additional standards are necessary. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—May 4, 2011 8 4.B. Planning Case 11-009; Zoning Code Amendment Discussion; City of Arden Hills—Not a Public Hearing(continued) • City Planner Beekman stated Staff drafted the following language that would allow detached garages in the front yards of Lakeshore lots: A. Detached accessory garages may be located in the front yard (between dwelling and street) of a lakeshore property provided all of the following are met: 1. Detached garages shall not be located within the minimum front yard setback. 2. Color and roof material of detached garages shall match or complement the existing primary residential structure, and shall conform to all other requirements for the zoning district. Commissioner Larson opened the Floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Holewa asked if this change was just in regards to lakeshore property or if other similar lots in the City were included in this City Planner Beekman the proposed language is for lakeshore properties only but this same change could apply to other types of properties in the City such as through lots and narrow lots. Staff can look at changing the language to reference other types of property in the City. She asked the Planning Commission for additional input regarding the 40- yard front setback. She asked if the Planning Commission wanted to keep this set back or • decrease it. Chair Larson stated he would like to know what Public Safety has to say in regards to the front yard setback. Commissioner Zimmerman stated a normal home has a front yard setback of 40-feet. The front yard setback should be the same for the addition of a detached garage. If the resident would like less they should come before the Planning Commission and City Council and request a variance. Commissioner Thompson expressed support for the 40-foot front yard setback. Chair Larson stated the Planning Commission had received a letter from Mr. Johnson pertaining to the ability to construct a detached garage in the front yard. Mr. Mark Johnson, 3124 Hamline Avenue, stated he was in favor of allowing residents on the lake to build a detached garage in the front yards. This allows the neighborhood to remain open. Commissioner Hames stated she was in favor of making these changes to the City's ordinances but she would like to see additional language that includes other properties in the City. She would also like to see the 40-foot front yard setback maintained. • Commissioner Holewa agreed with Commissioner Hames. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—May 4, 2011 9 4.B. Planning Case 11-009; Zoning Code Amendment Discussion; City of Arden Hills—Not a • Public Hearing(continued) Commissioner Hames asked if the height of the structure was addressed in the City's Code or Ordinances. City Planner Beekman stated the maximum height for accessory structures in the City is 15-feet or as tall as the principle structure and this encourages peaked roofs on these structures. She explained the proposed language addresses the location of the garage only. The structure would need to meet all other conditions and requirements in the City's Code. She stated she would be sure the changes were clear on the definition of a detached garage. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Councilmember Holmes updated the Planning Commission on City Council activities including the review of the PUD concept plan from Select Senior Living, the approval of the purchase of 71,000 square feet of the Trinity Lutheran Church to incorporate into Hazelnut Park, the approval of Planning Case 11-005 to subdivide this property, and the approval of Planning Case 11-006 for a Preliminary Plat and Comprehensive Plan • Amendment to allow the Fox Ridge Subdivision. Commissioner Holewa stated he would like to encourage the City to work towards a pedestrian crossing with the proposed road projects and bridge reconstructions. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests Commissioner Holewa clarified if the redevelopment project for Select Senior Living comes forward it would include the subdivision of the parcel into two lots. City Planner Beekman stated this was correct. ADJOURN Commissioner Hames moved, seconded by Commissioner Holewa, to adiourn the May 4, 2011, Planning Commission Meeting at 7:57 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). • MEMORANDUM 3.B DATE: June 8, 2011 PC Agenda Item TO: Planning Commission FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #11-010 Applicant: City of Arden Hills Subject: Zoning Code Amendment - Detached Garages Request Consider approval of Planning Case 11-010 to amend Section 1325.01 Subd 3 of the Zoning Code to permit the construction of detached garages in the front yards of lakeshore lots under certain circumstances as presented in the June 8, 2011, Planning Case Report. Background The City of Arden Hills is home to many residential lakeshore properties. 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. The allowance of detached garages in front yards of lakeshore lots has come up several times recently, as lakeshore lot values continue to increase and demand grows to continue improving these properties. A solution to this discrepancy would be to provide a mechanism within the Zoning Code to allow lakeshore lot owners to have detached garages between their home and the street under certain circumstances. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 8, 2011 \\Ahdocs1\ah\AHdata\Planning\Planning Cases\2011\11-010 - Garages - Zoning Code Amendment (Pending) Page 1 of 4 Among the possible amendments discussed at the February 22, 2011 Joint Planning Commission and City Council work session was a change to the Zoning Code to allow detached garages in the front yards of riparian lots. Since then, both the Planning Commission and the City Council have independently given Staff direction to move forward with drafting possible language that would allow lakeshore lot owners to construct detached garages in their front yards under certain circumstances. Staff conducted research on other communities’ regulations pertaining to front yard accessory structures and found that most communities provide some provision to allow lakeshore lot owners to construct detached structures on the street side of their properties. Staff looked at the Codes of adjacent communities, and Minnetonka, Brooklyn Park, White Bear Lake, and Burnsville. Based on a review of these Codes, Staff drafted regulations that address detached garages on lakeshore lots (Attachment A). Discussion Staff drafted the following language that would allow detached garages in the front yard of lakeshore lots: A.Detached accessory garages may be located in the front yard (between dwelling and street) of a lakeshore property provided all of the following are met: 1.Detached garages shall not be located within the minimum front yard setback. 2.Color and roof material of detached garages shall match or complement the existing primary residential structure, and shall conform to all other requirements for the zoning district. The above language would only allow detached garages at least 40 feet from the front property line to maintain consistency with the current front yard setbacks for principal structures in the R- 1 district. The language also provides for design standards that would require the new structure to match the existing home on the lot. Any detached garage constructed under these regulations would be required to meet all of the other height, size, and side yard setback requirements of the City’s Zoning Code. At their May 4, 2011 regular meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed amendment. A suggestion was made by the Planning Commission that Staff look at potentially including through-lots within the provision allowing front yard detached garages. Through-lots are those properties with two opposite lot lines abutting streets. Upon review of the Code, Staff feels that this provision is already granted to through-lots in Section 1325.03, Subd 1 of the City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 8, 2011 \\Ahdocs1\ah\AHdata\Planning\Planning Cases\2011\11-010 - Garages - Zoning Code Amendment (Pending) Page 2 of 4 Zoning Code. In addition, the Planning Commission’s discussion included a suggestion that other narrow lots throughout the City also be granted similar provision in the Code for front yard detached garages. The City Council’s direction on this item was to allow those unique circumstances to be dealt with on a case by case basis through the variance process. Recommendation Staff recommends 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. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this item it will go to the City Council at their June 27, meeting. If approved, the ordinance would go into effect the day following official publication, on July 7, 2011. Options 1.Recommend Approval as Proposed: 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. 2.Recommend Approval with Changes: 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 amended by the following changes… 3.Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial 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. 4.Table: Motion to table 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: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. If changes to the ordinance are made, those changes can be included with a motion to approve. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 8, 2011 \\Ahdocs1\ah\AHdata\Planning\Planning Cases\2011\11-010 - Garages - Zoning Code Amendment (Pending) Page 3 of 4 Notice Notice was published in the Shoreview-Arden Hills Bulletin. Attachments A – Section 1325.01 – Black-lined Version City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 8, 2011 \\Ahdocs1\ah\AHdata\Planning\Planning Cases\2011\11-010 - Garages - Zoning Code Amendment (Pending) Page 4 of 4 City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code Section 1325 - General Regulations 1325.01 Accessory Structures. (Revised 01/31/11) Subd. 1 Time of Construction. No accessory structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal structure to which it is accessory. Subd. 2 Height. A.R-1, R-2, and R-3 Districts. Accessory structures in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Districts shall not exceed fifteen feet in height or the height of the principal structure to which it is accessory, whichever is lower. B.All Other Districts. Accessory structures in all other Zoning Districts shall not exceed the height of the principal structure to which it is accessory. Subd. 3. Location (Revised 07/07/11) A.Accessory structures in the R-1, R-2, or R-3 Districts shall not be located nearer the front lot line than the front yard setback line for the principal structure to which it is accessory. Accessory structures as permitted and regulated in this Code may be located within the rear yard of the principal structure in the R-1 and R-2 Districts. B.Detached accessory garages may be located in the front yard (between dwelling and street) of a lakeshore property provided all of the following are met: 1.Detached garages shall not be located within the minimum front yard setback. 2.Color and roof material of detached garages shall match or complement the existing primary residential structure, and shall conform to all other requirements for the zoning district. Subd. 4 Size. A.R-1, R-2, and R-3 Districts. 1.Accessory structures associated with residential uses shall not exceed seven hundred and twenty-eight (728) square feet in floor area. Accessory structures associated with non-residential uses shall not Section 1325 – General Regulations Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 1 of 2 City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code exceed two thousand one hundred eighty-four (2,184) square feet in floor area; and, 2.The total floor area of accessory structures located in the rear of a principal structure, the total floor area of all such accessory structures shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the minimum required rear yard area for the principal structure; and, 3.No more than two (2) accessory structures shall be permitted on a lot primarily used for residential uses. B.All Districts. Accessory structures in all zoning districts shall not cause the property to exceed any of the regulations of the underlying Zoning District in Section 1320. Section 1325 – General Regulations Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 2 of 2 MEMORANDUM 3.C DATE: June 8, 2011 PC Agenda Item TO: Planning Commission FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #11-012 Applicant: City of Arden Hills Subject: Zoning Code Amendment – Section 1355 Request Consider approval of Planning Case 11-012 to amend Section 1355 of the Zoning Code and omit Section 1325.03, Subd. 3.C in its entirety, as presented in the June 8, 2011, Planning Case Report. Background 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 Code, as it pertains to specific requirements for height variances, which are no longer necessary given the new variance review criteria. An article from the League of Minnesota Cities summarizing the new variance law is attached. Section 1355 of the City’s Zoning Code lays out the administrative procedures for all land use applications made to the City. In addition to updating the variance procedures, Staff is also recommending several other revisions that bring the City’s codes in line with State Statutes. One example is Minnesota Statutes §15.99, which outlines the 60-day review deadline City’s must use when reviewing land use requests. This language had not been updated in the City’s Code, and as such, the City’s review procedure did not comply with State Statute. While State Statute supersedes the City’s Zoning Code, and Staff has been using the proper procedures, it is City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 8, 2011 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2011\11-012 - Variance Ordinance - Zoning Code Amendment (Pending)\06-08-11 - PC Report - Variance ordinance amendment.doc Page 1 of 3 important for the City’s regulations to comply with State Law in the event that the City is challenged. In addition to the 60-day rule language, Staff is also recommending amendments to Section 1355 that would bring the City’s voting requirements in line with State Law for the approval of certain land use requests. A black-lined version of Section 1355 is included as Attachment A. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Planning Case 11-012 to amend Section 1355 of the Zoning Code and omit Section 1325.03, Subd. 3.C in its entirety, as presented in the June 8, 2011, Planning Case Report. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this item it will go before the City Council at their June 27, meeting. If approved by the Council the ordinance would go into effect the day following proper publication of the ordinance, on July 7, 2011. Options 1.Recommend Approval as Proposed: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 11- 012 to amend Section 1355 of the Zoning Code and omit Section 1325.03, Subd. 3.C in its entirety, as presented in the June 8, 2011, Planning Case Report. 2.Recommend Approval with Changes: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 11- 012 to amend Section 1355 of the Zoning Code and omit Section 1325.03, Subd. 3.C in its entirety, as amended by the following changes… 3.Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 11-012 to amend Section 1355 of the Zoning Code and omit Section 1325.03, Subd. 3.C in its entirety, as presented in the June 8, 2011, Planning Case Report. 4.Table: Motion to table Planning Case 11-012 to amend Section 1355 of the Zoning Code and omit Section 1325.03, Subd. 3.C in its entirety: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. If changes to the ordinance are made, those changes can be included with a motion to approve. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 8, 2011 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2011\11-012 - Variance Ordinance - Zoning Code Amendment (Pending)\06-08-11 - PC Report - Variance ordinance amendment.doc Page 2 of 3 Notice Notice was published in the Shoreview-Arden Hills Bulletin. Staff has not received any letters, e-mails, or telephone calls from property owners or occupants in regards to this planning case. Attachments A. Section 1355 – Black-lined Version B. May 11, 2011, Article from the League of Minnesota Cities City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 8, 2011 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2011\11-012 - Variance Ordinance - Zoning Code Amendment (Pending)\06-08-11 - PC Report - Variance ordinance amendment.doc Page 3 of 3 A Attachment Section 1355 – Black-lined Version June 8, 2011, Planning Commission Meeting City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code Section 1355 - Administration and Procedures 1355.01 Procedure for Public Hearings. ( Revised April 28, 2008) Subd. 1 Actions Requiring Public Hearings.The followingReview of certain land useapplications requireprocedures prescribed by this Zoning Code requires that a public hearing be held prior to action by the City Council:. These procedures include: A.Amendments to the Zoning Code regulations; B.Rezoning of land from one district to another; C.Conditional Use Permits for Conditional Principal or Conditional Accessory Uses; D.Planned Unit Developments; E.Comprehensive Plan Amendments; F.Interim Use Permits. Subd. 2 Actions Where Public Hearings May be Required.The following land use applications will require aReview of certain land use procedures described herein, allow theCity to hold public hearings whenever the Zoning Administratorit determines that adjoining property owners or other residents should be advised of a specific proposal:. These procedures include: A.Variances B.Site Plan Reviews Subd. 3 Notice of Public Hearing. A.Published Notice. A notice of the time, placeplace, and purpose of Public Hearing shall be published in the Official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the day of the Hearing. B.Mailed Notice. Rezoning of land, Conditional Use Permits, Interim Use Permits, and Planned Unit Developments, shall alsorequire mailed notice, at least ten (10) days before the day of hearing, to each owner of property situated wholly or partially within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the boundary of the Property on which the application requiring the Public Hearing is situated. The applicant shall be responsible for providing an accurate list of owners, property identification numbers, addresses and phone numbers to the Zoning Administrator as certified by Ramsey County or a title company, printed on address labels. The City Section 1355 – Administration and Procedures Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 1 of 14 City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code Council shall be responsible for mailing the notices to the land ownerslandowners. C.Referral to Others. The administrator shall also refer copies of the application and required documentation in support thereof to other City officials who have an interest therein in accordance with the required administrative distribution schedule. D.Record of Notice. A copy of the notice and a list of the names and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the administrator and shall be made a part of the records of the proceedings. Failure of Written Notice. The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt has been made to comply with the notice requirements. E.this subdivision has been made. Subd. 4 Public Hearing by Planning Commission.Within sixty(60) days after the date of receipt of the completed application from the landowner, by the zoning administrator or the City Council's initiation of the proceedings, Tthepublic hearing shall be held before the PlanningCommissionshall hold a public hearing and make a written report to the Council of its findings, conclusions and recommendations, unless the Commission,upon written request of the applicant, grants a time extension. TheCommission. The applicant or itshis representative shall be given the opportunity to appear before the PlanningCommission to answer questions or give explanations regarding the proposal. The PlanningCommission may adjourn the public hearing to its next meeting, either regular or special, and may continue its study and consideration of the application at meetings subsequent to the meeting at which the public hearing was initially held. Upon completion of the public hearing and its study and consideration of the application, the Planning Commission shall submit its written report, containing its findings, conclusions, and recommendations as to the application, to the CityCouncil. Subd. 5 Additional Hearings by CityCouncil. The CityCouncil may hold additional hearings within thirty (30) days after the receipt of the report from the Commission. If the Commission fails to make a report within sixty (60) days after receipt of the application, then the Council shall hold a public hearing within thirty (30) days after the expiration of said sixty (60) day period, unless the Council, upon receipt of a written request from the applicant, grants an extension of time. Failure to receive a report from the PlanningCommission, as herein provided, shall not invalidate the proceedings or actions of the CityCouncil. Subd. 6 Action by CityCouncil. The CityCouncil must take action on the application in accordance with Section 1355.05 of this Code. within sixty (60) days following the report to it by the Commission or following a hearing held by the Council. CityCouncil action may include approval, denialdenial, or referral back to thePlanningCommission. CityCouncil action may include approval in whole or in Section 1355 – Administration and Procedures Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 2 of 14 City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code part, tabling for a specified period of time, or referral back to the Planning Commission for its further consideration and report to the Council within a specified period of time not to exceed the timeline contained in Minnesota Statutes §15.99. sixty(60) days from the date of such referral. The applicant shall be notified in writing of the CityCouncil's action. 1355.02 Procedure for Actions Not Requiring Public Hearings. Revised April 28, 2008 1355.02 Requests for Variances and Site Plan Reviews do not require thata public hearing,be heldbut the Planning CommissionZoning Administrator may determine that adjoining property owners should be invited to their the Planning Commission meeting to offer responses to the application, prior to action by the City.( Revised April 28, 2008) Subd. 1 Placing Request on Planning Commission Agenda.Within sixty (60) days after the date of receipt of the application, the TheZoning Administrator shall place the request on the Planning Commission Agenda. Subd. 2 Referral to Others. The administrator shall also refer copies of the application and required documentation in support thereof to other City officials who have an interest therein in accordance with the required administrative distribution schedule. Subd. 3 Planning Commission Consideration. The applicant or itshis representative shall be given the opportunity to appear before the Planning Commission to answer questions or give explanations regarding the proposal. The PlanningCommission may adjourn the discussion to its next meeting, either regular or special, and may continue its study and consideration of the application at meetings subsequent to the meeting at which the initial discussion occurred. Upon completion of its study and consideration of the application, the PlanningCommission shall submit its written report, containing its finding, conclusions, and recommendations to theCityCouncil.and shall be placed on the next Council agenda after the application has been considered by the Commission. At such meeting the Council shall consider the report of the Commission thereon. Subd. 4 CityCouncil Consideration.In considering applications, theThe City Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the PlanningCommission and may approve the request application if it determines that the request application is permissible in accordancecomplies with the city standards. Such aApplications may be denied by action of the CityCouncil, and such action shall constitute a finding and determination that the conditions required for approval do not exist. Subd. 5 Action by CityCouncil.The City Council must take action on the application in accordance with Section 1355.05 of this Code. The Council must take action on the application within sixty (60) days following the report to it by the Commission or following a hearing (optional) held by the Council. CityCouncil Section 1355 – Administration and Procedures Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 3 of 14 City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code action may include approval, denialdenial, or referral back to the Planning Commission. 1355.03 Application Requirements for All Land Use Procedures.( Revised April 28, 2008) Subd. 1 Application.The applicant for City review of any land use procedure requiring action by the Planning Commission and City Council shall fill out and submit to the zoning administrator, the completed application form, and all required documentation.The completed land use application shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. Subd. 2 Documentation. Forms describing the required documentation for each procedureland use application required herein are included as Appendix A, Procedure Manual and are available from the ZzoningAadministrator. Subd. 2Subd. 3 Action by City Council. The City Council shall review all land use applications in accordance with Section 1355.05 of this Code. 1355.04 Procedural Requirements for Specific Applications.( Revised April 28, 2008) Subd. 1 Zoning Code Amendment. A.Public Hearing. A public hearing is required before action by the City Council. B.Action to Approve.Three affirmative votes A4/5 vote of thefullCity Councilareis required for action to amend the text of the Zoning Code. . In the event an application for amendment is approved, an appropriate amending ordinance shall be executed and published. Subd. 2 Rezonings/Comprehensive Plan. A.Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. If a proposed rezoning is not consistent with the Arden Hills Comprehensive PlanPlan, the applicant shall apply for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment concurrently with the application for rezoning. Written and graphic documentation shall be provided by the applicant, showing why the proposed amendment is superior to the existing Plan and changes that have occurred that make the Amendment appropriate. B.Public Hearing. A public hearing is required for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and for the rezoning. C.Action to Approve.. Three affirmative votesA4/5 vote of the fullCity Councilareis required for action to rezone property from one district to another, provided that the rezoning of property from residential use to an industrial use shall require approval by four affirmative votes of the City Section 1355 – Administration and Procedures Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 4 of 14 City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code and for a ComprehensiveCouncil. Comprehensive Plan Amendments shall require four affirmative votes of the City Council. In the event an application to rezone for a rezoning is approved, an appropriate amending ordinance shall be executed and published. Rezoning amendments shall describe the property rezoned by its legal description, and shall be indicated on the official zoning map, but it shall not be necessary to re- publish said zoning map to effectuate the rezoning amendment. D.Business and Industrial District Rezoning. Before any new area is rezoned to a business or industrial classification, the property must be located adjacent to an arterial or collector road as shown on the Comprehensive Development Plan, or the rezoning will be an extension of an existing business or industrial district and in conformance with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 3 Conditional Use Permits. E.Public Hearing. A public hearing is required. F.Action to Approve.Three affirmative votes of the City council are requiredActionto approve a conditional use permit and the action of the City Council must requires a majority vote of the full Council and must include a determination that the facts and circumstances of the particular case warrant the grantingofthe permit. The Council shall consider the factual findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Planning Commission, as contained in its report, and both shall consider the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the owners and occupants of surrounding land, in particular, and the community as a whole, in general, including but not limited to the following factors: existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions; noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics; drainage; population density; visual and land use compatibility with uses and structures on surrounding land; adjoining land values; park dedications where applicable, and the orderly development of the neighborhood and the city within the general purpose and intent of this Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. G.Imposition of Conditions. In the granting of a conditional use permit, theCityCouncil may impose such conditions, in addition to the general conditions and requirements of this Code to which every conditional use permit shall be subject, as it deems necessary to serve and protect the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the community. Such conditions may include, among other things, a time limit within which the conditional use or a portion thereof, or improvements in connection therewith are to be established, constructed, completed or commenced, and a requirement that the person or firm to whom the conditional use Section 1355 – Administration and Procedures Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 5 of 14 City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code permit has been granted deposit with the City either cash or a performance bond in a sum equal to one hundred twenty five (125%) percent of the estimated cost, as determined by the City Engineer, of improvements to be constructed in accordance with the permit to insure completion thereof within the time limit specified in the permit. The conditions so imposed by the CityCouncil shall be specifically stated in the permit and maybe subject to periodic review as determined by the City Council. The violation of any special or general condition set forth in a conditional use permit shall constitute a violation of this Code. H.Permit for Particular Site. A conditional use permit is granted for a specific use at a specific site, not for a person or firm. I.Designated Uses. Uses for which conditional use permits are required and the zoning districts in which they are allowed are designated in the land use chart as set forth in Section 1320 hereof. No building permit shall be issued for any use in a zoning district which requires the issuance of a conditional use permit before it can be located in the particular district, until after the conditional use permit has been granted by the City Council. J.Discontinuance of a Conditional Use. If the use for which any conditional use permit has been granted has ceased or has been discontinued for a period of ninety (90) consecutive days, the permit shall automatically expire and become void at the end of such ninety (90) -day period. Subd. 4 Variances. A.Public Hearing. A public hearing is not required but neighboring property owners shall be notified. B.Action to Approve.Three affirmative votes of the City A majority vote of theCouncilareis requiredfor action to approve the granting of a variance. C.Criteria for Review. The following criteria shall be applied to the City Council’s review of a variance application: 1.Purpose and Intent. The variance request shall comply with the purpose and intent provisions of City’s Zoning Regulations and with the policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 2.Practical Difficulties. The applicant for a variance shall establish that there are practical difficulties in complying with the provisions of the Arden Hills Zoning Regulations. The term “Practical Difficulties” as used in the granting of a variance means: Section 1355 – Administration and Procedures Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 6 of 14 City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code a.Reasonable Use. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. b.Unique Circumstances. The plight of property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. c.Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 3.Economic Consideration. Economic consideration alone does not constitute a practical difficulty. 4.Access to Sunlight. Inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems shall be considered a practical difficulty. 5.Earth Sheltered Housing. Earth sheltered construction, as defined in Minnesota Statutes §216(C).06, Subd. 14, shall be considered a practical difficulty if the property is otherwise in compliance with the Arden Hills Zoning Regulations. 6.Non Permitted Use. A variance shall not be granted if it would allow a use, which is not otherwise permitted in the zoning district where the property is located. 7.Temporary Double Family. A variance may be granted to allow temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. B. C.Intent and Purpose. Variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code may be granted in instances where the strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Variances shall only be granted when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Code. “Undue hardship," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under conditions permitted by the Zoning Code, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Code. D.Variance Restrictions. In no case shall the granting of a variance impair the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the public, nor will it be contrary to the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan, Section 1355 – Administration and Procedures Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 7 of 14 City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code the official map, or this or any other ordinance of the City. Variances to allow a use that is not permitted in the district shall not be granted. E.Allowable Variances. Variances normally relate to the dimensional provisions of the ordinances such as, but not limited to, building setback lines, lot area requirements and the like but may also relate to other requirements, regulations or procedures. F.D.Conditions to Insure Compliance. The City Council may impose conditions in granting a variance. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance.The Council may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties as well as the health, safety, comfort, and general welfare of the public. G.Height Variances. Variance to height of structure may be granted in accordance with Chapter 1325.03 Subd 3. Subd. 5 Site Plan Review. A.Public Hearing. A public hearing is not required but neighboring property owners may be notified. B.Action to Approve.Three affirmative votes of the City Council areA majority vote of the Council is required for approval of a site plan. C.Building Permit. The issuance of a permit for a new building or significant site modification for a permitted or established use within a Multiple Dwelling Zoning District or any business or industrial zoning district shall require site plan approval by the City Council according to the procedure defined in Chapter 1355.04. Subd. 6 Planned Unit Development (PUD). A.Two or Three Stage Process. The PUD application and review procedure involves a Concept Plan (optional), a Master Plan StageStage, and a Final Plan Stage. B.Public Hearing. A public hearing is required at the Master Plan Stage. The public hearing may be combined with the public hearing for a zoning district change if a zoning district change is required and for a preliminary plat if a preliminary plat of the PUD property is proposed. C.Action to Approve.Four affirmative votes of the City Council areA 4/5 vote of the full Council is required for approval of the Master Plan. Section 1355 – Administration and Procedures Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 8 of 14 City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code D.Effect of Concept Plan Review. The applicant for a PUD Concept Plan, which has been reviewed by the CityCouncilCouncil, has no limitation on the period of time in which to apply for Master Plan approval. E.Effect of PUD Master Plan Approval. The applicant for a PUD Master Plan which has been approved by the CityCouncil shall apply for a PUD Final Plan or the first stage of the Master Plan within six (6) months, unless some other phasing plan has been approved by the CityCouncil or unless a written request for a time extension has been approved by the CityCouncil in advance of the expiration date. F.Final Plan. The applicant shall submit a Final Plan for all elements of the Master Plan that are to be developed imminently. A PUD Final Plan shall be submitted for each stage of development/construction. Three affirmative votes of the City Council are required to approve a Final Plan PUD. G.Final Plan Procedure. The Site Plan Review process in Appendix A, Procedure Manual, and the Site Plan Review procedure in Chapter 1355.04 Subd 5 shall be followed. Subd. 7 Interim Use Permits. A.Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of allowing interim uses is: 1.To allow a use that is presently acceptable, but that with anticipated development or redevelopment, will not be acceptable in the future or will be replaced by a permitted or conditional use allowed within the respective zoning district. 2.To allow a use which is reflective of anticipated long range change to an area and which is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan provided that said use maintains harmony and compatibility with surrounding uses and is in keeping with the architectural character and design standards of existing uses and development. B.Public Hearing. A public hearing is required. C.Action to Approve.Three affirmative votes of the City Council are required to approve an interim use permit, Action to approve an interim use permit requires a majority vote of the full Council and the City Councilmust include a determination that the facts and circumstances of the particular case warrant granting the permit. Section 1355 – Administration and Procedures Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 9 of 14 City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code D.Permit Evaluation. When reviewing the interim use permit application, the CityCouncil shall consider the factual findings, ability to meet the special requirements of the interim use, and the conclusions and recommendations of the Planning Commission. An interim use permit may be granted only if the City Council finds the following: 1.The use is allowed as an interim use in the underlying zoning district and conforms to the zoning regulations; 2.Permission of the interim use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future; 3.The use will not 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; 4.The use will not adversely impact traffic and parking; 5.The use will not adversely impact implementation of future amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan; 6.The date or event that will terminate the use is identified with certainty; 7.The applicant has signed a consent agreement agreeing that the applicant, owner, operator, tenant, and/or user has no entitlement to an extension of the Interim Use Permit; 8.The user agrees to all conditions that the City Council deems appropriate for permission of the use including the requirement of appropriate financial surety to cover the cost of removing the interim use and any interim structures upon expiration of the interim use permit; 9.There are no delinquent property taxes, special assessments, interest, or City utility fees due upon the subject parcel; 10.The term of the interim use does not exceed three (3) years; 11.The property has not been a recipient of a previous interim use permit. A property that has received an interim use permit for an interim use listed in 1320.05, Land Use Chart, shall not be eligible for another interim use permit of the same use; and, 12.Any special requirements in Section 1320 for a particular interim use are met. Section 1355 – Administration and Procedures Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 10 of 14 City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code E.Imposition of Conditions. In the granting of an interim use permit, the CityCouncil may impose such conditions, in addition to the general conditions and requirements of this Code to which every interim use permit shall be subject, as it deems necessary to serve and protect the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the community. F.Permit for Particular Site. An interim use permit is granted for a specific use at a specific site, not for a person or firm. G.Designated Uses. Uses for which an interim use permits are required and the zoning districts in which they are allowed are designated in the land use chart as set forth in Section 1320 hereof. No building permit shall be issued for an interim use until after the interim use permit has been granted by the CityCouncil. H.Termination. An interim use shall terminate on the occurrence of any of the following events, whichever occurs first: 1.The date stated on the permit; 2.Upon violation of conditions under which the permit was issued; 3.Upon change in the City’s zoning regulations which renders the use nonconforming; 4.The redevelopment of the use and property upon which it is located to a permitted or conditional use as allowed within the underlying zoning district; and 5. If the use for which the interim use permit has been granted has ceased or has been discontinued for a period of ninety (90) consecutive days, the permit shall automatically expire and become void at the end of such ninety-day period. I.Suspension and Revocation. The City Council may suspend or revoke an interim use permit upon finding that the activities allowed under the permit adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare in ways not anticipated during approval of the permit. A suspension or revocation of an interim use permit shall be preceded by written notice to the permittee and a hearing. The notice shall provide at least ten (10) days notice of the time and place of the hearing and shall state the nature of the violation(s). The notice shall be mailed to the permittee at the most recent address listed on the application. Section 1355 – Administration and Procedures Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 11 of 14 City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code 1355.05 City Action on Applications for Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Zoning Code Amendments, Rezoning, Conditional and Interim Use Permits, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, and Variances.( Revised April 28, 2008) Subd. 1 Finding of Complete Application. The Zoning Administrator shall find the application complete or incomplete within fifteen (15) business days from the date the application is made. If the application is found to be incomplete, the administrator shall notify the applicants in writing and state what information is missing. If the application is found to be complete, the date of submittal shall mark the beginning of the review deadline. Subd. 1Subd. 2 Action by the CityCouncil. Within sixty (60) days following the date of submittal of a complete applicationthe receipt of the Commission's report, the CityCouncil shall act upon the application.The City Council may extend the sixty (60) day review timeline by an additional sixty (60) days upon providing written notification to the applicant stating the reasons for the extension. TheCityCouncil, may only upon written request by the applicant, extend its time for consideration and action beyond one hundred twenty (120) days. Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit the CityCouncil from holding additional hearings as it deems necessary within the sixty dayreview periodfollowing the receipt of the report of the Commission. In considering applications for Comprehensive Plan amendments, Zoning Code amendments, rezoning, conditional and interim specialuse permits, planned unit developments, site plan reviews and variances, the City Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the PlanningCommission and may grant the request if it determines that the action is permissible in accordance with the applicable standards. Requests may be denied by motion of the CityCouncil, and such motion shall constitute a finding and determination that the conditions required for approval do not exist. Subd. 2Subd. 3 Optional Actions.CityCouncil action may include approval in whole or in part, denial in whole or in part, tabling for a specified period of time, or referral back to the PlanningCommission for its further consideration and report to theCityCouncil within a specified time period.not to exceed sixty (60) days from the date of such referral. The applicant shall be notified in writing of the City Council's action. Subd. 3Subd. 4 Denial of Application. In the event the CityCouncil denies in whole or in part the application, it shall furnish the applicant with a written document advising him of the denial and specifying the factual basis and reasoning upon which the denial was predicated. The application may be denied for reasons relating to public health, safetysafety, and general welfare or because of incompatibility between the proposed use and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 4Subd. 5 Resubmission of Denied Application. No application whichhas been denied wholly or in partapplication, which has been denied wholly or in part, shall be resubmitted for a period of six (6) months from the date of said order of denial. Section 1355 – Administration and Procedures Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 12 of 14 City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code 1355.06 Conditions for Approval of Conditional Use Permits, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plans, and Variances.( Revised April 28, 2008) Subd. 1 Commencement and Conclusion of Work. It is contemplated that any work involved or required by an approved application will be commenced within one (1) year after such approval and concludeconclude within one year of the issuance of a building permit or commencement of work if a building permit was not required. This requirement is not intended to limit the authority of the CityCouncil with respect to imposition of other or different time limitations if deemed proper in the particular case. Subd. 2 Inspection. It shall be the responsibility of the administrator to check on these time limitations or any other limitations contained in the approval and advise theCityCouncil of any breach thereof. Breach of the limitations, whether contained herein or specifically contained in the action itself, shall be grounds for canceling the approval. Subd. 3 Expiration. Approval shall automatically expire and become void one (1) year from and after the date on which the CityCouncil granted such approval if the building permit or other approved improvements have not been issued a permit by the building inspector. The CityCouncil may extend the expiration date of such approval upon written application by the person to whom the approval was granted. If the use for which any conditional or interim use permit has been granted has ceased or has been discontinued for a period of ninety (90) consecutive days, the permit shall automatically expire and become void at the end of such ninety (90)-day period unless reinstated by the CityCouncil. Subd. 4 Amendments of Site Plans, Conditional Use Permits, Interim Use Permit, or Planned Unit Developments. An application for amendment shall be administered in the same manner as required for a new application. Such applications shall include re-applications for permits that have been denied, revoked, or have expired; renewal or temporary permits; requests for changes in conditions; and such other instances as are provided in this Code. Any structural alteration, enlargement or intensification change in site plan, or similar change not specially permitted, shall require City Councilaction and all procedures shall apply as if a new application were being requested; provided, however, that when such changes are deemed to be insignificant by the zoning administrator, the requirements of a public hearing may be waived. Subd. 5 Periodic Review. A periodic review of the permit and its conditions shall be maintained. A violation of any condition set forth in the permit shall be a violation of this Code, and shall be cause for revocation of the permit. In the event that the Zoning Administrator Councilproposesrecommends to CityCouncil or revoke a permit, the CityCouncil shall cause written notice thereof to be given to the occupier, and owner shall have an opportunity to be heard, but not further notice need be given. Section 1355 – Administration and Procedures Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 13 of 14 City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code Subd. 6 Administrative Records. The zoning administrator shall maintain a record of all approved, stamped and dated plans and permits issued, including information on the use, location, conditions imposed, time limits, review dates, and such other information as may be appropriate. Plans shall be signed by the City Council Liaison to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission Chairman. It shall be the responsibility of the administrator to place on the Planning Commission agenda and notify the CityCouncil of any expiring time limit, prior to expiration and/or violation of any approved applications. 1355.07 Appeals to Administrative Decisions.( Revised April 28, 2008) Subd. 1 Appeals. The Planning Commission shall hear any appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirements, decision or determination made by an administrative officer in the interpretation, application, and/or enforcement of this Code and shall report its findings and recommendations to the City Council for action. Subd. 2 Effect of Determinations. The findings and determinations made by the Planning Commission shall be advisory only and shall have no binding effect. The CityCouncil shall take such action on the findings and recommendations of the PlanningCommissionCommission, as it deems proper in the circumstances. April 14, 2008 Page 14 of 14 B Attachment May 11, 2011 Article from the League of Minnesota Cities June 8, 2011, Planning Commission Meeting Gov. Dayton Signs Variance Legislation into LawPage 2of 3 Gov. Dayton Signs Variance Legislation into Law The changes, which are now in effect, may require some cities to change ordinances or statutory cross-references. (Published May 11, 2011) The League and a long list of allies are finally able to celebrate having a fix in lace to restore city variance authority. After a long and contentious session p working on resolving this issue, the final version of HF 52 was supported by the League and passed unanimously by the Legislature. 2011 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 19 On May 5, Gov. Dayton signed , amending innesota Statutes, section 462.357, subdivision 6 M to restore municipal variance authority in response to Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 .W.2d 721 (Minn. June 24, 2010). The law also provides consistent statutory N Minnesota Statutes, chapter 462 language between and the county variance Minnesota Statutes, section 394.27, subdivision 7 authority of . InKrummenacher, the Minnesota Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the statutory definition of “undue hardship” and held that the “reasonable use” prong of the “undue hardship” test is not whether the proposed use is reasonable, but rather whether there is a reasonable use in the absence of the variance. The new law changes that factor back to the “reasonable manner” understanding that had been used by some lower courts prior to the Krummenacher ruling. The new law was effective on May 6, the day following the governor’s approval. Presumably it applies to pending applications, as the general rule is that cities are to apply the law at the time of the decision, rather than at the time of application. 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.” So in evaluating variance requests under the new law, 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? Some cities may have ordinance provisions that codified the old statutory language, or that have their own set of standards. For those cities, the question mhtml:file://\\metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2011\11-012 - Variance Or5/31/2011 ... Gov. Dayton Signs Variance Legislation into LawPage 3of 3 may be whether you have to first amend your zoning code before processing variances under the new standard. A credible argument can be made that that the statutory language pre-empts inconsistent local ordinance provisions. Under a pre-emption theory, cities could apply the new law immediately without necessarily amending their ordinance first. In any regard, it would be best practice for cities to revisit their ordinance provisions and consider adopting language that mirrors the new statute. In addition, 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. If you have questions about how your city should approach variances under this Jed Burkett new statute, you should discuss it with your city attorney or contact , jburkett@lmc.orgTom LMC land use attorney, at or (651) 281-1247, or Grundhoefertgrundho@lmc.org , LMC general counsel, at or (651) 281-1266. Read the current issue of the Cities Bulletin Your LMC Resource Contact Craig Johnson IGR Representative (651) 281-1259 or (800) 925-1122 cjohnson@lmc.org Contact Tom Grundhoefer General Counsel (651) 281-1266 or (800) 925-1122 tgrundho@lmc.org Contact Jed Burkett Land Use Attorney (651) 281-1247 or (800) 925-1122 jburkett@lmc.org Copyright ©2011 League of Minnesota Cities, 145 University Ave. W, Saint Paul, MN 55103-2044 | Phone: (651) 281-1200 | Toll-Free: (800) 925-1122 mhtml:file://\\metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2011\11-012 - Variance Or5/31/2011 ... MEMORANDUM 3.D DATE: June 8, 2011 PC Agenda Item TO: Planning Commission FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #10-003 Applicant: City of Arden Hills Subject: Zoning Code Amendment – School Uses in the R1 District Request Consider approval of 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, as presented in the June 8, 2011, Planning Case Report. Background 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. As part of this process, the Land Use Chart was amended to allow higher education uses in the R1 District with an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD). Similarly, General Education uses, such as Valentine Hills Elementary and Mounds View High School, are allowed in the R1 District with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The reason the Code was amended to allow higher education uses in the R1 District was because Northwestern College is located in the R1 District, and as such was not specifically a permitted use, even though it operates under a Master PUD. Valentine Hills and Mounds View High School operate under CUPs. The City’s Land Use Chart is included as Attachment A. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 8, 2011 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2011\11-013 - R-1 Zoning Amendment (Pending)\06-08-11 - PC Report - R1 ordinance amendment.doc Page 1 of 3 At the time these amendments were made it was the intention of the City that higher educational uses be allowed in the R1 District as campus-like developments on large lots, similar to Northwestern College, Mounds View High School and Valentine Hills Elementary. Bethel University is located in the B1 District, and was not part of the discussion when these amendments were made. 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 R1 District, but do not specify a minimum lot size for these uses, or define what a campus-style development is. Consequently, school uses would technically be allowed on any R1 zoned parcel, which was not the intent of the amendment when it was initially made. Staff is recommending a Zoning Code Amendment that would add special regulations for school uses in the R1 District, and specify a minimum lot size for these uses, as well as define what would comprise a campus. The proposed language is included as Attachment B. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of 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, as presented in the June 8, 2011, Planning Case Report. Options 1.Recommend Approval as Proposed: Motion to recommend approval of 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, as presented in the June 8, 2011, Planning Case Report. 2.Recommend Approval with Changes: Motion to recommend approval of 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 as amended by the following changes… 3.Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of 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, as presented in the June 8, 2011, Planning Case Report. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 8, 2011 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2011\11-013 - R-1 Zoning Amendment (Pending)\06-08-11 - PC Report - R1 ordinance amendment.doc Page 2 of 3 4.Table: Motion to table 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: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. If changes to the ordinance are made, those changes can be included with a motion to approve. Notice Notice was published in the Shoreview-Arden Hills Bulletin. Staff has not received any letters, e-mails, or telephone calls from property owners or occupants in regards to this planning case. Attachments A.Section 1320.05, Land Use Chart B.Section 1320.04, Subd. 1, and Section 1320.075 – Black-lined Version City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 8, 2011 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2011\11-013 - R-1 Zoning Amendment (Pending)\06-08-11 - PC Report - R1 ordinance amendment.doc Page 3 of 3 A Attachment Section 1320.05, Land Use Chart June 8, 2011, Planning Commission Meeting City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code 1320.05Land Use Chart. ( Revised 01/20/11) Zoning Districts: R1R2R3R4NBB1B2B3MRMBB4CCGBI1I-2I-FLEX Uses: Antenna, Dish or Tower CACACACACACACACACACACACACACACA Boarding house CCCC======C==== Business service ========APPPCPPPPP Clinic, medical office ========PPPPPCPPPPP Club or lodge (nonprofit) ========PPP==C====P Club, sports & fitness ========APPPCPPPP Commercial recreation - indoor ========PPP==PP Daycare Facility, over 10 PPPPPPPPPP Daycare, family - 10 or less AAAAAAA Daycare, group family - 14 or less CACACACACACACA Dog kennel ========CC====== Dog run AAA============A Drive-up windows ========CCCA==CA Dry cleaning & laundry, pick-up station ========CAA==A==P Dry cleaning & laundry, self-service laundry C==CC========== Dwelling: density zoning DDDD========P== Dwelling: multiple family ====DDCD====CD==P== Dwelling: single-family attached CCDDP== Dwelling: singlefamily detached PPPP==========P== Dwelling: twofamily CCPPC==========P== Dwelling: live-work unit ========CC== Financial institution & service ========PPPPPCPPPP==P Garage, truck ================CC==== Home occupation: Class I AAAAAAA== Home occupation: Class II CACACACACA======C====CA== Hospital D Hotel/motel ========CPCCC==CP House of worship CCCCCCCCCCCP Manufactured home park ====C==================== Manufacturing & processing: Class I AAAPPPP==C Manufacturing & processing: Class II ================P==== Mortuary, funeral home ========PP==C======C Multiple occupancy building ========CCCCCCCCCC==P Nursery CCCC============CA Nursing home and assisted living CCCCC========CP Office ========PPPPPPPPPPP Pawn shop ================== Personal services ========CAPPPCP==AP Public use CCCCCCCCCCCCCCPP Research and development facility ========CPCCCPPPPP Section 1320 – District Provisions Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 10 of 59 City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code Research animals ========C======CCP Residence Hall, dormitory ======CCD==============CP Residential facility, state licensed, serving 1-6 PPPPPP==========P Residential facility, state licensed, serving 7-16 CCCCCCC Restaurant and restaurant-fast food ========CAPPPCPCCP Retail sales & service ========PAPPPCAAAAP School, general education CCCC======C====CP School, higher education D======C====CC====CP School, specialized education ========CCCCC====CP Service station ========CC==CCCC Storage, exterior ==================CA Studio ========CCPPPC====P Theater, indoor ========ACP==C====P Utility distribution line PPPPPPPPPPPPPPP Utility substation ================CCCC Utility transmission CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC Vehicle Î motorized, leasing and rentals ========CC======C Vehicle - motorized, service ========CC======C Warehousing ========AAAACPPCA ÐPÑ = Permitted; ÐDÑ = Planned Unit; ÐÑ = Not Permitted; ÐCÑ = Conditional Use Permit; ÐAÑ = Accessory; ÐCAÑ = Con Section 1320 – District Provisions Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 11 of 59 B Attachment Section 1320.04, Subd. 1, and Section 1320.075 – Black-lined Version June 8, 2011, Planning Commission Meeting City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code Section 1320 – District Provisions 1320.04 Purpose of Districts. Subd. 1 R-1 Single Family Residential District A.To establish areas for the development of single family detached housing at a maximum density of approximately three (3) units per net acre. B.To reserve development areas for single-family housing. C.To restrict encroachment of incompatible uses. D.To maintain density limitations. E.To take advantage of municipal utilities. F.To preserve open space. G.To allow educational uses on campus-like settings which are compatible with adjacent residential uses. Section 1320 – District Provisions Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 1 of 2 City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code 1320.075 Special Requirements for the Single Family Residential (R1) District. Subd. 1 Procedure. The application and the administrative and review procedure established in Section 1355.04 Subd 3, Conditional Use Permits and in Appendix A, Procedural Manual, shall be followed for all development that requires a Conditional Use Permit. Conditional Use Permits are not required for permitted uses that occupy ap- proved buildings. Subd. 2 Special Regulations for General Education and Higher Education, School uses. General Education uses shall be allowed with an approved Conditional Use Permit, and Higher Education uses shall be allowed with an approved Planned Unit Development. In addition to the requirements in Section 1355 for Conditional Use Permits and Planned Unit Developments, School uses within the R1 District shall also be required to meet the following requirements: A.Be located in a campus setting on a contiguous area of land no less than ten (10) acres in size; B.The campus setting shall be comprised of main buildings and out buildings that are owned or leased by the institution or school district providing the School use, and within which are offered a mix of no fewer than four of the following educational uses: classrooms, laboratories, administrative and faculty offices, chapels, auditoriums, libraries, lecture halls, student and faculty centers, athletic facilities, student housing, dining facilities, and/or other school related uses as approved by the City Council. Section 1320 – District Provisions Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 2 of 2 MEMORANDUM 4.A DATE: June 8, 2011 PC Agenda Item TO: Planning Commission FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #11-007 Arden Plaza, LLC 3585 Lexington Avenue North PUD Amendment Concept Review Requested Action 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. Concept PUD Review Process The concept review process is an opportunity for the City Council and Planning Commission to provide comments, questions, concerns, and suggestions regarding the proposed development options. A concept review is considered advisory and is nonbinding to the City and applicant (Section 1320.14 Subd 4 of the Zoning Code). No formal action can be taken at a work session. A formal application will be subject to the full review process, including a public hearing with Planning Commission and City Council review. Project Background In June 2009, the Planning Commission and City Council approved a redevelopment application for the Arden Plaza retail center. The approved Master PUD included the demolition of the existing office pod buildings, subdivision of the parcel into four lots, and the construction of four City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 8, 2011 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2011\11-008 - Arden Plaza Concept Review (Pending)\06-08-11 - Arden Plaza Concept Review - PC Memo.doc Page 1 of 5 new buildings. As the project was approved, Building 1 (Walgreen’s) would have been 14,600 square feet. Building 3 would have been attached to Building 1 and was anticipated to be a retail and/or restaurant use of 4,700 square feet. Building 2 would have been a 6,000 square foot single restaurant user, and Building 4 would have been 18,000 square feet with a user that had yet to be determined. The entire project would have been completed in three phases. The approved Master Development Plan is included as Attachment B. As part of the original application, the developer also received approval for a Final PUD for Phase I of the development. The first phase was for Buildings 1 and 3. The applicant included a Phase I Development Plan (Attachment B) which details what aspects of the project would be constructed with Phase I. While the Final PUD for Phase I has been approved, future approvals for Phase II and III would require review before both the Planning Commission and City Council. Since the approval of the Master and Final PUD for Phase I, the developer’s negotiations with Walgreen’s have stalled. The developer has since started negotiating with CVS Pharmacy, which has prepared a revised site plan that has received preliminary approval from their corporate offices. Project Proposal The applicants would like to move forward with a PUD Amendment to allow for certain revisions to the project layout and timeline. The changes to the project are summarized in detail in Attachment A. The applicants have also provided a proposed site layout that is included as Attachment C. In sum, the proposed Building 1 would now be a CVS Pharmacy, instead of a Walgreens, and would be reoriented to have the entrance to the southeast. Building 1 has been moved to the east, closer to Lexington Avenue, allowing a row of parking to be removed between the building and the road. Building 3 has been eliminated from the plan; however, Building 2 has been moved up in the construction schedule and is now included in Phase 1. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 8, 2011 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2011\11-008 - Arden Plaza Concept Review (Pending)\06-08-11 - Arden Plaza Concept Review - PC Memo.doc Page 2 of 5 Pedestrian access to the site and parking layout has been modified to accommodate the revised building orientation. The existing parking area would be redone during Phase 1 and landscaping over the entire site installed. The existing retail building itself is not proposed to be altered as part of this development plan; however, it does appear to be in need of updating. Additional discussion to identify a timeline for façade improvements to the existing building would be appropriate at this time. The City Council reviewed the proposed PUD Amendment at their May 16, work session. At the meeting, the Council expressed general support for the amendment as proposed and site plan; however, expressed concern over the architectural design and quality of the building. In addition, the Council encouraged the developer to move forward with marketing Building 4, as a future development phase. Since the May 16, work session with the Council, CVS has revised their project proposal and submitted updated drawings (Attachment C). They anticipate submitting a full application for a PUD Amendment and Preliminary and Final Plat in time for the July 6, Planning Commission meeting. Discussion At this time, the Planning Commission is being asked to review and provide feedback on the proposed site plan revisions. As the applicant moves forward with a formal application for a PUD Amendment certain aspects of the project will be reviewed in more detail, such as landscaping and signage; however, those items have not yet been finalized for the purpose of this meeting. Staff has met with the developer and CVS Pharmacy several times over the last few months. The proposed site plan has been altered since our earliest meetings to be more in line with the City’s Guiding Plan for the B2 District. There are aspects of this plan that are improvements over the original Master Plan. The reorientation of the building to the south is a positive change that allows for better pedestrian movements into and through the site, and creates an improved relationship between the buildings and the parking on site. The drive-thru and loading areas have remained on the west side of the building and are screened by Building 2, which will be constructed as part of Phase 1, rather than at a later unknown date, as was the case with the City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 8, 2011 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2011\11-008 - Arden Plaza Concept Review (Pending)\06-08-11 - Arden Plaza Concept Review - PC Memo.doc Page 3 of 5 original Master Plan. The movement of the building towards Lexington Avenue and the subsequent removal of one row of parking is also an improvement to the overall look of the project from the street. The height of the building has also been increased, which was a concern with the original plan because the grade of the site is below County Road E. The proposed plan also has some drawbacks that have been identified by Staff. The drive-aisle between Building 1 and County Road E has been widened, increasing the amount of pavement visible from County Road E. Additional landscaping may be necessary to properly soften this edge of the site and improve the appearance from County Road E. Similar to the PUD Amendment proposal the Council reviewed and tabled last summer, this proposal does not include the 4,700 square foot retail building, which was to be attached to the pharmacy. According to the developer, there is concern about their ability to fill these spaces if they are built, and the pharmacy was not open to having this building attached. In addition, the reorientation of the building to the south makes finding a way to incorporate the additional retail square footage difficult. The building itself represents a fairly typical CVS franchise design. An EFIS arcade would wrap around three sides of the building, and the brick face on the building is shown as a veneer. There is a minimal amount of transparent glass, and the applicant would likely be seeking flexibility from this aspect of the Code. There are examples of CVS Pharmacies that contain considerably more brick and glass (Attachment D). Because the desire for more glass and façade interest is common in many communities, CVS has incorporated on other projects building graphics in the form of unique murals that take the place of transparent windows. The Planning Commission may want to consider if there is an interest in learning more about this design technique used by CVS. It is unclear from this application what aspects of the Code would be exceeded in exchange for other flexibilities being requested, such as lesser building materials and transparent glass. Overall, this proposal is substantially similar to the Master Plan, which was approved in 2009; however, aspects of the site layout have been revised in a manner that the developer believes will help the project move forward to construction. The Planning Commission is being asked to review the attached site plan, discuss the proposed changes to the layout, and provide feedback to the developer as they move forward with a formal application for a PUD Amendment. Deadline for Agency Actions There are no review deadlines associated with concept review applications. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 8, 2011 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2011\11-008 - Arden Plaza Concept Review (Pending)\06-08-11 - Arden Plaza Concept Review - PC Memo.doc Page 4 of 5 Attachments A.Project Description B.Master Development Plan and Phase I Development Plan C.Proposed Site Plan D.Photographs of other CVS Pharmacies City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 8, 2011 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2011\11-008 - Arden Plaza Concept Review (Pending)\06-08-11 - Arden Plaza Concept Review - PC Memo.doc Page 5 of 5 A Attachment Project Description June 8, 2011, Planning Commission Meeting ProjectDescription TherevisedplanfortheproposedfirstphaseredevelopmentofArdenPlazaconsistoftwobuildings: A13,000s.f.CVSPharmacy; A6,000s.f.retail/restaurantbuilding. Theproposed6,000s.f.retail/restaurantbuildingisidenticaltothebuildingintheplanapprovedbythe CityCouncilinMayof2009. TheproposedCVSpharmacybuildingdoesnotincludethe4,700s.f.attachedretailbuildingincludedin theoriginalpharmacyplanapprovedin2009.However,severaladjustmentshavebeenmadeinthe proposedCVSpharmacy,whichimprovetheoveralldesign.Theseinclude: TheentrydoorisnowlocatedontheSEcornerofthebuilding.Thismeansthatthebuilding façadefacingsouthismorewelcomingandattractive.Thishelpsthebuildingrelatemore effectivelytotherestoftheretailcenter. ThebuildinghasbeenshiftedtotheeasttowardsLexington.Thisshifthasdiminishedthe numberofsurfaceparkingstallseastofthebuildingbyonefullrow.Theeastparkinglotnow hasthreerowsofparkinginsteadoffour. Thebuildinghasveryattractivearchitecturalfeaturesonthenorth,eastandsouth.Theservice portionsofthebuilding,whicharebynecessitysomewhatlessattractive,arelocatedonthe westsideoftheproposedpharmacy.Thesewillbepartiallyscreenedbytheproposed6,000s.f. retail/restaurantbuilding. TheproposedCVSbuildingat32feetwillbehigherthanthepreviouslyproposedWalgreens building.Thiswillensureamoreattractivearchitecturalstatementonthisimportantcornerlot. Sincethelandis810feetbelowgrade,thistallerbuildingwillimprovetheoverallarchitectural design. CVSwillincludeattractivearchitecturalfeaturesontheNEcornerofthebuildingaswellasthe CountyRoadEfrontage.Thesearchitecturalfeatureswillbeconsistentwiththerequirements establishedinthe-z·äx­countyroadEplan. TheoriginalWalgreenplanincludeda4,700s.f.attachedretailbuildingonthesouthsideofthe proposedpharmacybuilding.ThisdesignwaschosenprincipallybecausetheWalgreenplanhad thecustomerentryontheNEcorner.Thismeantthatthesouthsideofthepharmacywas serviceorientedand,asaresult,unattractive.Theadditional4,700s.f.retailwasaddedto accomplishthegoalofthreesidedarchitecture.SincetheproposedCVShastheircustomer doorontheSEcorner,theadditional4,700s.f.retailbuildingisnotnecessarysincetheCVS elevationtothesouthwillhaveanattractiveentranceandconsiderablepedestrianactivity. Alloftheamenitiesandsiteimprovementsincludedintheoriginalplanwillalsobeincludedin therevisedCVSplan. B Attachment Master Development Plan and Phase I Development Plan June 8, 2011, Planning Commission Meeting CITY MONUMENT SIGN MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN ARDEN PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA ARDEN PLAZA, LLC N 100 June 3, 2009 for illustration purposes only CITY MONUMENT SIGN EXISTING POND/ EXISTING POND/ WETLAND WETLAND INITIAL PHASE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ARDEN PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA ARDEN PLAZA, LLC N 100 June 3, 2009 for illustration purposes only C Attachment Proposed Site Plan June 8, 2011, Planning Commission Meeting D Attachment Photographs of other CVS Pharmacies June 8, 2011, Planning Commission Meeting I E ' cn 1 SN) - HINON WINIAV NODNIXII O z V } Z F— cr V 77- Q LLJ m I l I II � IIII ) I ° •— W { Z o t J i C) > LLJ � i t o I ; r � I f I f L) W I ►� Frifll'il" SAJ Aoe Je M L(l 0 d10SINNIW S I I H N 3 a v Z 6 t S SAD � N j Ww f — a I ` Z u, 1� a W W " Z H X .� ' ✓, W t C) W H z O U- - - - / W Z af t. O V W O LL- w V Z I�� H W im Z W Z� 3ato �D CD oju SAC C*i 0 V 1 0 S I N N I W S I I I H N 1 0 V Z 6 t S SAD 4� N W w E a Z �a�i Q p � y c wot a U L8 W t8 :i W ix � s ? "_' 25� t5_ 2Swosd mW .o-.hz ,o-.ez .o-.ez I .o-.ez h � I r _ \ i I - -- I z Lz i V Q 'j Z x w � J Z Z O CD C) W o o W o o L1J I J L U W n LJ u w L J n C) s 3 s Z s . LQ 5 .o-az I .o-.az o-,ez = d � O N E N°o_ ` Z _o 0 m n�n0 3 ----------- Z c:) 0 'z lu u uj < < 465 J u Z ► z 2'> 2 0 X O L5 z 0 0 (600Z) LGV 099 SA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- SIC 1..1_'11 1..1_'11 KI ;]AV NOi!DNIXD-1 - - - -[goo wz > --- — — — — — — — — — — — — — 507.7 O Z 0 ITS i-M 209 04. 0: c 0i 01 U.J (3 W M low uJ _j M E- 0 .61 13. 0 r- 14. 0: co LJJ 1.4 13 LJ� c*4 Pq- CU< z b - - < < T '7' V) nil Z On M 134 (n --------------- w LU L, z V) V) CD (D In En 10 X Ci Oci LL LLI Zo 14 0 M to'd cq Lo I- < cn LLJ X --- I d 03 "k Ln t, L C4 r 0 Zd r— LJ xXx p C, >- A --jj 0 Ln L ui 14� M 58- x JR Fr M <"10 Er I ' <'0 r U) be z LLJ 0�ty M Z L"z NO uzo 0 z wawa Jd( Z 0 Z Z cy < �'O-V z 0 V)1-1-< 0 c<< z Lsz ZO�03: w f" w CL z (L z L) V) > O,MY<< zDa V) z M Ir I-L) <3. a-2 LL) (-)CIMW -5 gZ5 -Z :=j 28t pp -Z 0 0 z SOW do V 0 z u tE 0 WO L'j > Y 0-Z -aO W. 000 J 3x �Z� z 0- zZZ.— V)Qp c�. ' p z t3 Z LL) 0 WW x- wt- S�M 0 LLJ M El tz Pw 1 z z w _jz < VI~ 0 -0— "' 000no V) Z.60 w�'w z MM z �2-vw)Oz Qf L, MME z L M (A cf- 0 LAJ le V) ------- LLJ Q n LL) V) lN 'w V) -ro 51 t& 00-ZN 00 L) 1w 0 12 M 0 U0 a-a- r,r,Ln iT, LLJ z Ma4h; CL - t ZO 0 - 0 2 2g -� b 2. c� LLJ 11 FL-L' F- Ig! :5 5 0 o n- cz Ln Ir'- N-- < Z Z t'r 5 t= xzmjkl I 0 z 0 0 z M LLJ -7- 2 0 A 2x i- I i P = c 11 Z) 0 0 zut (Lz 0� 20 L>)A to I I rr MM L-� o- c C= M�Zfi R-1 00= CLO, cl 5- > 0 0 LOMM(MOG�Zwni- U,V)-t < PP LLJ X n 0 10 0(din Nam<x -z Z5 2ew-2 0 Ed 8z R Oz 2 - -K 0, CO RRR -.W-<z-0-0 M N W)a)to r, N poq ix gn <MM Lkf M N— M ON— ON1. ;i UUUU r, 0 2 F) ==! F- I zw -=J U) z;z2.P C4 N z 0 5�0 HISONPMVLOUOOZVMWVLZ�OI, &IOZ16WSO4aUOId ----------------- . ..... ....... ------ lip, If, 1 5 < z 'I V¢oQ < > <u 0 NPIPM! CO ��, > Z u 7 u u z L) u Z) E X < 1LJ E- C) <,� I o z ————————-- ---—————— W-0) N aW NOIDNIX91 --77— 0 z n D Lu�==! Iwo 0i='1 long > - - - -- - - c son 25 E -AQ :q- ----------------------- :R LA > III Ln o N > v) Ooo V) o _j c! n`-=Nom V) Ld < v) o<o LLJ o x 9 x v) mwim-m < TTTTRTT bt m xT T T T T T I I I I I I LE 12 z [77,TTT71 I I 11 1 111 111 i z(D L)LLLI) <:'K Y�z C) v') m,Lz,: o z-'<0-z z Zx �L, F— 0 z z 0 5 c "z� z Efi•ld z 2< Q?9-2 -m R;;-'> <;-,z' U) oz-T m,< << <w L> m m P(L LLJ a-tr 6 o zzzzzzz oo —. X =j u - m w LV z 3: 3.�-3.31 $ I m z- z v z z C/) zz z 'd .. �i En - ;; LLJ zo > oo U c' 000 Ld z�z m�z o Ln ILL o o �0 Li m -8 �'2 �n- �<I n V) t -�6 Z000 o z-z c' 0 NN 00 m ��'-)Q z U < u- z LLJ ------ I ME T5;5 0 V) - ------ V)---- ---- Lj C-, E' t:F— z Nuc, V) < LLI �Lj z o 0 woo :z2 V) c. Ez C14 LLJ E z�- c -o o fL'P 0 E-cL zz c23� => o o cL m C� LLJ .0 r, N z '2 r, CO- z z LLJ zo 0 z j� 5: �dmM ,a 8 c 0 0 2 �-- Y D G z I "o 11 z 2 - a, � o o c ,>- cr-Z C-c- 0 1!88W Z 0) 8�'�2 5 z,-; C) 'R 6 2 g� 2 .= O= 0 . w c < 2 m 'o 'o co.20D� Lo� ao�x. o LLJ z z'5- M— ' C8 8 � a:�� 'z Ll , -- 0-:) I'-�- EL o - V) o)cn cn it w (75 L�E f 0. 2 2 00 I L;j z t: �z= Ld Q gw t- g N C4 N I LO(D P- :2 z < 6 Cl):R M, oo z m Ma 'M z w Pl0000 C)w U c4 mL K 2 u wo R'w= n w m vM� � nu< mm c; �i Wai— z z <mmmmmmmmmL)L)0L)1 r. - - - � - - - , N , o w iw . m Z N � cr i ' CD fn (n U w � wzi i ❑ � i J co as i0ai i > a O CL irr i w a Q i Q i _ _ N L _ _ J L _ _ J D W N 0 IL 0 o� (sooz) lae 099=91 a z (l5 HO) N DAd NOIJNIX:q U Z N � �� y'dlp3aY �17N^WJ:1 s z /! o w w zpg — + <� �7 - �� Q LU J • w � o -- ♦ ti i 13. — n � VJ N J s E� - L —' ,•,-% — 1 _ 1 - - , z w 0 Oo �� - - - - ------ - - - - - - - - ' � - - 134 � r C l O r _._.- --._____ --- ._-"� I I ._J O 111 O � 14G U \ ___----------------=-c=_-{ 2 ' N w _ W � � i s � Z wcad = i' J Q o m n o°000- CD 0===o - - ( J <� C zz I JGx�Q F s I m�< Q �¢o 0 C, a r 0 �- �� a '�'i' � �Wo-"'z z w o t, UzoV - �_ t�cw,3f _Z �' J Q�YZ Q Y J y Z 0 3 z m N a z ( _ L Q a Q