Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-3-14-PCAPPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 9, 2014, Regular Meeting 07 -09 -14 PC.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 14 -025 - Site Plan Review - 3657 Snelling Avenue (No Public Hearing Required) PC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF, ATTACHMENT F.PDF, ATTACHMENT G.PDF Planning Case 14 -026 - Variance - 1830 Noble Road (No Public Hearing Required) PC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS AND REPORTS PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS & REQUESTS Report From The City Council 9 -03 -14 - REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.PDF TCAAP Update PC 09 03 14.PDF ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair: Clayton Larson Commissioners: Angela Hames Andy Holewa Sam Scott Roberta Thompson Clayton Zimmerman Brent Bartel Steven Jones (Alternate) Council Liaison: Fran Holmes Planning Commission September 3, 2014 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address: 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone: 651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City Vision Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. Agenda CALL TO ORDER 1. 2. 2.A. Documents: 3. 3.A. Ryan Streff, City Planner Documents: 3.B. Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner Documents: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner Documents: 5.C. Ryan Streff, City Planner Documents: Prepared By Prepared By Prepared By Prepared By APPROVAL OF THE AGENDAAPPROVAL OF MINUTESJuly 9, 2014, Regular Meeting 07 -09 -14 PC.PDFPLANNING CASESPlanning Case 14 -025 - Site Plan Review - 3657 Snelling Avenue (No Public Hearing Required)PC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF, ATTACHMENT F.PDF, ATTACHMENT G.PDFPlanning Case 14 -026 - Variance - 1830 Noble Road (No Public Hearing Required)PC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS AND REPORTS PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS & REQUESTS Report From The City Council 9 -03 -14 - REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.PDF TCAAP Update PC 09 03 14.PDF ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair:Clayton LarsonCommissioners:Angela HamesAndy HolewaSam ScottRoberta ThompsonClayton ZimmermanBrent BartelSteven Jones (Alternate)Council Liaison:Fran Holmes Planning CommissionSeptember 3, 2014 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. AgendaCALL TO ORDER1.2.2.A.Documents:3.3.A.Ryan Streff, City PlannerDocuments:3.B.Matthew Bachler, Associate PlannerDocuments: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner Documents: 5.C. Ryan Streff, City Planner Documents: Prepared ByPrepared By Prepared By Prepared By Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2014 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 Brent Bartel, Andrew Holewa, Steven Jones (Alternate), and Clayton Zimmerman. Absent: Commissioner Angela Hames, Sam Scott, and Roberta Thompson. Also present were: City Planner Ryan Streff; Associate Planner Matthew Bachler; and Councilmember Fran Holmes. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – JULY 9, 2014 Chair Larson stated that the agenda for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting will stand as published. Chair Larson stated that item 2A would be removed from the agenda for the Planning Commission Work Session. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 7, 2014 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Holewa, to approve the May 7, 2014, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). June 4, 2014 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to approve the June 4, 2014, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 2 PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 14-020; Variance – 3200 Lake Lane – Not a Public Hearing City Planner Streff stated that the applicants in this case own the property located at 3200 Lake Lane. The property is zoned R-2 Single & Two Family Residential and is generally positioned north of County Road D West, south of Edgewater Avenue, east of Lake Josephine and west of Lexington Avenue North. The property is located on a through-lot between Lake Lane and Shoreline Lane and consists of a single-family dwelling and a nonconforming detached accessory structure. City Planner Streff commented that the applicant is proposing to reconstruct and expand the nonconforming accessory structure on the property from sixteen and one half (16.5) feet by twenty-two and one half (22.5) feet to twenty (20) feet by twenty-four (24) feet, an increase of 108.75 square feet. City Planner Streff indicated that the existing structure is approximately ten (10) feet from the east property line/secondary front yard, five (5) feet from the south side yard and eighteen and one half (18.5) feet from the north side yard. As indicated by the applicant on the submitted site plan the proposed structure would be relocated an additional ten (10) feet from the east property line resulting in a setback of twenty (20) feet. The structure would also be moved five (5) feet to the north resulting in a setback of ten (10) feet from the south side yard and ten (10) feet from the north side yard. Setbacks – Accessory Structure Setbacks Existing Setbacks Proposed Permitted Secondary Front Yard/East Property Line 10’ 20’ 40’ South Side Yard 5’ 10’ 5’/15’ (Min/Total) North Side Yard 18.5’ 10’ 5’/15’ (Min/Total) City Planner Streff explained that the applicant has indicated that a vinyl siding material will be used on the new detached accessory structure with roofing materials to match the single-family dwelling. The property owner has stated that the house would be painted to match the vinyl siding material that is selected. Following the construction, an addition to the existing driveway would be added for access purposes. Site Data Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential Zoning: R-2: Single Family & Two Family Residential Current Lot Sizes: .22 Acres (9,583 Square Feet) Topography: The property has a fair amount of grade change as the lot slopes towards Lake Josephine. City Planner Streff reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and the Variance Evaluation Criteria. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 3 City Planner Streff provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings 1. The property is in the R-2 Single & Two Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The lot is 8,276 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 40 feet in width, and 200 feet in depth. 3. The existing accessory structure is a nonconforming structure within the R-2 Zoning District because of its existing setbacks to the east property line. 4. The existing accessory structure is thirty (30) feet into the forty (40) foot secondary front yard setback along Shoreline Lane. 5. The existing accessory structure does not encroach into either side yard setback. 6. The proposed accessory structure encroaches twenty (20) feet into the forty (40) foot setback along Shoreline Lane. 7. The proposed accessory structure increases the footprint from sixteen and one half (16.5) feet by twenty-two and one half (22.5) feet to twenty (20) feet by twenty-four (24) feet, which is an increase of 108.75 square feet. 8. The proposed structure and landscaping coverages are not within the zoning district requirements. The new structure will increase the lot coverage from 35.56% to 38.81% and decreases the landscaping coverage from 64.44% to 61.19%. 9. The proposed accessory structure would not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. 10. Detached accessory structures are permitted structures within the R-2 Zoning District. 11. All structures on the lot are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. Variance Findings: 12. The proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as the Ordinance generally allows flexibility for unique parcels and situations when impacts to surrounding properties are minimized. 13. The proposal is consistent with the Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan as it allows the reasonable use of residential property. 14. Detached accessory structures are permitted and a reasonable use within the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 15. The lot has rather unique topography and size leaving limited options for expansion or movement of the accessory structure to an area that meets the all setback regulations. 16. The proposed accessory structure would be visible from neighboring properties; however, the proposed design and the use of quality materials for the detached structure that are compatible in appearance to the single family dwelling should minimize the impacts on surrounding property owners. 17. The proposed accessory structure is unlikely to have negative impacts to the property or to the neighborhood as a whole. 18. The proposed plans and requested variances for the accessory structure do not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. City Planner Streff stated that the property is unique when compared to many properties in Arden Hills because of its topography, size and its designation as a Through-Lot. Because of the lot’s topography and configuration of structures on the lot, options for expansion or the movement of the accessory structure to an area that meets all setback regulations is very limited. Due to the scope of the project and the proposed changes to the structure, the character of the neighborhood or the City is not expected to be negatively affected as a structure already exists in ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 4 the general location of the proposed structure. It does not appear that the variance request is based on economic considerations alone. A detached accessory structure is a permitted use in the R-2 Zoning District and is a reasonable request for the subject property. City Planner Streff indicated that the findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this variance, Staff recommends the following seven (7) conditions: 1. That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted to encroach twenty (20) feet into the secondary front yard setback along Shoreline Lane. 3. That the proposed accessory structure shall not exceed a footprint of 480 square feet. 4. That the exterior façade and roofing materials of the proposed garage shall be compatible in appearance and material used with the principal structure. 5. That no living quarters shall be constructed within the proposed accessory structure and that the attic area shall be used for storage purposes only. 6. That the structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. That building and demolition permits for the construction of the new accessory building and a zoning permit for the construction of the driveway shall be required. 7. That the applicant shall obtain a Grading and Erosion Control Permit from the City before the building permit is issued. City Planner Streff reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted. 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Chair Larson asked if this was a conforming lot of record. City Planner Streff explained that the subject property was a nonconforming lot. He reported the lot was 8,276 square feet when the minimum lot area was 11,000 square feet in the R-2 zoning district. Commissioner Holewa requested further information on what trees would be removed. City Planner Streff indicated that two trees would be impacted by the proposed project. Staff did not believe that more than 10% of the total caliper inches of significant trees on the property would be lost and for that reason, no tree replacement would be required. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 5 Commissioner Holewa questioned in what direction the property drained. City Planner Streff commented that the property drained towards the west to Lake Josephine. He reported the project plans have been reviewed by the Assistant City Engineer. It was noted that a grading and erosion control plan would have to be acquired before construction could begin. Commissioner Holewa inquired if rain gardens had been considered on this property. City Planner Streff stated this has not been discussed, but pervious pavers had been considered. Charles Campbell, 3200 Lake Lane, explained that his home was bordered by trees on the north and south. He explained that he would try to save a healthy six inch cedar tree along his driveway. Chair Larson questioned what siding would be used on the new garage. He explained that it would be important for the applicant to match the color and materials of the garage to the home. Mr. Campbell indicated he would be using hardboard siding that would complement or match the home. He wanted to avoid placing cedar siding on the garage as his home would need to be resided in the future. Chair Larson stated a caveat could be placed on this request if the applicant could ensure staff the house siding would be redone in the next year or two to match the garage. He was comfortable leaving this matter to staff. Commissioner Holewa inquired how long the applicant has owned the home. Mr. Campbell reported he has owned the home since 1989. Chair Larson questioned the age of the garage. Mr. Campbell indicated that the garage was likely constructed at the same time as the house in the 1930s. Commissioner Bartel stated this request was difficult because the applicant was requesting a larger garage that would expand the current non-conforming structure. He reported the Council was not in favor of variances and he did not want to see this case create a precedent. Chair Larson commented this was an odd sized lot. Mr. Campbell indicated he was requesting to upsize his single car garage to the smallest sized two car garage possible on his 40 foot wide lot. He noted he was relocating the garage on the lot to move it away from the road. He believed he had a unique lot given its elevation and size. Chair Larson thanked Mr. Campbell for his comments. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 6 City Planner Streff explained that an alternative for the Commission to consider would be to place a condition on the motion that would ensure the applicant does not increase lot coverage along with requiring pervious pavers. This would eliminate the need for the third variance. Commissioner Jones supported this recommendation and found it to be a reasonable exchange. Commissioner Bartel agreed as well, but struggled with the expansion of the garage. Chair Larson commented that expansions of nonconforming structures have been a problem for the City. Commissioner Holewa indicated this lot was difficult and did not see another solution. He would support tabling action on this request or denial. Commissioner Holewa moved to recommend denial of Planning Case 14-020 for a Variance at 3200 Lake Lane based on the findings of fact that the three variances were excessive and the request would expand a nonconforming use. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Bartel suggested the Planning Case be tabled to allow the applicant to modify his request. Chair Larson stated the recommendation from staff would eliminate the need for the third variance. Commissioner Zimmerman indicated the property was currently nonconforming for impervious coverage requirements and setbacks. He believed that tabling the request made the most sense at this time to allow the applicant to find a better solution. Commissioner Bartel moved and Commissioner Jones seconded a motion to table action on Planning Case 14-020 to the August Planning Commission meeting to allow staff to work with the applicant on an alternative request that would reduce the number of variances and improve the setback situation. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. Planning Case 14-017; Variance – 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard – Not a Public Hearing City Planner Streff stated that at the June 4, 2014, Planning Commission meeting the applicants proposed to reconstruct and expand a nonconforming accessory structure from twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet to twenty-four (24) feet by twenty-six (26) feet, an increase of 140 square feet. After a close review of the application by the Commission, the variance request was tabled in order to give the applicant’s additional time to reevaluate their proposal and provide an alternate plan that would more closely conform to the existing nonconforming structure in terms of the building footprint and setbacks. The applicants have since reviewed and updated their plans for the nonconforming accessory structure. Their proposal for the new accessory structure now includes a footprint that is identical to the existing structure with slight variations to the placement and roof design. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 7 City Planner Streff explained that the applicants are proposing to reconstruct the twenty-two (22) foot by twenty-two (22) foot existing nonconforming accessory structure on the property. Along Fairview Avenue, the proposed structure would be realigned to be parallel with the western property line and constructed with a setback of two (2) foot two (2) inches. The previous proposal suggested a setback of eight (8) inches from the west property line. From the south property line, the proposed structure would be moved to the north an additional one (1) foot, which would result in a seven (7) foot three (3) inch setback. The setback proposed between the structure and the south property line during the previous review was four (4) feet one (1) inch. City Planner Streff commented that as proposed the roofline of the accessory structure would change from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientation in order for the garage to be accessible from the existing driveway. The new design of the accessory structure would also incorporate one (1) foot eaves on the north/south facades and (1) foot six (6) inch eaves east/west facades in order to match the existing home City Planner Streff stated that the applicants have indicated within their narrative that the façade and roofing materials to be used on the new detached accessory structure would match the materials on the existing single family dwelling. Site Data Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential Zoning: R-2: Single Family & Two Family Residential Current Lot Sizes: .35 Acres (15,241 Square Feet) Topography: The property has a fair amount of grade change as the lot slopes toward Lake Johanna. The area around the existing garage is fairly flat. City Planner Streff reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and the Variance Evaluation Criteria. City Planner Streff provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings 1. The property is in the R-2 Single & Two Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The lot is 15,241 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 100 feet in width, and 165 feet in depth. 3. The existing accessory structure is a nonconforming structure within the R-2 Zoning District because of its existing setbacks to the south and west property lines. 4. Because the existing accessory structure is positioned at an angle relative to the west property line, the structure encroaches between twenty-five (25) feet six (6) inches and twenty-nine (29) feet four (4) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along the west property line, leaving a setback of four (4) feet six (6) inches at its furthest point and eight (8) inches between the structure and the west property line at its closest point. 5. The existing accessory structure encroaches three (3) feet nine (9) inches into the ten (10) foot setback along the south property line, leaving a setback of six (6) feet three (3) inches between the structure and the south property line. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 8 6. The existing accessory structure does not encroach into the north or east property line setbacks. 7. The proposed accessory structure encroaches twenty-seven (27) feet ten (10) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along the entire length of the structure, leaving a setback of two (2) feet two (2) inches from the west property line. 8. The proposed accessory structure encroaches two (2) feet nine (9) inches into the (10) foot setback, leaving a setback of seven (7) feet three (3) inches from the south property line. This is an increase of one (1) foot further from the property line when compared to the existing structure. 9. The proposed accessory structure will not increase the footprint and will remain twenty- two (22) feet by twenty-two (22). 10. The proposed accessory structure would be rotated approximately fifteen (15) degrees to align the garage with the western property line and the angle of the existing home. 11. The proposed accessory structure would change the direction of the roofline from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientation with one (1) foot eaves on the north/south facades and (1) foot six (6) inch eaves east/west facades in order to match the existing home 12. The existing single family dwelling and attached garage meet all property line setbacks. 13. The proposed structure and landscaping coverages are within the zoning district requirements. 14. The proposed accessory structure would not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. 15. Detached accessory structures are permitted structures within the R-2 Zoning District. 16. All structures on the lot are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. Variance Findings: 17. The proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as the Ordinance generally allows flexibility for unique parcels and situations when impacts to surrounding properties are minimized. 18. The proposal is consistent with the Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan as it allows the reasonable use of residential property. 19. Detached accessory structures are permitted and a reasonable use within the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 20. The lot has rather unique characteristics as the property slopes towards Lake Johanna approximately 18 (eighteen) feet from west to east leaving limited options for expansion or movement of the accessory structure to an area that meets the setback regulations. 21. The proposed accessory structure would be visible from neighboring properties; however, the proposed design and the use of quality materials for the detached structure that match the single family dwelling should minimize the impacts on surrounding property owners. 22. The proposed accessory structure is unlikely to have negative impacts to the property or to the neighborhood as a whole. 23. The proposed plans and requested variances for the accessory structure do not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. City Planner Streff stated that the property is unique when compared to many properties in Arden Hills because of its topography. From Fairview Avenue to Lake Johanna Boulevard the property slopes approximately 18 (eighteen) feet from west to east. Because of the lot’s topography and configuration of structures on the lot, options for expansion or the movement of the accessory structure to an area that meets the setback regulations is very limited. The proposed ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 9 realignment and change in the roof orientation is reasonable in order for the applicant to construct a functional garage that is accessed from the existing driveway. Due to the scope of the project and the proposed changes to the structure, the character of the neighborhood or the City is not expected to be negatively affected as a structure already exists in the general location of the proposed structure. It does not appear that the variance request is based on economic considerations alone. A detached accessory structure is a permitted use in the R-2 Zoning District and is a reasonable request for the subject property. City Planner Streff explained that the findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this variance, Staff recommends the following ten (10) conditions: 1. That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted with a setback of two (2) foot two (2) inches from the west property line and seven (7) feet three (3) inches from the south property line. 3. That the proposed accessory structure shall not exceed the footprint of the existing accessory structure that is twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet. 4. That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted to be rotated so that the alignment matches that of the western property line and the angle of the existing single family dwelling. 5. That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted to change the direction of the roofline from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientation with one (1) foot eaves on the north/south facades and (1) foot six (6) inch eaves east/west facades in order to match the existing home 6. That the exterior façade and roofing materials of the proposed garage shall match the colors and materials used on the single family dwelling. 7. That the existing driveway apron leading to the accessory building shall be removed and that any damage to the right-of-way shall be repaired by the property owner. 8. That no living quarters shall be constructed within the proposed accessory structure and that the attic area shall be used for storage purposes only. 9. That the structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. That building and demolition permits for the construction of the new accessory building and a zoning permit for the construction of the driveway shall be required. 10. That the applicant shall obtain a Grading and Erosion Control Permit from the City before the building permit is issued. City Planner Streff reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted. 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 10 Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Chair Larson reported that the planned garage was the same size as the existing garage. He believed that the tabling of this request at the June Planning Commission meeting was successful. Commissioner Bartel agreed stating the new plan would greatly improve the site. He supported the Planning Case but believed only one variance was being requested. He suggested the language of the variance be reworded regarding the rotation of the structure. Commissioner Bartel moved and Commissioner Zimmerman seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 14-017 for a Variance at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the ten (10) conditions in the July 9, 2014, report to the Planning Commission with rewording of the variance. The motion carried unanimously 4-1 (Holewa opposed). B. Planning Case 14-019; Zoning Code Amendment – Lighting Regulations – Not a Public Hearing Associate Planner Bachler stated that at the meeting on June 4, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed the City’s regulations on exterior lighting and discussed several areas where revisions could be made. Specifically, the discussion focused on how best to address the higher levels of luminosity associated with LED lights. Staff has since begun working on a draft of Ordinance 2014-006 that would update the exterior lighting requirements in Section 1325.05 of the Zoning Code. Section 1320 also includes detailed requirements on exterior lighting for specific districts within the City. With the proposed revisions to Section 1325.05, some of the district-specific regulations will become duplicative. The final draft of Ordinance 2014-006 will include updates to Section 1320 to ensure consistency on lighting standards throughout the Zoning Code. Associate Planner Bachler explained that the Commissioners were generally in agreement that the regulations should be written to limit light trespass and establish prescriptive design requirements to reduce light pollution. Additionally, it was recommended that a maximum lumen level be set to limit the intensity of individual light fixtures. The Commissioners also discussed having height limits for exterior lights, with more restrictive requirements for lights within a certain distance of adjoining properties. Associate Planner Bachler reported that the applicability of the lighting regulations was discussed as well. In order to evaluate compliance with many of the standards, a detailed lighting plan would be required. The Planning Commission concluded that only commercial, industrial, and multi-family properties should have to submit these plans. However, residential properties would still be required to follow the established standards. Finally, staff was instructed to look into whether certain types of lighting, such as holiday lights and illumination of flagpoles, should be exempted from these regulations. Lighting Plan Associate Planner Bachler stated that the first section of Ordinance 2014-006 addresses in what situations the City would require a lighting plan and the details that would need to be included in these plans. Staff believes that an appropriate time to require a lighting plan would be when a ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 11 new development, redevelopment, or addition is proposed for a commercial, industrial, or multi- family property. For these types of projects, a Site Plan Review is typically required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council, and the lighting plan could be evaluated concurrently. A lighting plan would need to show the location of each light fixture, provide details on the type of light, and include a grid of photometric readings for the entire site. Luminaire Design Associate Planner Bachler commented that the Ordinance would prescribe specific design requirements for lighting based on whether a horizontal surface (parking lots and sidewalks) or a vertical surface (building walls and landscaping) is being illuminated. All downward cast lighting would be required to meet full cut-off design criteria, which means the luminaire must be fully shielded with no light being cast above a horizontal plane extending out from the light source. Staff is recommending that an exception be included allowing for non-shielded ornamental light fixtures when it can be shown that through design or arrangement such lights will not create undesirable impacts off-site. Many developments, in particular retail and multi-family, use ornamental lights to provide lighting for storefronts and pedestrian areas. These features can contribute to the overall quality of a site design and should be permitted when appropriate. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that for upward cast lighting, fixtures are required to be fully shielded. Light fixtures must be arranged so that light is cast only on the area intended to be illuminated and does not shine past a building, onto an adjoining property, or skyward. A final provision in this section would prohibit any light fixture that produces glare. The Model Lighting Ordinance developed by the Illuminating Engineering Society and the International Dark-Sky Associate defines glare as, “lighting entering the eye directly from luminaires or indirectly from reflective surfaces that causes visual discomfort or reduced visibility.” Light Trespass Associate Planner Bachler explained that the existing lighting regulations address light trespass onto residential properties and public roadways. These requirements would be maintained in Ordinance 2014-006 and light trespass limits would be added for commercial and industrial properties. To evaluate whether light trespass will occur, a photometric analysis showing footcandle readings across a site is needed. A “footcandle” is a unit of measure that quantifies the amount of light received on a surface. The maximum footcandle reading at the property line would be 0.4 footcandles if the abutting property is residential, and 1.0 footcandle if the property is commercial or industrial. When a property abuts a public street, the maximum measurement would also be 1.0 footcandle, but the reading would be taken at the street centerline. Illumination Associate Planner Bachler noted that the Ordinance would set a maximum lumen level for individual light fixtures. The purpose of this would be to restrict high-luminosity lights, which are more likely to create a public nuisance. A lumen is a unit measurement for the amount of light produced by a lamp. It contrasts with a watt, which is a measure of energy consumption. The limit would be set at 50,000 lumens for commercial and industrial properties and 30,000 lumens for residential properties. The standards included in the draft were taken from the exterior lighting ordinance adopted by the City of Bloomington, which went into effect in 2008. Before finalizing Ordinance 2014-006, staff would like to complete additional research on appropriate ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 12 maximum lumen levels to ensure that these requirements conform with industry standards and are not overly restrictive. Height Limits Associate Planner Bachler stated that a recommended maximum height limit of 35 feet is included in Ordinance 2014-006. This requirement would apply to light poles as well as light fixtures mounted to the exterior of a building. For properties abutting residential uses, within 50 feet of the property line light fixtures could be no more than 20 feet in height in order to reduce light trespass and glare. A similar provision is not included for when an abutting property is industrial or commercial. These uses often have shared or adjoining parking facilities and a more restrictive height limit within 50 feet of the property line may result in less efficient use of lighting for parking areas. Exceptions Associate Planner Bachler reported that certain types of lights would be excluded from the City’s exterior lighting standards due to their temporary nature or the City not having regulatory authority. Specific types of temporary lights that would not need to conform to these standards include exterior holiday lighting displays and lighting for sporting events. Federal and state agencies are often required to use certain types of lighting for public safety purposes, and these lights would also be exempted. A final exception is for the illumination of the national or state flag. When the national flag is kept up at night, federal law requires that it be illuminated. Associate Planner Bachler requested that the Commission review the draft Ordinance and provide staff with feedback on how to proceed. Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Chair Larson questioned if up-lighting on flags could be limited in commercial areas, as car dealerships often have numerous flags. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that this would be difficult to regulate as there were federal mandates that require the national flag to be illuminated if displayed at night. Commissioner Holewa asked if the City had the equipment to measure foot candles and questioned where the measurements were taken. Associate Planner Bachler stated that the City did not have the capability to take these measurements. He reported that measurements were taken at the surface of the ground. Discussion ensured regarding the blue LED lighting used on the existing Holiday gas station monument sign. Chair Larson provided comment on ornamental lighting and asked if the globes provided any “shielding”. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 13 Associate Planner Bachler reported that partial shielding would likely be provided as the globes were clouded over, which reduced the intensity of the light source. He stated typically the lumen levels of ornamental lights were significantly less than lights used to illuminate surface parking lots. Commissioner Zimmerman questioned whether from an architectural design standpoint if architects design to City lighting standards, or to their own development standards. Chair Larson discussed how architects design lighting plans with the assistance of engineers and in conformance with City standards. REPORTS A. Planning Commission Comments and Requests None. B. Report from the City Council Councilmember Holmes updated the Planning Commission on City Council activities from June 30, 2014, City Council Meeting, noting the City Council approved 3-2 (Holmes & Holden opposed) Planning Case 14-014, which was a Variance request at 1850 Venus Avenue to construct a 26 foot by 30 foot garage addition that would encroach 18 feet into the secondary front yard. At the Planning Commission meeting on May 7, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this case 5-1 (Holewa opposed). The City Council also approved Planning Case 14-021 for a 60 day extension to the temporary wall signage at 1290 County Road F West. The extension was requested by Arden Flats to allow them additional time to utilize the temporary signage on their building to help attract future residents. The case was originally approved by the City Council in Planning Case 13-023 through a Site Plan Review and Sign Standard Adjustment on January 27, 2014. The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 13-023 on January 8, 2014, and unanimously recommended approval. The City Council voted to approve the TCAAP Master Plan Land Use Map on June 30, 2014. The motion carried 3-2 (Werner & McClung opposed). With this approval the City is now able to proceed with the policy and regulation section that will add design standards, setback and other urban form. Councilmember Holmes provided an update on the bridge improvements or replacements planned in and around Arden Hills for the next two years. She described the diverging diamond interchange (DDI) that was planned for the Highway 96/I-35W interchange. She encouraged all to take part in National Night Out Celebrations on August 5, 2014. She noted two State of the City Events would be held this year. The first would be at Flaherty’s at 7:30 a.m. on Thursday, September 18, 2014 and the second was scheduled for Tuesday, September 23, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 14 C. TCAAP Update City Planner Streff reported that the City Council met on June 16 and 23, 2014, to review the draft master plan land use map. Based on discussions at those meetings, the following changes were made to the land use map since the JDA last reviewed the map on June 2, 2014. • A U10/12 soccer field was eliminated from the Hill Neighborhood park. Reducing the size of the park decreased the size of the surrounding neighborhood and restored 6.3 acres of commercial use to the area east of the Spine Road. • The athletic facility on the west side of the Spine Road was moved to a 5.6-acre residential block east of the Spine Road and south of the surface water management area. • At the Highway 96 access point, 5.0 acres of land that was previously flex business was designated for retail use. Staff stated that the City Council approved the master plan land use map on June 30, 2014. City Planner Streff indicated that the City Council reviewed the draft Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan on June 30, 2014. The document will be forwarded to state agencies and the Metropolitan Council. If no agency objections are received, the City Council will consider approval of the Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan on July 28, 2014. City Planner Streff commented that with City Council approval of the master plan land use map on June 30, 2014, staff and consultants are scheduling work for the regulations and policies component of the master planning process. City Planner Streff explained that Planning Commissioners are encouraged to attend the City Council workshops with Gateway Planning tentatively scheduled for August 18 and September 15, 2014. As well as the City Council meetings listed below, TCAAP zoning will be discussed at the September through December Planning Commission meetings. July 14, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room • Stormwater System Review (Infrastructure) July 28, 2014, Regular Meeting at 7:00 pm, Council Chambers • Consider approval of Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan August 11, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room • Water and Sewer System Review (Infrastructure) • Density/Maximum Residential Unit Discussion August 18, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers • Workshop with Gateway Planning o Discuss Performance Based Zoning process o Discuss zoning elements and framework ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 15 o Present zoning sections 1 – 7 (Introduction, Components of the Code, Administration, Definitions, Schedule of Uses, Building Form and Site Development Standards, Building Design Standards) August 25, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room • Discuss Zoning Sections 1 – 5 (Introduction, Components of the Code, Administration, Definitions, Schedule of Uses) September 8, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room • Spine Road and Grading Design Review (Infrastructure) • Discuss Zoning Sections 6 – 7 (Building Form and Site Development Standards, Building Design Standards) September 15, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers • Workshop with Gateway Planning o Discuss comments and direction on Sections 1 – 7 (Introduction, Components of the Code, Administration, Definitions, Schedule of Uses, Building Form and Site Development Standards, Building Design Standards) o Present Zoning Sections 8 – 12 (Street Design Standards, Parkland Standards, Open Space Standards, Streetscape and Landscape Standards, Sign Standards) September 22, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers (4th of 5 Mondays) • Final Discussion of Zoning Sections 1 – 7 (Introduction, Components of the Code, Administration, Definitions, Schedule of Uses, Building Form and Site Development Standards, Building Design Standards) September 29, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room • County Road I and Thumb Road Design Review (Infrastructure) • Discuss Zoning Sections 8 and 11 (Street Design Standards, Streetscape and Landscape Standards) City Planner Streff anticipated that additional regular and special work session meetings will be scheduled to discuss regulations and policies, the infrastructure study, and other TCAAP issues. Future meeting topics will be defined as those dates draw nearer. Commissioner Jones suggested that the five acres of retail along Highway 96 be increased in size as this was a prime retail location. ADJOURN Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to adjourn the July 9, 2014, Planning Commission Meeting at 8:15 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 3, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-025 - Site Plan Review - 3657 Snelling Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-025 Page 1 of 8 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 3, 2014 PC Agenda Item 3.A TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #14-025 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Eric Hansen & Bree Bowersox Property Location: 3657 Snelling Avenue North Request: Site Plan Review Requested Action The applicants are requesting a Site Plan Review in order to construct a twenty-four (24) foot by thirty (30) foot (720 square foot) detached accessory structure in front of the single family dwelling (between the dwelling and the street) at 3657 Snelling Avenue North. Background 1. Overview of Request The applicants in this case own the property located at 3657 Snelling Avenue. The property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and is generally positioned north of Lake Johanna Boulevard, south of the Minneapolis & St. Paul Railroad, east of Oak Avenue and west of Snelling Avenue North. The applicants are proposing to construct a twenty-four (24) foot by thirty (30) foot detached accessory structure on the property. The proposed structure would be constructed in front of the single family dwelling between the home and Snelling Avenue North. As proposed the structure would be located fifty-eight (58) feet from the front property line and twenty-eight (28) feet from the southern side yard property line. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 3, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-025 - Site Plan Review - 3657 Snelling Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-025 Page 2 of 8 The applicants have attempted to design a plan that fits within the Zoning Code by moving the accessory structure adjacent to the home, however, this plan requires significant tree removal and grading for the proposed construction. Taking into consideration the current configuration of the existing principal structure and its location approximately two-hundred (200) feet from the front property line, it leaves limited options for the construction of an accessory structure that meets the all zoning regulations and minimizes tree loss and final grading on the property. Within the narrative the applicants have indicated that the proposed accessory structure would be constructed with façade materials (i.e. siding, shingles and trim) to match the existing single family dwelling. The roof pitch would also be designed to match the principal structure on the property. The applicant has submitted a narrative of the proposed project and a response addressing the exceptional and unusual circumstances pertaining to the construction of an accessory structure on the property (Attachment A), a site plan and drainage plan of the property (Attachment B), the proposed garage elevation and building plan (Attachment C) and tree inventory information (Attachment D). 2. Site Data Future Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential Zoning: R-1: Single Family Residential Current Lot Sizes: 2.22 Acres (96,581Square Feet) Topography: The property has a fair amount of grade change as the lot slopes towards the wetland/pond on the property. However, the site of the proposed detached garage is fairly flat. 3. Surrounding Area Direction Future Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North Low Density Residential R-1: Single Family Residential Single Family Detached Residential South Low Density Residential R-1: Single Family Residential Single Family Detached Residential East Low Density Residential R-1: Single Family Residential Single Family Detached Residential West Low Density Residential R-1: Single Family Residential Single Family Detached Residential Plan Evaluation City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 3, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-025 - Site Plan Review - 3657 Snelling Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-025 Page 3 of 8 1. R-1 Regulations, Existing Conditions, and Proposed Redevelopment A. Lot Size & Dimensions – Meets Requirements The main lot including the wetland/pond is 96,581 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 540 feet in width, and 230 feet in depth. The buildable square footage of the lot after the wetland/pond is removed is approximately 34,412 square feet. B. Structure Setbacks – Site Plan Approval Required The Zoning Code does not permit detached accessory structures between the dwelling and the street on non-lakeshore lots without the Planning Commission’s review and the City Council’s approval of a Site Plan Review. The accessory structure is proposed to be located in front of the single family dwelling with a setback of fifty-eight (58) feet from the front property line and twenty-eight (28) feet from the southern side yard property line. The single family dwelling is located in the rear of the lot approximately two-hundred feet from the front property line. With the current configuration of the existing principal structure on the lot it leaves limited options for the construction of an accessory structure that meets the all zoning regulations and minimizes tree loss and final grading on the property. Section 1325 Subd 7 of the Zoning Code allows the City Council to approve a deviation from the Accessory Structures section of the Code when exceptional and unusual circumstances exist on the property through the Site Plan Review process. C. Lot Coverage – Meets Requirements The existing and proposed lot coverage does not exceed the lot coverage limitations of the R-1 Zoning District. The maximum lot coverage for impervious surfaces is 35% and the minimum landscape coverage is 65%. Applicable R-1 Lot Requirements 1. Minimum Lot Area (sf.) 14,000 2. Minimum Lot Size (ft., width/depth) 95/130 3. Height (ft.) 35 4. Lot Covered by Structure 25% 5. Minimum Landscape Lot Area 65% 6. Minimum Building Setbacks (ft) Front Yard 40 Rear Yard (Principle) 30 Rear Yard (Accessory) 10 Side Yard Interior - Principal (Minimum/total both yards on lot) 10/25 Side Yard Interior - Accessory 10 Side Yard Corner 40 City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 3, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-025 - Site Plan Review - 3657 Snelling Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-025 Page 4 of 8 Proposed Lot Coverage = 6.62% Proposed Landscape Coverage = 93.38% D. Structure Height – Meets Requirements The Zoning Code states that accessory structures in the R-1 District shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet or the height of the principal structure to which it is accessory, whichever is lower. The proposed structure constructed with a height of fourteen (14) feet would not exceed this requirement. E. Structure Size – Meets Requirements The Zoning Code states that accessory structures associated with residential uses shall not exceed seven hundred and twenty-eight (728) square feet in floor area. The proposed accessory structure constructed at 720 square feet in size would not exceed this requirement. F. Tree Preservation – Meets Requirements The proposed construction would impact four (4) evergreen trees on the property that total 26.8 caliper inches. The tree inventory that has been prepared by the property owner (Attachment D) shows that the lot has a total of 829 significant caliper inches. Based on the calculations from the tree inventory less than 10% (or 82.9 caliper inches) of the significant caliper inches will be removed with this project. If more than the 10% are removed as a result of the project, the applicant will be required to meet the City’s tree preservation standards, and mitigation may be necessary. 2. Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements Existing Proposed Square Feet % Square Feet % House/Garage 1,408 1.46% 1,408 1.46% Accessory Structure 720 0.75% Decks/Patios 594 0.62% 594 0.62% Driveway Asphalt 984 1.02% 984 1.02% Driveway Class 5 2,190 (2.27%) 2,690 2.79 Lot Coverage 5,176 5.36% 6,396 6.62% Landscaping Coverage 94.64% 93.38% Lot Size (Buildable = 34,412 sq. ft., Structural Coverage = 18.59% & Landscape Coverage = 81.41%) 96,581 City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 3, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-025 - Site Plan Review - 3657 Snelling Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-025 Page 5 of 8 The proposed location of the detached accessory structure is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. 3. Additional Review a. The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) reviewed the plans for this request and determined that a RCWD Permit would not be required for the proposed project at 3657 Snelling Avenue North. b. The Building Official reviewed the plans for the project and had no additional comments. c. The City Engineer reviewed the proposal and stated that a Grading and Erosion Control Permit is needed for this project. Findings of Fact Staff offers the following eighteen (18) findings of fact for review: General Findings 1. The property is in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The lot is 96,581 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 540 feet in width, and 230 feet in depth. 3. The property currently consists of a single family dwelling with an attached single stall garage. No accessory structures exist on the property at this time. 4. The proposed accessory structure is 720 square feet in size or twenty-four (24) feet by thirty (30) feet. 5. The proposed accessory structure is setback fifty-eight (58) feet from the front property line and twenty-eight (28) feet from the southern side yard. 6. The structure does not encroach into a front, side or rear yard s etback. 7. The proposed structure and landscaping coverages are within the zoning district requirements. The new structure will increase the lot coverage from 5.36% to 6.62% and decreases the landscaping coverage from 94.64% to 93.38%. 8. The proposed accessory structure would not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. 9. Detached accessory structures up to seven hundred and twenty-eight (728) square feet are permitted structures within the R-1 Zoning District. 10. All structures on the lot are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. 11. The proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as the Ordinance generally allows flexibility for unique parcels and situations when impacts to surrounding properties are minimized. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 3, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-025 - Site Plan Review - 3657 Snelling Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-025 Page 6 of 8 12. The proposal is consistent with the Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan as it allows the reasonable use of residential property. 13. Detached accessory structures are permitted and a reasonable use within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 14. The property is rather unique due to the placement of the existing single family dwelling in the rear of the lot approximately two-hundred (200) feet from the front property line. 15. The current placement of the single family dwelling leaves limited options for the construction of an accessory structure that meets all setback regulations and minimizes tree loss and final grading. 16. The proposed accessory structure would be visible from neighboring properties; however, the proposed location, design and the use of quality materials for the detached structure that are compatible in appearance to the single family dwelling should minimize the impacts on surrounding property owners. 17. The proposed accessory structure is unlikely to have negative impacts to the property or to the neighborhood as a whole. Discussion The property is fairly unique when compared to other properties in Arden Hills because of its topography, number of significant trees and the configuration of the single family dwelling on the lot. Because of the lot’s topography, natural drainage pattern, significant trees and the configuration of principal structure at the rear of the lot, options for the movement of the accessory structure to an area that meets all zoning regulations is very limited in order to minimize tree loss and grading on the property. Due to the scope of the project and the proposed addition of an accessory structure, the character of the neighborhood or the City is not expected to be negatively affected. Recommendation The findings of fact for the Site Plan Review support a recommendation for approval. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Site Plan Review, staff recommends the following eight (8) conditions: 1. That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 3, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-025 - Site Plan Review - 3657 Snelling Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-025 Page 7 of 8 2. That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted to be located in the front yard (between the dwelling and the street) at a distance of fifty-eight (58) feet from the front property line. 3. That the proposed accessory structure shall not exceed a footprint of 720 square feet. 4. That the exterior façade and roofing materials of the proposed detached accessory garage shall match or be compatible in appearance and material used with the principal structure. 5. That the proposed driveway/parking area shall be improved with hard surface. No additional driveway/parking areas shall be constructed with gravel, “class 5” or other similar materials. 6. That no living quarters shall be constructed within the proposed accessory structure. 7. That the structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. That a building permit for the construction of the new accessory structure and a zoning permit for the construction of the driveway shall be required. 8. That the applicant shall obtain a Grading and Erosion Control Permit from the City before the building permit is issued. Options 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 14-025 for a Site Plan Review at 3657 Snelling Avenue North in order to construct a 720 square foot detached accessory structure in front of the single family dwelling, based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, and the eight (8) conditions in the September 3, 2014, Report to the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 14- 025 for a Site Plan Review at 3657 Snelling Avenue North in order to construct a 720 square foot detached accessory structure in front of the single family dwelling, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the September 3, 2014, Report to the Planning Commission. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 14-025 for a Site Plan Review at 3657 Snelling Avenue North in order to construct a 720 square foot detached accessory structure in front of the single family dwelling, based on the following findings of fact… 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 14-025 for a Site Plan Review at 3657 Snelling Avenue North in order to construct a 720 square foot detached accessory structure in front of the single family dwelling: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 3, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-025 - Site Plan Review - 3657 Snelling Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-025 Page 8 of 8 Notice Although a Site Plan Review does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within three-hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property. Resident Comment The City has received a letter of support from Rodd Joos and Emily Blacik Joos (3641 Snelling Avenue North), an email from Michael and Kathleen Wehking (1476 Arden Oaks Drive) in favor of the project and a phone call from Joseph Jansen (1496 Arden Oaks Drive) in support of the new structure. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on August 4, 2014. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by October 3, 2014 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The City may extend the review period beyond the 120 days, with the applicant’s permission. Attachments A. Application and Narrative B. Site Plan/Drainage Plan C. Garage Elevation/Plan D. Tree Inventory Information E. Letter and Email of Support F. Aerial Site Map G. Property Photos Eric Hansen and Bree Bowersox, homeowners 3657 Snelling Avenue North Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 (651)242-8242 hansen2005@gmail.com 21 July 2014 Mr. Ryan Streff, City Planner Department of Planning and Zoning City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 Re: 2014 Land Use Application for a Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a detached garage at 3657 Snelling Avenue North Dear Mr. Streff, Attached is the proposal to build a new 30’ x 24’ detached garage at 3657 Snelling Avenue North as well as 2014 Land Use Application, a letter of support from our neighbors, Rodd and Emily Joos and an elevation image of proposed project. Our existing 2800 square foot home has a single stall tuck under garage. (The lot coverage of house footprint including 12' by 20' tuck under garage is 1408 square feet.) We think the city should approve our request based on the exceptional and unusual circumstance criteria and the configuration of our property (please see the proposal for details on each) including our main reason for this request: “We fell in love with our property the first time we saw it. We believe it is one of the most unique pieces of property in Arden Hills. We were so excited to find land that has the feel of “up north” while also being able to enjoy the benefits of living in Arden Hills. We enjoy kayaking in the pond. Our home is shaded by giant oaks and we see the pine trees swing in the breeze. We watch the red hawk hunting, the turkeys eating and listen to the owls calling late into the night. Last spring a fawn was born on the hill next to our house. We have consulted with arborists and naturalists and spent considerable effort removing buckthorn and diseased trees; planting trees; improving the aesthetics and natural habitat for the animals that live here. We feel that building a garage next to our house would decimate the best part of our woods, destroying the natural habitat and probably causing the wildlife to reside elsewhere. It would severely diminish our enjoyment of the land and animals. ” You will also receive, in the mail, a hard copy of these documents as well as checks for the following: • $315 - Site Plan Review (zoning code) • $630 - Escrow Please let us know if you need additional information. Thank you for your consideration, Eric Hansen and Bree Bowersox, homeowners Eric Hansen and Bree Bowersox, homeowners 3657 Snelling Avenue North Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 (651)242-8242 hansen2005@gmail.com 21 July 2014 Re: 2014 Land Use Application for a Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a detached garage at 3657 Snelling Avenue North Project Description • Detached garage construction • 3657 Snelling Avenue North Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 Scope of Work • Construct a 30 x 24 detached garage • Upon approval of the Site Plan Review, homeowners will work with builder for detailed plans Existing Conditions Existing home was built in 1985 with single stall tuck under garage. Existing Structure • Dimensions: 44 feet by 32 feet • Square footage: 2800 • Lot coverage of house footprint including 12' by 20' tuck under garage: 1408 square feet • Height: ~40 feet (from peak of roof to bottom of walk out basement) • Distances from property lines: see elevation image Proposed Plan Proposed Structure: • Dimensions: 30 feet by 24 feet • Square footage: 720 • Height: 14 • Distances from property lines: see elevation image Design and Materials: The proposed garage will match the existing house in both materials and style. Cement board or LP board siding with a T-111 pattern will be painted with the identical dark grey house color with white trim. The roof will be built with the same brand and color of shingles. (A premium product upgrade to prevent dark algae stains). Premium materials will be selected at every opportunity. (siding, shingles, paint) The roof pitch will match the house. (8-12) Location: Two considerations led to the proposed location shown in Figure 1. First, we want to be good stewards of our trees. We were largely motivated to buy the property by the two majestic white oaks (both over 200 years old) that frame both sides of the house and the four massive scotch pines in the natural rain garden. It is important to us that the garage construction does no harm to these signature trees of the property. Our neighbors, Andy and Maria, at 1539 Oak Ave enjoy a year round view of our pond. We wish to avoid any garage location that would obstruct their view. Our neighbors, Rodd and Emily, at 3641 Snelling Ave North enjoy a view of our pond from the late fall to the early spring when our crimson maple is bare. We want to be considerate of neighbor’s current pond sightlines from the kitchen window, three season room, and deck. The proposed garage placement preserves a pond view from all three sightlines. As shown in attachments 1 and 2, the proposed location is over 28’ from our neighbors’ property line. It is 58’ from the property line adjacent the easement along Snelling. This is set 8’ farther back from the Snelling Ave than or neighbors’ garage. The proposed garage will be partially screened from road side view by existing trees, and future ironwood, apple, and evergreen trees will be planted to provide additional screening. Exceptional and Unusual Circumstance Criteria 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by official controls a. If used under conditions allowed by official controls, the woods and natural habitat next to our house would be damaged (see #6). 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner a. The plight of the landowner is due to the unique wooded property, largely covered by a pond with the house residing on the back 20% of the property. The location of the house on the lot does not leave space for a garage to be built behind the house. The rear setback is 28’ (see elevation drawing). 3. The deviation from the Ordinance with any attached conditions will still be in the spirit and intent of the ordinance. a. We believe that the spirit and intent of the ordinance will remain intact with the proposed construction of a garage that matches the style and materials of our home. 4. The approval of the Site Plan Review will not create a land use not permitted in the zone a. Use of the proposed structure will be for land use permitted in the current zone. 5. The approval of the Site Plan Review will not alter the essential character of the city a. We believe the essential character of Arden Hills will not be altered. We believe our investment and landscaping will improve the aesthetics of the area and raise neighboring property values. b. We have discussed our plans with the homeowners of the four properties adjacent to ours as well as a few other homeowners in our immediate area. One neighbor made a request for certain materials to be used (see attachment 9), which we intend to honor in keeping with the style of our home. We believe all of our neighbors we have discussed our plans with to be in support of our proposal. 6. The approval of the Site Plan Review is not for economic reasons alone a. We fell in love with our property the first time we saw it. We believe it is one of the most unique pieces of property in Arden Hills. We were so excited to find land that has the feel of “up north” while also being able to enjoy the benefits of living in Arden Hills. We enjoy kayaking in the pond. Our home is shaded by giant oaks and we see the pine trees swing in the breeze. We watch the red hawk hunting, the turkeys eating and listen to the owls calling late into the night. Last spring a fawn was born on the hill next to our house. We have consulted with arborists and naturalists and spent considerable effort removing buckthorn and diseased trees; planting trees; improving the aesthetics and natural habitat for the animals that live here. We feel that building a garage next to our house would decimate the best part of our woods, destroying the natural habitat and probably causing the wildlife to reside elsewhere. It would severely diminish our enjoyment of the land and animals. Tree Preservation and Landscaping Plan The proposed location minimizes damage to the signature trees of the property. See attachment 4 for an itemized comparison of tree damage from building at the proposed location versus building next to the house. See attachments 5a and 5b for an inventory of the trees of the property. To protect the two mature and healthy evergreens and crimson maple behind the proposed garage a formal tree protection zone will be fenced off during construction. The contract with builder will specify that this area is off limits for use of heavy equipment or storage of construction materials in order to protect the tree roots. If the proposal is accepted, four evergreens will be removed. Three of the four evergreens are diseased (needle cast. The health of these three trees continues to deteriorate despite treatment with horticulture oil and pruning out the most diseased branches. To compensate for this loss, we will plant three trees or shrubs within 50’ of the garage for each tree removed (twelve total). As is our usual practice, we will involve our neighbors in the final selection of new trees near the property borders. Drainage/ Stormwater Management Plan Existing Conditions: The property is graded for water to flow away from our neighbors’ house 3641 and toward the pond. The drop from the southern property line to the proposed garage location is 18 inches over a 28 foot span. The property is also graded for water to flow away from Snelling. The drop from the eastern property line to the proposed garage location is 30 inches over 58 foot span. This approximate drainage grade is continued across the proposed location of the garage pad. See attachment 1 for elevation drops along 235ft southern border at 25ft increments. See attachment 3 for rain water flow paths. Proposed conditions: Approximately 15 cubic yards of dirt excavated from the garage floor area will be used to create a small berm on the south and east walls to route rain water around and away from the foundation to follow the existing drainage flow. An additional 15 cubic yards of fill will be brought in for the low corner. The area affected by excavation will be about 720 sq ft. The current grade will otherwise be maintained. Table of lot coverage Existing lot coverage Dimensions Sq ft house footprint including (12' by 20' tuck under garage)44' by 32'1408 front decks (omitted because they are directly over patio) rear decks `~12' by ~12'144 patio (river rock) locating directly under front deck ~30' by ~15'450 driveway asphalt 12' by 82' 984 driveway unpaved (class 5)10' by 114'1140 turn around area unpaved (class 5)30' by 35'1050 Total 5176 Proposed additional lot coverage Dimensions Sq ft detached garage 30' by 24'720 additional driveway unpaved class 5 (25' depth includes a 3 foot width concrete apron in front the garage)25' by 20'500 Lot size is 2.2 acres (96,581 aq ft) Lot coverage before building proposed garage 5.34% Lot coverage after building proposed garage 6.62% Proposed location for detached garage at 3657 Snelling Ave N 24’ 30’ 58’ 28’ 50’ Alternate location for detached garage would require removal of X inches of trees Shape of Proposed Garage The image at right shows the foot print and roof line . Exceptions •Siding color and pattern will not be as pictured. It will be dark grey with a T-111 pattern as described in variance request. •Shingles color will not be as pictured. It will be dark grey to match the house as described in variance request. •Garage will have gutters and downspouts in front and back •Proposed garage will have no windows •Pedestrian door on opposite wall •Double and single door may switch locations •We have not chosen a builder yet. Sussel is one of our three finalists. Tree Inventory - 3657 Snelling #Tree location girth caliper inches (dia)Health comments To be removed if garage variance request is granted Favorites 1 Red oak North side house 60 19.1 Good 2 Boxelder North side house 16 5.1 Good 3 Pagoda dogwood Back of house 16 5.1 Good 4 American Elm Back of house 17 5.4 at risk for disease 5 Elderberry Back of house 4 1.3 Good 6 Elderberry Back of house 4 1.3 Good 7 Elderberry Back of house 4 1.3 Good 8 Silver Maple Back of house 18 5.7 Good 9 Silver Maple Back of house 17 5.4 Good 10 Sumac Back of house 3 1.0 Good 11 Sumac Back of house 3 1.0 Good 12 Sumac Back of house 3 1.0 Good 13 American Elm Back of house 12 3.8 at risk for disease 14 White Oak Back of house 73 23.2 Good 15 White Oak Back of house 72 22.9 Good 16 White Oak Back of house 63 20.1 Good 17 White Oak South side house 95 30.2 Good 18 Hickory South side house 14 4.5 Good 19 White Oak South of driveway 77 24.5 Good X 20 Scotch pine South of driveway 27 8.6 Good 21 Scotch pine South of driveway 34 10.8 Good 22 White pine South of driveway 24 7.6 Poor 23 White pine South of driveway 25 8.0 Good 24 White pine South of driveway 36 11.5 Good 25 White pine South of driveway 56 17.8 Good 26 White pine South of driveway 28 8.9 Good 27 White pine South of driveway 34 10.8 Good 28 White pine South of driveway 30 9.5 Good 29 White pine South of driveway 43 13.7 Good 30 White pine South of driveway 72 22.9 Good 31 Scotch pine South of driveway 64 20.4 Good X 32 Scotch pine South of driveway 64 20.4 Good X 33 Scotch pine South of driveway 58 18.5 Good X 34 Scotch pine South of driveway 49 15.6 Good X 35 Scotch pine South of driveway 50 15.9 Good 36 Ash South of driveway 10 3.2 at risk for disease 37 Ash South of driveway 14 4.5 at risk for disease 38 Pagoda dogwood South of driveway 6 1.9 Good 39 Crimson Maple South of driveway 50 15.9 Good X 40 Black Hills Spruce?South of driveway 24 7.6 Excellent 41 Black Hills Spruce?South of driveway 24 7.6 Excellent 42 Pine South of driveway 26 8.3 Needle cast has killed bottom 40%X 43 Pine South of driveway 28 8.9 Needle cast has killed bottom 30%X 44 Pine South of driveway 16 5.1 Needle cast has killed bottom 30%X 45 Pine South of driveway 14 4.5 Weakened by crowding X 46 Pine South of driveway 18 5.7 Good 47 Pine South of driveway 14 4.5 Good 48 Pine South of driveway 16 5.1 Good 49 Pine South of driveway 30 9.5 Severe damage from needle cast 50 Pine South of driveway 21 6.7 Severe damage from needle cast 51 Crimson Maple South of driveway 24 7.6 Good 52 Silver Maple South of driveway 111 35.3 Good 53 Silver Maple South of driveway 54 17.2 Good 54 Apple tree South of driveway 20 6.4 Good 55 Apple tree South of driveway 2 0.6 Good 56 Apple tree South of driveway 2 0.6 Good 57 Burr Oak North of driveway 63 20.1 Good*X 58 Burr Oak North of driveway 26 8.3 Good* 59 Burr Oak North of driveway 11 3.5 Good* 60 Siberian Elm North of driveway 28 8.9 invasive 61 Siberian Elm North of driveway 30 9.5 invasive 62 River Birch North of driveway 7 2.2 Good 63 Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry North of driveway 5 1.6 Good 64 Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry North of driveway 5 1.6 Good 65 Willow North of driveway 48 15.3 Good 66 Cottonwood North of driveway 60 19.1 Good 67 Cottonwood North of driveway 60 19.1 Good 68 Cottonwood North of driveway 60 19.1 Good 69 Cottonwood North of driveway 60 19.1 Good 70 Cottonwood North of driveway 60 19.1 Good 71 Sumac North of driveway 5 1.6 Good 72 Sumac North of driveway 5 1.6 Good 73 Sumac North of driveway 5 1.6 Good 74 Sumac North of driveway 5 1.6 Good 75 White Oak North of driveway 121 38.5 stressed **X 76 White Oak North of driveway 54 17.2 Good 77 White Oak North of driveway 90 28.6 final stages of die back *** 78 River Birch North of driveway 7 2.2 planted last year, thriving 829 Total caliper inches *at risk of death/injury by planned bike path ** managing tree health with soil nutrient analysis and custom fertization program by certified arborist *** previous owner injured by ripping out roots to install waterfall pond. 85%+ dead according to certified arborist. From:kwehking@comcast.net To:Ryan Streff Subject:Re: Project PC#14-025 Date:Sunday, August 17, 2014 7:19:38 PM City of Arden Hills, I am in favor of Eric Hanson and Bree Bowersox improving their property at 3657 Snelling Ave. I do not object to the garage being added to their property. Sincerely, Michael and Kathleen Wehking 1476 Arden Oaks Drive Arden Hills kwehking@comcast.net Map D ate: August 28, 2014P:\GIS_Data\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-025¯3657 Snelling Avenue North 3657 Snelling Avenue North - Site Plan Review - PC 14-025 S n e l l i n g A v e n u e N o r t h Lake Lane Existing Home Proposed 24' x 30' garage Looking North (Towards wetland/pond) Looking East (Toward Snelling) Looking West (Towards SF Dwelling) Looking South (Towards Neighbors House) MEMORANDUM DATE: September 3, 2014 PC Agenda Item 3.B TO: Planning Commission FROM: Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #14-026 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Jerry Carlson (Lee Homes) Property Location: 1830 Noble Road Request: Variance Requested Action The applicant has requested a variance to construct a new single-family detached dwelling at 1830 Noble Road that would encroach approximately 16.5 feet into the required 40 foot secondary front yard setback. Due to the configuration of the lot, the secondary front yard faces a limited-access alley and a 40 foot setback is required. Background The applicant in this case is Lee Homes, a custom builder contracted by the property owners to design and construct a new single-family dwelling at 1830 Noble Road. This project would also include the demolition of the existing structures on the property and the re-grading of the site. In the narrative submitted by the applicant, it has been noted that the existing structures are in poor condition and tests have shown that there is asbestos present throughout the home. The property is zoned R-2 Single and Two Family Residential and is generally located north of Lake Lane, south of Grant Road, east of New Brighton Road, and west of Lake Johanna Boulevard. The subject property is considered by the Zoning Code to be a corner lot because it is situated at the intersection of Noble Road on the north and a limited-access alley off of Lake Johanna Boulevard on the east. The property is unique in that the property boundary lines extend into the abutting street and alley. On the north side the property line extends approximately 16 feet into Noble Road, and on the east side the property line extends approximately 9 feet into the abutting City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 3, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-026 - Variance - 1830 Noble Road\Memos_14-026 Page 1 of 9 alley. In cases where any portion of the lot extends into an abutting roadway the Zoning Code states that the lot line shall be deemed to be the street or alley line. However, the property is also subject to a public use easement that was granted to the City in 1955 when most properties along Noble Road were platted in the Elms Addition. The properties at 1830, 1832, 1834, and 1848 Noble Road were not platted as part of this subdivision, but public use easements across these properties were secured and are shown on the plat. Staff has reviewed this information with the City Attorney and has been advised that all required setbacks at 1830 Noble Road need to be taken from the public easement line and not the street or alley line. The existing dwelling on the property is non-conforming as it encroaches on the front yard setback along Noble Road and the secondary front yard setback along the alley. The existing home is situated approximately 32.7 feet from the easement line on the north side of the property and 19.9 feet from the easement line on the east side of the property. 1. Overview of Request The applicant is proposing to construct a new single-family detached dwelling with a footprint of 1,766 square feet. The structure would include an attached three-car garage measuring 29 feet by 25 feet (approximately 725 square feet), and a main floor plan of 1,039 square feet. As proposed, the structure would encroach approximately 16.5 feet into the required 40 foot secondary front yard setback as measured from the public use easement line along the alley, leaving a 23.5 foot setback from the easement line. The home would be situated approximately 31 feet from the alley line and 40 feet from the eastern property boundary line. The required 40 foot front yard setback along Noble Road would be maintained, as well as the required side and rear yard setbacks. Compared to the existing structure on the property, the proposed dwelling would be located 7.8 feet further south from the Noble Road easement line and 3.6 feet further west from the alley easement line. The applicant has indicated that the property owners intentionally designed a modest and compact home to fit into the general character of the neighborhood. At the time the land use application was submitted, staff believed the setback measurements would be taken from the Existing and Proposed Front Yard Setbacks Existing Proposed Front Yard (Noble Road) 32.7 feet 40.5 feet Secondary Front Yard (Alley) 19.9 feet 23.5 feet City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 3, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-026 - Variance - 1830 Noble Road\Memos_14-026 Page 2 of 9 street and alley line, not the public easement line, and the narrative submitted by the applicant regarding the variance request reflects this understanding. 2. Site Data Future Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential Zoning: R-2: Single Family & Two Family Residential Lot Size: .39 Acres (17,207 square feet) Topography: Relatively flat 3. Surrounding Area Direction Future Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North Low Density Residential R-2: Single & Two Family Residential Single Family Detached Residential South Low Density Residential R-2: Single & Two Family Residential Single Family Detached Residential East Low Density Residential R-2: Single & Two Family Residential Single Family Detached Residential West Low Density Residential R-2: Single & Two Family Residential Single Family Detached Residential Plan Evaluation 1. R-2 Regulations, Existing Conditions, and Proposed Redevelopment A. Lot Size & Dimensions – Conforming The survey completed for the lot shows a width of 91.5 feet and a depth of 188.04 feet for a total lot area of 17,207 square feet. Taking into account the public use easements, the lot measures 75 feet wide by 155.04 feet deep and the net lot area is 11,630 square feet. For the purpose of the plan evaluation, the net lot area was used rather than the total lot area. B. Structure Setback – Variance Required As proposed, the new home would encroach approximately 16.5 feet into the required 40 foot Applicable R-2 Lot Requirements 1. Minimum Lot Area (sf.) 11,000 2. Minimum Lot Size (ft., width/depth) 85/120 3. Height (ft.) 35 4. Lot Covered by Structure 25% 5. Minimum Landscape Lot Area 65% 6. Minimum Building Setbacks (ft) Front Yard 40 Rear Yard (Principle) 30 Rear Yard (Accessory) 10 Side Yard Interior - Principal (Minimum/total both yards on lot) 5/15 Side Yard Interior - Accessory 10 Side Yard Corner 40 City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 3, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-026 - Variance - 1830 Noble Road\Memos_14-026 Page 3 of 9 secondary front yard setback as measured from the public use easement line along the alley, leaving a 23.5 foot setback from the easement line. The home would be situated approximately 31 feet from the alley line and 40 feet from the eastern property boundary line. The required front yard setback along Noble Road and the side and rear yard setbacks would be maintained. The proposed structure would be located 40.5 feet from the public use easement on Noble Road, 5.64 feet from the western side property line, and 66.23 feet from the rear property line. C. Lot Coverage – Conforming The proposed project does not exceed the lot coverage limitations of the R-2 Zoning District. The maximum lot coverage for impervious surfaces is 35% and the minimum landscape coverage is 65%. As proposed, the impervious surface coverage would be 24.6% with 75.4% of the lot covered by landscaping. The maximum structure coverage is 25% and the proposed home and attached garage would occupy 15.2% of the lot area. No accessory structure has been proposed at this time. D. Structure Height – Conforming The maximum height for structures in the R-2 Zoning District is 35 feet. The proposed home would be approximately 25 feet in height. E. Tree Preservation The proposed project is not expected to impact any significant trees on the property. If any significant trees are removed as a result of the project, mitigation may be required. Proposed Lot Coverage Net Lot Area: 11,630 square feet Square Feet Percentage House/Garage 1,766 15.2% Front Stoop 80 0.7% Driveway 1,020 8.8% Impervious Coverage 2,866 24.6% Landscaping Coverage 75.4% City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 3, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-026 - Variance - 1830 Noble Road\Memos_14-026 Page 4 of 9 2. Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements The proposed structure is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. 3. Additional Review a. The Rice Creek Watershed District reviewed the plans for this request and determined that a RCWD Permit would not be required for the proposed project at 1830 Noble Road. b. The Building Official and Residential Inspector have reviewed the plans for the project and had no additional comments. c. The City Engineer reviewed the proposal and had no comments relative to the placement of the proposed structure on the lot. A Grading and Erosion Control Permit would be required for this project. Variance Evaluation Criteria On May 5, 2011, the Governor signed into law new variance legislation that changed the review criteria City’s must use when evaluating variance requests. The new law renames the municipal variance standard from “undue hardship” to “practical difficulties,” but otherwise retains the familiar three-factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. Also included is a sentence new to city variance authority that was already in the county statutes: “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” Therefore, in evaluating variance requests under the new law, in order to find a practical difficulty, cities should adopt findings addressing the following questions: • Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance? • Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? • Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? • Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? • Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? As was the case before the new legislation took effect, economic considerations alone cannot constitute a practical difficulty. Furthermore, the new law clarifies that conditions may be imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 3, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-026 - Variance - 1830 Noble Road\Memos_14-026 Page 5 of 9 Findings of Fact Staff offers the following findings of fact for review: General Findings 1. The property at 1830 Noble Road is in the R-2 Single & Two Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The property is a corner lot because it is situated at and abutting on the intersection of two streets, Noble Road and a limited-access alley. A corner lot shall maintain front yard requirements for each street frontage. 3. The lot measures 91.5 feet in width by 188.04 feet in depth and has a total lot area of 17,207 square feet. 4. The northern property boundary line extends approximately sixteen feet into Noble Road and on the eastern property boundary line extends approximately nine feet into the abutting alley. 5. The Arden Hills Zoning Code defines the “lot line” as a property boundary line of any lot held in single or separate ownership or separately described; except that where any portion of the lot extends into the abutting street or alley, the lot line shall be deemed to be the street or alley line. 6. The northern lot line of the property is the street line of Noble Road and the eastern lot line is the alley line of the limited-access alley that abuts the property. 7. An easement runs along the northern 33 feet and the eastern 16.5 feet of the property. These easement areas were dedicated to the public use forever on the Elms Addition Plat. 8. The Elms Addition Plat was recorded in the Ramsey County Office of the Register of Deeds on June 22, 1955. 9. The easement area on the property measures 5,577 square feet. The net lot area subtracting the easement area is 11,630 square feet. 10. All required structure setbacks for the R-2 Zoning District shall be measured from the public easement line. 11. The proposed structure would encroach 16.5 feet into the required 40 foot secondary front yard setback as measured from the public use easement line along the alley, leaving a 23.5 foot setback from the easement line. 12. The proposed structure conforms to all other setback requirements for the R-2 District. 13. The proposed structure and landscaping coverages are within the zoning district requirements. 14. The proposed dwelling would not exceed 35 feet in height. 15. Detached single-family dwellings are permitted structures within the R-2 Zoning District. 16. All structures on the lot are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. Variance Findings: City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 3, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-026 - Variance - 1830 Noble Road\Memos_14-026 Page 6 of 9 17. Detached single-family dwellings are permitted and a reasonable use within the R-2 Single & Two Family Residential Zoning District. 18. The purpose of the R-2 District is to among other things reserve development areas for single-family homes and to take advantage of municipal utilities. 19. The property is unique in that the secondary street frontage along the eastern property line is on a narrow one-way alley that principally provides rear yard access to properties that also have frontage on Lake Johanna Boulevard. This is the only alley of this type currently in the City of Arden Hills. 20. The proposed building plans for the single-family dwelling would result in a structure that is consistent and compatible with other construction in the area and would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 21. The requested variance for the single-family dwelling does not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. Discussion Staff is supportive of the variance request in this planning case for several reasons. First, there is ambiguity in the Zoning Code on whether the corner lot designation should apply when one of the frontages is on an alley as opposed to a street. Section 1305.04 of the Zoning Code includes separate definitions for “street” and “alley”: • Streets. A public or private way, consisting in the case of a private way of a roadway and in the case of a public way of a roadway and a boulevard (the latter of which may contain a sidewalk), used primarily for vehicular traffic, whether designated as a street, avenue, parkway, road, lane, throughway, expressway, highway, place or however otherwise designated. • Alley. A minor public or private way which is used primarily for vehicular service access to the back or side of a lot abutting on a street. The Zoning Code does not specifically reference alleys in its definition of a corner lot and it is unclear whether the intention is for alleys to be treated as a subset of streets, or whether they have a different classification. Staff has taken the position that the alley should be treated as a street and that the property is therefore a corner lot, but it is also sensitive to the argument that an alley is distinct from a street and that the required 40 foot setback may be excessive in this case. The public easement along the eastern side of property that was acquired during the platting process was likely needed in order to accommodate the possible extension of Fairview Avenue further south. Given how this area has developed since then, it is unlikely that a designated street would be constructed where the alley is currently located. If there were a greater chance of a City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 3, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-026 - Variance - 1830 Noble Road\Memos_14-026 Page 7 of 9 street expansion project in the future abutting 1830 Noble Road, staff would be less supportive of the variance request. The neighborhood along Noble and Grant Roads was subdivided in the 1950s and most parcels in the area have a width of approximately 75 feet. Under the current zoning regulations for the R- 2 District, these lots would be considered non-conforming as the minimum lot width in this district is 85 feet. Additionally, the existing requirement that corner lots maintain front yard setbacks along all street frontages had not been adopted at the time the area was first developed. This can be seen in the large number of dwellings on corner lots in the southwest part of the City which conform to the front yard setback along only one street frontage. For a 75-foot wide corner lot to be in compliance with the Zoning Code, the maximum width of a dwelling that could be constructed would be 30 feet to meet the secondary front yard setback of 40 feet and the side yard setback of 5 feet. Staff believes that in this area of the City, the corner lot setback requirements for non-conforming parcels due to lot width can be overly restrictive and limit the type of dwellings that can be constructed. Recommendation The findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this variance, staff recommends the following four conditions: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. The property owner shall obtain a Grading and Erosion Control Permit from the City before the building permit is issued. 3. A building permit and a demolition permit for the construction of the new dwelling and a zoning permit for the construction of the driveway shall be required. 4. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. Options 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 14-026 for a variance at 1830 Noble Road to encroach 16.5 feet into the secondary front yard setback, based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, and the four conditions in the September 3, 2014, Report to the Planning Commission. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 3, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-026 - Variance - 1830 Noble Road\Memos_14-026 Page 8 of 9 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 14- 026 for a variance at 1830 Noble Road to encroach 16.5 feet into the secondary front yard setback, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the September 3, 2014, Report to the Planning Commission. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 14-026 for a variance at 1830 Noble Road to encroach 16.5 feet into the secondary front yard setback based on the following findings of fact… 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 14-026 for a variance at 1830 Noble Road to encroach 16.5 feet into the secondary front yard setback: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Notice Although a variance does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within three-hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property. Resident Comment Staff has received one phone call from a resident in the neighborhood who expressed their support of the project and the variance request. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on August 4, 2014. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by October 3, 2014 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The City may extend the review period beyond the 120 days, with the applicant’s permission. Attachments A. Land Use Application and Supporting Materials B. Location and Aerial Maps C. Photographs of the Property D. Certified Survey and Site Plan E. Building Plans City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 3, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-026 - Variance - 1830 Noble Road\Memos_14-026 Page 9 of 9 We are requesting a variance to reduce the 40 foot side setback from the edge of bituminous on 1830 Noble Road. We respectfully request to reduce this by 9 feet to 31 feet as to place a reasonable new home on the existing lot. Doing this will actually increase the side setback by 4 feet from the existing house conditions. Andrew and Heather Geiser, purchased this residence at 1830 Noble Road, so they could tear it down and build a new home on the lot. The builder and buyers designed a home that they thought would fit on the lot. After designing the home a builders representative met with the city and a new modified plan was designed that we thought complied with the feedback we received. When the official survey was done and reviewed the edge of bituminous further restricted the buildable area than our preliminary and available information indicated. 1) The current setbacks are too restrictive to build a reasonable home on the property. Having said that, the new home we designed with the uniqueness of this property in mind, will increase the present setback by 4 feet. The EXISTING house has a side setback is 27 feet from the east bituminous. The proposed setback with the new home would INCREASE the setback to 31 feet from bituminous. 2) The buyers have designed a modest 2 story plan (1039 square foot main floor) with an undersized 3 car garage (29 feet wide). They did so to be mindful to fit into the character of the neighborhood. 3) One of the main design features we used for the home on this lot was to keep the garage as tucked and compact into the house as possible with keeping the surrounding ascetics for the neighborhood in mind. 4) The design of the plan that was created to fit so that it would be 40 feet from the east property line keeping the spirit and intent of the standard zoning codes in mind. 5) The circumstances for this property are unique because the side road is not a standard platted city street but is more of a small one way alley/street into the area. 6) The deviation from this ordinance to build the new structure will increase the side setback from the existing home location and improving the side setback by 4 feet. 7) The variance will not impact the zone use within the permitted zone. This will be a single family residential home following all other standard building codes and zoning regulations. 8) The existing structures on the property are all in poor and dilapidated condition. Granting this variance will greatly improve the property, neighborhood and surrounding area. 9) The home in its current condition is unoccupied and uninhabitable. Additionally our tests have shown that there is asbestos present throughout the home. 10) The current set back would be a hardship that would significantly financially affect the value and the use of the property. Please let us know if you have any additional questions. Respectfully, Jerry Carlson Lee Homes 651-248-4849 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. © Ramsey County Enterprise GIS 256.7 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Feet256.70128.33 1830 Noble Road 1,5401: This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. © Ramsey County Enterprise GIS 128.3 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Feet128.3064.17 1830 Noble Road 7701: Planning Case 14-026 – 1830 Noble Road – Variance View of property from Noble Road looking south View of property from alley looking north and west View of limited-access alley looking south from intersection with Noble Road View of limited-access alley looking east towards Lake Johanna Boulevard City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 3, 2014 Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 3, 2014 PC Agenda Item 5.B TO: Planning Commission FROM: Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Report from the City Council July 28, 2014, City Council Meeting The City Council unanimously approved Planning Case 14-017, which was a variance request at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard to reconstruct a non-conforming accessory structure with minor modifications to the location and roofline. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this case 4-1 (Holewa opposed) at their meeting on July 9, 2014. The City Council also approved a resolution to adopt the TCAAP Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) and Mitigation Plan. An AUAR is a form of environmental documentation through Minnesota State Rules that evaluates development scenarios for an entire geographical area rather than a specific project. The adopted AUAR and Mitigation Plan will serve as a working document for the TCAAP site going forward. August 18, 2014, City Council Work Session The City Council held the first of three workshops with Gateway Planning, the zoning sub- consultant for the TCAAP Master Plan, on August 18. Gateway Planning provided an introduction to performance based zoning, reviewed the framework and important elements of the code, and discussed the initial draft of chapters 1 through 5, which are the administrative and process sections of the code. At the second workshop on September 15, the City Council will be discussing standards for building and site development, building design, open space areas, streetscape and landscaping, and signs. August 25, 2014, City Council Work Session The City Council continued their discussion of chapters 1 through 5 of the TCAAP Redevelopment Code (TRC) at the Work Session on August 25. Specific topics of discussion included the relationship of the TRC to other City Ordinances, the development review process, and the appropriate mix of different housing types. Page 1 of 2 DATE: September 3, 2014 PC Agenda Item 5.C TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner SUBJECT: TCAAP Update Demolition and Remediation Utility poles are being removed from the site. The remaining building slabs are also being removed and the concrete processed into aggregate. Energy Study Ramsey County has chosen a consultant for the TCAAP Energy Plan. The consultant’s name will be announced once the contract is finalized. The Energy Advisory Board will begin meeting in September, and a white paper is expected to be presented to the Joint Development Authority in November. TCAAP Website Ramsey County will be redesigning the County’s TCAAP website which currently can be found at www.tcaap.net. The new website will go live in early 2015 and will provide information on marketing, infrastructure, remediation, the Joint Development Authority, and other topics. Public documents related to remediation and development will be made available through this website, either through a direct post or a link. Rice Creek Commons Ramsey County announced that Rice Creek Commons has been chosen as the marketing name for the TCAAP site. The name was chosen because it highlights the site’s location adjacent to Rice Creek and its proximity to both downtowns. Whether the name will be the official name going forward is unclear at this time. Developers have indicated that it will be important to rebrand the property due to negative connotations associated with the TCAAP name. Future Meeting Schedule Special and regular City Council work session meetings have been scheduled to discuss issues related to the Master Plan and City infrastructure. Discussion topics are tentatively planned as follows: MEMORANDUM Page 2 of 2 September 8, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room • Spine Road and Grading Design Review (Infrastructure) • Final Discussion of Chapters 1-5 (Introduction, Components of the Code, Administration, Definitions, Schedule of Uses) September 15, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers • Workshop with Gateway Planning o Final review of Chapters 1-5 (Introduction, Components of the Code, Administration, Definitions, Schedule of Uses) o Present Zoning Chapters 6-7, 9-11 (Building and Site Development Standards, Building Design Standards, Open Space Standards, Streetscape and Landscape Standards, Sign Standards) September 22, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers (4th of 5 Mondays) • Discuss Commercial Districts (components of Chapters 6, 7, 10, 11) September 29, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room • County Road I and Thumb Road Design Review (Infrastructure) • Discuss Residential Districts (components of Chapters 6, 7, 10, 11) October 13, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room • Stormwater System Update (Infrastructure) • Final Discussion Chapters 6-7, 10-11 (Building and Site Development Standards, Building Design Standards, Streetscape and Landscape Standards, Sign Standards) October 20, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers • Discuss Chapter 9 (Open Space Standards) October 27, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room • Water and Sewer System Update (Infrastructure) • Final review of Chapter 9 (Open Space Standards) November 10, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room • Discuss Chapter 8 (Street Design Standards) November 17, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers • Final Workshop with Gateway Planning o Final Review of Chapter 8 (Street Design Standards) o Review entire document It is anticipated that additional regular and special work session meetings will be scheduled to discuss TCAAP issues. Future meeting topics will be defined as those dates draw nearer.