HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-4-14-PCAPPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 7, 2014, Regular Meeting
05 -07 -14 PC.PDF
PLANNING CASES
Planning Case 14 -017 - Variance - 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard (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
Planning Case 14 -019 - Zoning Code Amendment - Lighting Regulations (No Public
Hearing Required)
PC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF
UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
COMMENTS AND REPORTS
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS & REQUESTS
Report From The City Council
6 -04 -14 - REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.PDF
TCAAP Update
PC 06 04 14.PDF, ATTACHMENTS.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
June 4, 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.
Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director
Documents:
Prepared By
Prepared By
Prepared By
Prepared By
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDAAPPROVAL OF MINUTESMay 7, 2014, Regular Meeting 05 -07 -14 PC.PDFPLANNING CASESPlanning Case 14 -017 - Variance - 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard (No Public Hearing Required) PC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF, ATTACHMENT F.PDFPlanning Case 14 -019 - Zoning Code Amendment - Lighting Regulations (No Public Hearing Required)
PC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF
UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
COMMENTS AND REPORTS
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS & REQUESTS
Report From The City Council
6 -04 -14 - REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.PDF
TCAAP Update
PC 06 04 14.PDF, ATTACHMENTS.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 CommissionJune 4, 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 Planner
Documents:
4.
5.
5.A.
5.B.
Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner
Documents:
5.C.
Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director
Documents:
Prepared ByPrepared By
Prepared By
Prepared By
Approved:
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 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 Angela Hames, Andrew Holewa, Steven
Jones (Alternate), Roberta Thompson, and Clayton Zimmerman.
Absent: Commissioner Brent Bartel and Sam Scott.
Also present were: City Planner Ryan Streff; Associate Planner Matthew Bachler; and
Councilmember Fran Holmes.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA – MAY 7, 2014
Chair Larson stated the agenda will stand as published.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 9, 2014 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to approve the
April 9, 2014, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried
unanimously (6-0).
PLANNING CASES
A. Planning Case 14-014; Variance; 1850 Venus Avenue – Not a Public Hearing
City Planner Streff stated the applicant has requested a variance to construct a twenty-four (24)
foot by thirty-eight (38) foot or 912 square foot garage addition to 1850 Venus Avenue that
would encroach thirty (30) feet into the secondary front yard setback.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 7, 2014 2
City Planner Streff reported that the applicants in this case own the property located at 1850
Venus Avenue. The property is Zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and is generally positioned
north of County Road E2 West, south of Venus Avenue, east of Interstate 35W and west of
Snelling Avenue North. The subject property is considered by the Zoning Code to be a corner lot,
as it is situated at the corner of Venus Avenue and Rolling Hills Road. However, Rolling Hills
Road is an unimproved City right-of-way that terminates approximately 200 feet south of Venus
Avenue and is used solely for trail purposes. This area was platted in 1956 as Shorewood Hills
Addition No. 6 and Rolling Hills Road was stubbed in for a future connection to County Road E2
West. The connection to County Road E2 West was never completed and is unlikely to be
developed as the land to the south is within Tony Schmidt Regional Park and the need for an
additional access to this subdivision is unwarranted at this time.
Staff explained that the applicants are proposing to construct a twenty-four (24) foot by thirty-
eight (38) foot or 912 square foot attached garage to the east side of the single family dwelling.
The garage would be constructed between the existing dwelling and the east property line. As
proposed, the new addition would encroach thirty (30) feet into the forty (40) foot secondary
front yard setback along the platted right-of-way for Rolling Hills Road. The required forty (40)
foot setback along Venus Avenue would be maintained along with the remaining rear and side
yard setbacks. A variance to encroach thirty (30) feet into the secondary front yard setback is
being requested, which would leave a setback of ten (10) feet from the east property line.
City Planner Streff indicated that grading would be conducted along the north and east sides of
the home in order to prepare the new garage pad and driveway, and to reclaim the existing
driveway area back to a natural vegetative state. The site plan indicates that some amount of
grading would occur in the City’s right-of-way along Rolling Hills Road. Any grading to be
completed in the right-of-way would require approval by the City in conjunction with Grading
and Erosion Control Permit.
City Planner Streff stated that the applicants have indicated that the façade and roofing
materials to be used on the new garage addition would match the materials on the existing home.
Following the construction of the new addition the existing tuck-under garage would be
converted to functioning living space, the existing driveway and stairway up to the front door
would be removed and new landscaping would be installed. In order to create a finished look the
façade area on the former garage would be designed to match the existing home so that a
consistent exterior façade is maintained. Once removed the old concrete driveway area would be
graded to match the existing grade along the front of the home. Two new trees would be planted
to fulfill the Tree Preservation Ordinance and tree mitigation standards.
Site Data
Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential
Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential
Zoning: R-1: Single Family Residential
Current Lot Sizes: .3574 Acres (15,569 Square Feet)
Topography: The east side of the has a fair amount of
grade change in the location of the proposed
garage
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 7, 2014 3
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-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District.
2. The lot is 15,569 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 133.5 feet in width,
and 116.5 feet in depth. Although the total square footage of the lot meets the
requirements in the R-1 Zoning District the actual dimensions of the lot do not meet the
minimum size requirements.
3. The existing dwelling and attached tuck-under garage meet all property line setbacks.
4. The proposed garage addition would encroach thirty (30) feet into the forty (40) foot
secondary front yard setback along the right-of-way platted as Rolling Hills Road.
5. The proposed addition does not encroach into the rear yard setback or the front yard
setback along Venus Avenue.
6. The platted section of right-of-way for Rolling Hills Road is used solely for the purposes
of a city and county trail.
7. The unimproved right-of-way known as Rolling Hills Road extends approximately 200
feet from Venus Avenue, where it terminates at the adjacent property line for Tony
Schmidt Regional Park. At this time, there are no plans to extend the right-of-way or
construct a roadway in this area.
8. The existing garage would be converted into living space and the existing driveway
would be removed if a variance is granted.
9. The proposed structure and landscaping coverages are within the zoning district
requirements.
10. The dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height limit.
11. Single Family Dwellings are permitted structures within the R-1 Zoning District.
12. The existing dwelling and the proposed garage are outside of the 100-year flood plain,
wetlands, and easements.
13. The property directly east of the subject property located at 1834 Venus Avenue
encroaches into the secondary front yard setback along Rolling Hills Road approximately
fifteen (15) feet.
Variance Findings:
14. 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.
15. The proposal is consistent with the Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan as it allows the
reasonable use of residential property.
16. Single family dwelling are permitted and a reasonable use within the R-1 Single Family
Residential Zoning District.
17. The lot has rather unique characteristics for a corner lot within the City. The property is
situated on a corner lot, of which only one of the right-of-ways, Venus Avenue, consists
of an improved surface. The right-of-way known as Rolling Hills Road along the east side
of the property is unimproved and is used for trail purposes only. There are no plans at
this time to extend or improve this right-of-way.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 7, 2014 4
18. The proposed addition would be visible from neighboring properties; however, the
addition would not be inconsistent in terms of setbacks and lot coverage requirements for
typical non-corner lots. The property owner would match the materials used for siding
and roofing to the existing dwelling, which should minimize the impacts on surrounding
property owners.
19. The proposed addition is unlikely to have negative impacts to the property or to the
neighborhood as a whole. Based on the proposed setbacks the property would function as
a typical non-corner lot within the R-1 Single Family Residential District. The trail that
has been constructed within the right-of-way of Rolling Hills Road is not likely to be
affected by the proposed addition.
20. The proposed plans and variance request for the addition to the single family dwelling
does not appear to be based on economic considerations alone.
City Planner Streff stated 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 on 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 applicant shall obtain a Grading and Erosion Control Permit from the City before
the building permit is issued.
3. That the final grade of the lot including the grade of the existing driveway shall be
approved by the City. The final grade shall match the character of the neighborhood and
the existing grade along the front of the home.
4. That grading shall not be allowed outside the property boundary lines without consent
from the adjacent property owner.
5. That a tree preservation plan and financial surety or escrow for these improvements shall
be submitted to the City before the building permit is issued.
6. That the structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. That a building
permit for the construction of the garage and a zoning permit for the construction of the
driveway shall be required.
7. That the exterior façade of the addition and the existing garage area shall be the same
color and use the same construction materials as the existing structure. The final façade
shall be approved by the City Planner.
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 – May 7, 2014 5
Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments.
Commissioner Thompson requested further information on how the property will be graded.
City Planner Streff reported this had been discussed with the City Engineer and he understands
that the majority of the site would drain towards Venus Avenue to the north and to the east along
the Rolling Hills Road right-of-way.
Commissioner Holewa asked if this property abutted a City right-of-way.
City Planner Streff stated that Venue Avenue and Rolling Hills Road are both City right-of-
ways. He commented that City staff has discussed the possibility of vacating this right-of-way,
which could eliminate the need for a variance. However, after discussion among staff, this was
not recommended as a feasible option.
Chair Larson stated if the right-of-way was vacated, the property would have to be divided
between the two adjacent property owners.
Commissioner Hames explained she lived across the street from the subject property. She
indicated the original intention was to extend a road through between these houses with a cul-de-
sac. She noted that a fire hydrant was located within the Rolling Hills Road right-of-way area.
She stated for the record that she fully supported the applicant’s request.
Commissioner Hames moved and Commissioner Zimmerman seconded a motion to
recommend approval of Planning Case 14-014 for a Variance at 1850 Venus Avenue based
on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the seven (7) conditions in
the May 7, 2014, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried 5-1 (Holewa
opposed).
B. Planning Case 14-015; PUD Amendment & Site Plan Review – Boston Scientific –
4100 Hamline Avenue North – Public Hearing
Chair Larson recused himself on this item.
Associate Planner Bachler stated the applicant has requested a Planned Unit Development
Amendment and Site Plan Review to construct a 730 square foot addition on the south side of
Building 10 on the Boston Scientific Corporation Campus.
Associate Planner Bachler reported that Boston Scientific is requesting a Master PUD (11th)
Amendment and Site Plan Review to construct a 730 gross square foot addition on the south side of
Building 10, which is located in the south central portion of the Boston Scientific Campus. Building
10 is also identified on the campus Master Plan as Building D. The purpose of the addition is to
provide storage and support for ongoing product development and research.
Associate Planner Bachler indicated that the addition would infill an existing paved courtyard and
would match the adjacent roofline at approximately 13 feet above grade. The structure of the
building would be concrete masonry with a steel beam and deck roof structure. The exte rior finish
will be face brick with color and coursing to match the existing construction.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 7, 2014 6
Associate Planner Bachler commented that the existing landscaped area where the addition will
be constructed is turf grass with a mix of mature trees. All areas di sturbed by the construction will be
restored to their previous condition. Building 10 is heavily screened from the south by a wooded
wetland area located between the building and County Road F. The additional trees needed to meet
the City’s landscaping requirements would be added on the east side of Innovation Way near the
Cumming Park Drive turnaround.
Site Data
Land Use Plan: Light Industrial and Office
Existing Land Use: Light Industrial and Office
Zoning: I-1: Limited Industrial / PUD Overlay
Size: 92.8 acres
Proposed Density: N/A
Topography: Level
Associate Planner Bachler reviewed the surrounding area, Boston Scientific’s previous Planning
Cases, Master Plan and the Plan Review.
Associate Planner Bachler provided the Findings of Fact for review:
1. A Master PUD was approved for 4100 Hamline Avenue North in Planning Case #02-025.
2. The proposed 730 square foot addition to Building 10 was not included in the approved
Master Plan and an amendment to the PUD is therefore required.
3. The Master PUD requires that a Site Plan Review be applied for prior to the construction of
any building or addition.
4. The property is located in the I-1: Limited Industrial District.
5. The proposal is in conformance with the zoning and design standard requirements for the I-1:
Limited Industrial District.
6. The applicant has provided a Parking Calculation Plan that shows adequate “Proof of
Parking” spaces in the event that additional parking is needed.
7. The proposal is not expected to exceed noise limits set by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency.
8. The proposal will not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood or the City as a whole.
Associate Planner Bachler stated based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff
recommends approval of Planning Case 14-015 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment and
Site Plan Review at 4100 Hamline Avenue North. Staff recommends the following three (3)
conditions to be included with the approval:
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. A PUD Amendment drafted by the City Attorney shall be executed prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
3. The Master PUD Amendment and Site Plan Review shall automatically expire and become
void one (1) year after the date on which the Council granted such approval if work on the
project has not begun.
Associate Planner Bachler reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this
matter:
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 7, 2014 7
1. Recommend Approval with Conditions
2. Recommend Approval as Submitted.
3. Recommend Denial
4. Table
Vice Chair Thompson opened the floor to Commissioner comments.
Vice Chair Thompson opened the public hearing at 6:57 p.m.
Vice Chair Thompson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make
comment.
There being no additional comment Vice Chair Thompson closed the public hearing at 6:58
p.m.
Vice Chair Thompson asked if the proof of parking would be sufficient to meet the needs of the
site.
Associate Planner Bachler explained that Boston Scientific has not had any issues with parking
on the campus, and had reserved areas that could be developed into additional parking if there
was an increase in demand. He indicated that staff was recommending that the proof of parking
be accepted in lieu of additional parking stalls.
Vice Chair Thompson questioned if there were noise concerns that should be considered with
the proposed addition.
Associate Planner Bachler stated this was discussed with Boston Scientific. He reported that
one small additional rooftop unit would be added to Building 10. He did not anticipate that this
unit would impact the surrounding properties as it was a substantial distance from neighboring
properties.
Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Hames seconded a motion to recommend
approval of Planning Case 14-015 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site
Plan Review at 4100 Hamline Avenue North based on the findings of fact and the
submitted plans, as amended by the three (3) conditions in the May 7, 2014, report to the
Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
None.
REPORTS
A. Planning Commission Comments and Requests
None.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 7, 2014 8
B. Report from the City Council
Councilmember Holmes updated the Planning Commission on the City Council from the April
14, 2014, City Council TCAAP Work Session stating the City Council provided comments and
feedback on the Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) and Mitigation Plan for the
TCAAP redevelopment. An AUAR is a form of environmental documentation through Minnesota
State Rules that evaluates development scenarios for a geographical area rather than a specific
project. The Mitigation Plan provides information on the actions which are advisable, recommended,
or necessary to protect the environment and minimize potenti al impacts by the proposed
development scenarios.
Public comments on the Draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan will be accepted until May 28, 2014. The
documents are available on the City’s website for review. The City Council will review the final
AUAR and Mitigation Plan, including responses to public comments, on June 30. Final City Council
approval is scheduled for July 28.
At the April 21, 2014 Work Session, the City Council directed staff to update the existing contract
with Eureka Recycling to transition the City’s recycling program to single stream collection. The
switch to single stream will also allow for the collection of additional types of plastics. The recycling
program will continue to use the green bins currently being used by City residents. Be fore any
official changes to the program take place, educational materials will be provided to residents to
ensure correct collection procedures.
Councilmember Holmes noted that Eureka was aware of the organics collection mandate included
in the Ramsey County Solid Waste Plan and that staff would have further discussions with Eureka
regarding this when negotiating the contract extension later this year.
At the April 28, 2014 Regular Meeting, the City Council approved Ordinance 14-004 rezoning parks
and opens spaces managed by the City and Ramsey County as Parks and Open Space District, and
Ordinance 14-005 rezoning portions of the Arden Hills Army Training Site as Conservation District.
The City Council also approved Planning Case 14-012, which was a request from Hood Packing for
a PUD Amendment allowing for the installation of an additional exterior storage tank on their
property. The Planning Commission recommended approval of both of these planning cases at their
April meeting.
The City Council also approved the request brought forward by the City to vacate certain portions of
right-of-way and easements in the area of Round Lake Road and Gateway Court, and to approve a
Preliminary and Final Plat of the Gateway 2 nd Addition to correct and/or combine particular parcels.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of this request at their April meeting.
C. TCAAP Update
City Planner Streff reported that during the months of January, February, and March, staff and
consultants collected public comments on the draft Master Plan at meetings and events including:
Joint Development Authority meeting, January 6, 2014
Planning Commission work session, January 8, 2014
Public Open House, January 22, 2014
Five Cities meeting, March 10, 2014
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 7, 2014 9
Development Interviews, January 30, February 20, and March 12, 2014
On April 14, 2014, the City Council reviewed a summary of public comments compiled by
Kimley-Horn.
On April 21, 2014, the City Council discussed recommendations from the Parks, Trails, and
Recreation Committee (PTRC) for amenities needed within each park area. The PTRC
recommendations, which were accepted by the City Council, can be summarized as follows:
Park areas in neighborhoods should include play structures, a gazebo, and off-street
parking (located either in lots or in bump-outs along the public street);
Parks should be located nearer to center or at the entrance to residential neighborhoods so
that park traffic is not routed through the neighborhood;
An adult athletic facility (softball and hockey) should be located adjacent to a County
road. This facility should be lighted and ideally will have shared parking with adjacent
businesses.
City Planner Streff indicated that the City Council also discussed goals for the surface water
amenity on April 21. Council comments included:
Pond areas should be well-maintained and should have water present at all times;
Ponds may be connected by natural areas or a “brook” environment;
Trails and benches should be included so that the surface water management can also be a
site amenity.
City Planner Streff explained that the City Council is scheduled to discuss residential densities
and the flex space land use on May 19, 2014. In preparation for this meeting, the City Council
was provided with suggestions for a self-guided mobile tour highlighting various types of
residential and commercial development. Planning Commission members may be interested in
the self-guided tour as well since it is relevant to upcoming discussions on zoning requirements
and design standards for residential and commercial development. The City Council was also
given three articles recommended by JDA Chair David Sand:
Mixed-Income Housing – Myth and Fact
Higher Density Development – Myth and Fact
Visualizing Density, Chapter One
City Planner Streff reported that the City Council reviewed the draft Alternative Urban
Areawide Review (AUAR) on April 14, 2014. The draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan was
published in the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor on April 28, 2014. The document
was also sent to adjacent cities, the Mounds View School District, Rice Creek Watershed
District, the Minnesota National Guard, and other stakeholders and interested parties. Public
comments on the draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan will be accepted until May 28, 2014. The City
Council is tentatively scheduled to approve the final document on July 28, 2014.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 7, 2014 10
City Planner Streff stated that Ramsey County, in cooperation with the City of Arden Hills, has
solicited proposals from engineering consultants for development and design of TCAAP Site
Infrastructure. The scope of services includes analysis, development, and preliminary and final
design of on-site public infrastructure to support the redevelopment including major roadways,
regional stormwater management facilities, sanitary sewer, and watermain. The consultant will
also assist the County and City in developing a site grading plan, mitigating impacts to existing
wetlands, and site platting.
City Planner Streff commented that proposals are due May 1 and work is expected to begin by
the end of the month. Getting the consultant started as soon as possible will enable coordination
between the design of on-site infrastructure with adjacent interchange improvements in order to
prepare the site for development in 2016. Both the County and City will participate in the cost of
the consultant work as outlined in a cost sharing agreement.
City Planner Streff indicated that the City submitted a Project Concept Plan, which is
essentially a pre-application to the Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA), on
Thursday, May 1, 2014. The application includes a request for $1,605,000 in Livable Community
Act (LCA) funds as follows:
Use Description Request
Sidewalks and Trails Sidewalks and trails from the North Gateway entrance
through the Town Center
$105,000
Lighting Pedestrian-scale decorative lighting at the North Gateway
entrance and south through the Town Center
$400,000
Landscaping Landscaping at the North Gateway entrance and along the
spine road through the Town Center
$250,000
Site Preparation and
Grading
Grading work associated with the remeandering of Rice
Creek at the North Gateway entrance to restore natural
creek alignment and floodplain and to accommodate
amenities and local roadway connections
$650,000
Architecture and
Engineering
Architecture and engineering for the design of
improvements listed above
$200,000
By June 2, 2014, the Metropolitan Council will notify the City if it will be invited to submit a full
application. The deadline for the full application is June 30, 2014.
City Planner Streff stated that TCAAP-related topics will be discussed at the following regular
and special City Council meetings and work sessions. Planning Commissioners may choose to
attend meetings to hear presentations and City Council discussion.
May 12, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room
Infrastructure Study Update and City Cost Participation Agreement
City TCAAP Finances Discussion
May 19, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm; Council Chambers
Ramsey County Financial Model
Residential Development and Densities
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 7, 2014 11
Flex Space Land Use Discussion
May 27, 2014 (Tuesday), Special Work Session at 5:30 pm,
I-35W/Highway 96 Interchange Discussion
June 9, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room
Discussion topics to be determined (infrastructure, regulations and policies, etc.)
June 16, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers
Review Revised Master Plan
Review Aesthetics for I-35W Bridges
June 30, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room
Review Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
June 30, 2014, Regular Meeting at 7:00 pm, Council Chambers
Approve Master Plan
Municipal Consent for I-35W/Highway 96
July 14, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers
Discussion topics to be determined (infrastructure, regulations and policies, etc.)
July 21, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room
Discussion topics to be determined (infrastructure, regulations and policies, etc.)
July 28, 2014, Regular Meeting at 7:00 pm, Council Chambers
Approve Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
Staff 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.
ADJOURN
Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, to adjourn the May
7, 2014, Planning Commission Meeting at 7:24 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (6-0).
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-017 - Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\Memo_Reports_14-017
Page 1 of 11
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 4, 2014 PC Agenda Item 3.A
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case #14-017 – No Public Hearing Required
Applicant: Chad & Sasha Myers
Property Location: 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard
Request: Variance
Requested Action
The applicant is requesting three (3) variances in order to reconstruct and expand a
nonconforming accessory structure located at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard.
1) Expand the nonconforming structure from twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet
to twenty-four (24) feet by twenty-six (26) feet and change the direction of the roofline
from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientation.
2) Rotate the structure approximately fifteen (15) degrees to align the garage with the
western property line and the angle of the existing home.
3) Encroach into the side yard setback an additional two (2) feet leaving a setback of
approximately four (4) feet between the property line and the accessory structure.
Background
1. Overview of Request
The applicants in this case own the property located at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard. The
property is zoned R-2 Single & Two Family Residential and is generally positioned north of
Noble Road, south of Grant Road, east of Fairview Avenue North and west of Lake
Johanna/Lake Johanna Boulevard. The property is located on a through-lot between
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-017 - Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\Memo_Reports_14-017
Page 2 of 11
Fairview Avenue and Lake Johanna Boulevard and consists of a conforming single family
dwelling and a nonconforming detached accessory structure.
The applicants are proposing to reconstruct and expand the nonconforming accessory
structure on the property 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. Along Fairview Avenue, the
proposed structure would encroach at the same distance along the entire length of the garage
as a new alignment is being proposed to align the structure with the western property line.
As proposed the roofline of the accessory structure would also change from an east/west
orientation to a north/south orientation in order for the garage to be accessible from the
existing driveway.
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. Following the construction, an addition to the existing driveway
would be added so that the new garage would be accessible from the current access to the
property.
The applicants have submitted a narrative of the proposed project and a response to the
variance evaluation criteria (Attachment A), a survey and a site plan of the property
(Attachment B), and garage elevations and building plans (Attachment C).
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
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.
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 Water – Lake Johanna Water – Lake Johanna Water – Lake Johanna
West Low Density Residential R-2: Single & Two Family
Residential
Single Family Detached
Residential
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-017 - Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\Memo_Reports_14-017
Page 3 of 11
Plan Evaluation
1. R-1 Regulations, Existing Conditions, and Proposed Redevelopment
A. Lot Size & Dimensions – Meets
Requirements
The main lot is 15,241 square feet in size
with approximate dimensions of 100 feet
in width, and 165 feet in depth and the
smaller lot adjacent to Lake Johanna is
approximately 520 square feet. Combined
the two lots total 15,761 square feet.
Although under common ownership, the
property adjacent to Lake Johanna cannot
contribute toward the total lot area for the
main lot.
B. Structure Setbacks – Variance Required
The existing accessory structure on the
property does not currently meet the setback requirements in the R-2 Zoning District and
is therefore a nonconforming structure. The single family dwelling on the property meets
the setback requirements for the R-2 Zoning District.
The existing detached accessory structure is considered a nonconforming structure
because of its location within the thirty (30) foot designated setback for a through-lot 1
1 Through-Lots.
.
The existing accessory structure encroaches between twenty-four (24) 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 five (5) feet six (6) inches at its furthest point and eight
(8) inches at its closest point from the west property line. The existing accessory
A lot that has a pair of opposite lot lines abutting two (2) substantially parallel streets,
and which is not a corner lot. On a through-lot, the determination of whether the street
frontage is to be considered a front yard or rear yard shall be as subject to the provisions
in the Zoning Code.
The Zoning Administrator may determine that one of the front yards may be deemed a
rear yard and shall determine appropriate rear yard setback regulations. Factors to be
considered shall include topography, location of structures on the lot, location of
structures on adjacent lots, and the type of streets or thoroughfares abutting the lot.
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 June 4, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-017 - Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\Memo_Reports_14-017
Page 4 of 11
structure encroaches three (3) feet eleven (11) inches into the ten (10) foot setback along
the southern property line, leaving a setback of six (6) feet one (1) inch between the
structure and the south property line. The Zoning Code permits detached accessory
structures within this district; however, they are not permitted within the designated
setbacks for a through-lot.
As indicated by the applicant, the proposed accessory structure would encroach twenty-
nine (29) feet four (4) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along Fairview Avenue and
an additional two (2) feet into the ten (10) foot setback along the southern property line.
This would leave a setback of eight (8) inches from the west property line and a setback
of four (4) feet three (3) inches from the south property line. The proposed structure
would increase the footprint of the existing detached garage from twenty-two (22) feet by
twenty-two (22) feet to twenty-four (24) feet by twenty-six (26) feet. This would be an
increase of 140 square feet. As proposed the roofline of 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.
C. Lot Coverage – Meets Requirements
The existing and proposed lot coverage 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%.
Proposed Lot Coverage = 33.66%
Proposed Landscape Coverage = 66.34%
D. Structure Height – Meets Requirements
The Zoning Code states that accessory structures in the R-2 District shall not exceed
fifteen (15) feet or the height of the principal structure to which it is accessory, whichever
Existing Proposed
Square Feet % Square Feet %
House/Garage 2,314 15.18% 2,314 15.18%
Accessory Structure 486 3.19% 624 4.09%
Decks/Patios -- -- -- --
Driveway/Walkways 1,725 11.32% 2,193 14.39%
Structural Coverage 4,525 29.69% 5,131 33.66%
Landscaping Coverage 70.31% 66.34%
Lot Size 15,241
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-017 - Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\Memo_Reports_14-017
Page 5 of 11
is lower. The proposed structure would not exceed the 15-foot height maximum for
accessory structures.
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. Both the existing
structure at 484 square feet and proposed accessory structure at 624 square feet do not
exceed this requirement.
F. Tree Preservation – Meets Requirements
The proposed construction should not impact the trees on the property. If any trees 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. Non-conforming Buildings
A building found to be nonconforming because of height, setbacks or lot area, may continue
to exist so long as it is used for the purposes permitted in the zoning district in which it is
located and is in conformance with Section 1350.02.
Nonconforming buildings shall not be expanded, but may be continued, including through
repair, replacement, restoration, and maintenance.
*Three variances are being proposed to address the nonconforming status of the accessory
structure.
3. Through-Lots – Front Yard/Rear Yard Designation
For properties determined to be through-lots, the Zoning Administrator may determine that
one of the front yards may be deemed a rear yard and shall determine appropriate rear yard
setback regulations. Factors to be considered shall include topography, location of structures
on the lot, location of structures on adjacent lots, and the type of streets or thoroughfares
abutting the lot.
In 2010, when the new single family structure was built, Fairview Avenue (western property
line) was deemed the rear property line and Lake Johanna Boulevard (eastern property line)
was deemed the front property line based on prevailing setbacks of other principle structures
in the immediate vicinity. This allowed for a reduction in the setback along Fairview Avenue
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-017 - Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\Memo_Reports_14-017
Page 6 of 11
from forty (40) feet to thirty (30) feet based on the through-lot criteria stated in the Zoning
Code.
The rear yard designation along Fairview Avenue was appropriate when used for the
placement of the principle structure on this lot. However, the same designation allowing ten
(10) foot setbacks for the placement of an accessory structure along the west and south
property lines is not currently supported by staff in this case, as there are no similar
prevailing setbacks for accessory structures on similar lots in the immediate vicinity. Staff
has reviewed the through-lot criteria and has determined that a rear yard setback of thirty
(30) feet from Fairview Avenue and a ten (10) foot side yard setback from the southern
property line are appropriate for accessory structures located within the rear yard. The thirty
(30) foot setback designation has been based on the current setback of the principle structure
and the location of other principle and accessory structures on adjacent lots in the immediate
vicinity.
4. Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements
The proposed addition is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements.
5. 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 3441 Lake
Johanna Boulevard.
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.
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”.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-017 - Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\Memo_Reports_14-017
Page 7 of 11
Therefore, in evaluating variance requests under the new law, in order to find a practical
difficulty, cities should adopt findings addressing the following questions:
• Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance?
• Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan?
• Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner?
• Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner?
• Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
As was the case before the new legislation took effect, economic considerations alone cannot
constitute a practical difficulty. Furthermore, the new law clarifies that conditions may be
imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to and bear a rough
proportionality to the impact created by the variance.
Findings of Fact
Staff offers the following twenty (20) 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-four (24) 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 five (5) 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 eleven (11) inches into the ten
(10) foot setback along the south property line, leaving a setback of six (6) feet one (1)
inch between the structure and the south property line.
6. The existing accessory structure does not encroach into the north or west property line
setbacks.
7. The proposed accessory structure encroaches twenty-nine (29) feet four (4) inches into
the thirty (30) foot setback along the entire length of the structure.
8. The proposed accessory structure encroaches an additional two (2) feet into the south
property line setback.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-017 - Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\Memo_Reports_14-017
Page 8 of 11
9. The proposed accessory structure increases the footprint from twenty-two (22) feet by
twenty-two (22) feet or 484 square feet to twenty-four (24) feet by twenty-six (26) feet or
624 square feet. An increase of 140 square feet.
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.
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. Detached accessory structures are permitted and a reasonable use within the R-2 Single &
Two Family Residential Zoning District.
18. The lot has rather unique characteristics as the property slopes towards Lake Johanna
approximately 18 feet from west to east leaving limited options for expansion or
movement of the accessory structure to an area that meets the setback regulations.
19. 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.
20. The proposed plans and requested variances for the accessory structure do not appear to
be based on economic considerations alone.
Discussion
A detached accessory structure is a permitted use in the R-2 Zoning District and is a reasonable
request for the subject property. However, it is unclear to staff if the expansion of this
nonconforming use meets the City’s Variance Criteria under the State’s Law for “Practical
Difficulties”. The variance is unlikely to negatively impact the neighborhood or the City as a
structure already exists in the proposed location on the property, but the expansion to increase its
nonconforming status may or may not be warranted in this situation. Staff is not directly in
support of the proposal as submitted; however, with the conditions stated in this report, staff’s
concerns could be mitigated.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-017 - Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\Memo_Reports_14-017
Page 9 of 11
Recommendation
The findings of fact for the variance do not specifically support a recommendation for denial or
approval.
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 to encroach no further into
the west and south property lines than the existing structure, leaving a setback of five
(5) feet six (6) inches from the west property line and a setback of six (6) feet one (1)
inch 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.
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.
Options
Before making a motion for approval or denial, the Planning Commission must make findings to
determine whether or not the request falls under the State’s Law for “Practical Difficulties” by
addressing the following questions:
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-017 - Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\Memo_Reports_14-017
Page 10 of 11
1. Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance?
2. Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan?
3. Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner?
4. Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner?
5. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case
14-017 for a variance at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard to replace the existing nonconforming
accessory structure with minor modifications to the location and roofline, based on the
findings of fact, the submitted plans, and the ten (10) conditions in the June 4, 2014, Report
to the Planning Commission.
2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 14-
017 for a variance at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard to replace and expand the existing
nonconforming accessory structure with minor modifications to the location and roofline,
based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the June 4, 2014, Report to the
Planning Commission.
3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 14-017 for a variance at
3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard to replace and/or expand the existing nonconforming
accessory structure with minor modifications to the location and roofline based on the
following findings of fact…
4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 14-017 for a variance at 3441 Lake Johanna
Boulevard to replace and/or expand the existing nonconforming accessory structure with
minor modifications to the location and roofline: 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 six (6) letters from neighboring property owners in support of the project at
3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-017 - Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\Memo_Reports_14-017
Page 11 of 11
Deadline for Agency Actions
The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on May 5, 2014.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by July 4, 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. Survey and Site Plan
C. Garage Elevations/Building Plans
D. Aerial Photo
E. Property Photos
F. Letters from Neighboring Residents
May 5, 2014
Mr. Ryan Streff, City Planner
Department of Planning and Zoning
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
Re: 2014 Land Use Application for Variance from Zoning Code for proposed
garage rebuild at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard, Arden Hills, MN 55112.
Dear Mr. Streff:
I am writing to file the attached Land Use Application for a Variance related to our
garage rebuild project at our home at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard. I have enclosed
the Application form, a description of the proposed project and narrative describing how
the application meets the six hardship criteria, a site survey with proposed garage
location, architectural plans for the proposed garage, a drainage and stormwater
management plan, two site plans for alternative layout scenarios, and photos of the
existing garage and property. I have also included separate checks for the application
fee and escrow. Please let us know if you require any further information.
I also discussed the proposed plan with Patrick Hughes at the Rice Creek Watershed
District, and he confirmed that a RCWD permit will not be required.
Thanks for your time and consideration,
Chad Myers
Project Description
Chad & Sasha Myers Garage Rebuild
3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard
Arden Hills, MN 55112
Brief Summary of Variance Request:
We propose to demolish a non -conforming detached garage in very poor condition on
our property and reconstruct a new garage in its place with modest adjustments to its
positioning and footprint. Specifically, we are requesting a variance to:
(a) rotate the new structure by 15o to align it with our house and the street for
aesthetic reasons, and
(b) increase the footprint from 22’ x 22’ to 26’ x 24’ to allow for reasonable use of
this garage.
These changes would require an additional 2 ft. encroachment into our south side yard
setback relative to the current structure. The maximum rear setback encroachment will
remain the same as the existing structure and all other aspects of the garage
construction will conform to the Zoning Code. The unique topology of our property,
which includes a 26 ft. decrease in elevation from the west to the east property line,
does not allow for the practical placement of a conforming detached garage, which is
the reason for this variance request.
Details of Proposed Project and Justification:
Background
We have been residents of Arden Hills since 2008, and in June of 2013, we bought our
current home on Lake Johanna Boulevard. The previous owner demolished the original
house on the property to construct a new home in 2010, but he left the original detached
garage intact. This garage is in very poor condition to the extent that it significantly
detracts from the character of the neighborhood (see attached photos). Due to serious
structural issues (a major crack in the slab) in addition to numerous more cosmetic
flaws, we have determined that remodeling is not practical , but we do need the storage
space provided by the detached garage as our house only has a 2-car attached garage.
Thus, we would like to demolish and reconstruct the detached garage.
The current detached garage is not a conforming structure because it
encroaches into the rear and side setbacks (10 ft.) on the west and south property lines,
respectively. The garage currently sits 6.1 ft. from the south property line (side), and 8
in. from the west property line (rear). Furthermore, the two garage doors open to the
west into the street, which is also not in conformance as we have a separate driveway
connecting to our attached garage.
The proposed reconstruction plan
As described in the project summary, we are proposing to reconstruct a detached
garage where the existing structure is located with two modifications: (a) rotate the new
structure by 15o to align it with our house, and (b) increase the footprint from 22’ x 22’ to
26’ x 24’ to allow for reasonable use of this garage (see attached site survey with
proposed footprint). The rotation is for aesthetic reasons to ensure the garage wall and
rooflines match the angle of our house and are parallel to the street. We are proposing
to increase the footprint to allow for reasonable use of our property. Since our property
includes lakeshore frontage on Lake Johanna, we and future owners of our property
have storage needs associated with our use and maintenance of our lakeshore
property. At the time the original garage was built, a 22 ft. garage may have
accommodated most boats in common use at the time, but today, boats greater than 20
ft. in length are quite commonly used on lakes lik e Lake Johanna and garage stalls of
~23-25 ft. can be required to accommodate such boats (extra space for platforms,
trailer, etc). Thus, boat storage in addition to space for other recreational vehicles (e.g.
kayaks, canoes, bikes), equipment (e.g. dock sections), and standard yard maintenance
equipment, necessitate larger than a 22’x22’ structure. We feel strongly that the
character of our city benefits when boats and other equipment associated with lake
living are stored inside as opposed to on yards or in alleys. We propose to build a
garage that is large enough to accommodate these items, wh ich we consider
reasonable use of our lakeshore property and suspect that future owners of our home
will share this perspective.
The combination of the proposed modifications to the footprint will require an
additional 2 ft. encroachment into our south side yard setback relative to the current
structure. We are not able to move the garage further to the north to avoid this
encroachment or the detached structure will be less than 6 ft. from our house, which is
not in conformance. Aside from the setbacks, the garage will conform to all other zoning
requirements: average roof mid-peak height will be less than 15 ft, landscape
percentage of lot will remain >65%, garage floor area will be less than 728 ft2, and the
garage doors of the proposed garage will face our current driveway instead of directly
accessing the street.
We are working with the original builder of the home, Zawadski Homes, and an
architect who helped in the design of the original house, NRDI. Plans for the new
garage are complete (see attached drawing) and were custom designed to match the
architecture of the house as well as the specific construction materials: the proposed
roof pitch is 6:12 just as for the house, HardieBoard fiber cement siding of the same
color will be used, roofing to match the house, and windows of the same style on all four
sides of the garage will be included. To avoid the use of fill in our yard, which is
susceptible to erosion issues due to its significant slope, we will build a short ~2 ft.
retaining wall against the west wall of the new garage which maintains the slope down
to Fairview Avenue from our yard. The new garage will be tied into the existing contours
of the yard, so the impact on the current drainage setup will be minimal (see attached
Drainage/Stormwater Management Plan).
Why not rebuild a conforming detached garage?
Given that we want to change the footprint of our detached garage, we would ideally
build a new garage that is in complete conformance with the Zoning Code. We have
considered several conforming options and conclude that this is simply not practical
given the unique topology of our lot and the positioning of our house. First, given the 26
ft. slope from the west to east property line, the garage cannot be pushed very far east
of Fairview Avenue without requiring a large amount of fill to allow access from the road.
Furthermore, on the west side of our property, the position of our house prevents us
from moving the garage north due to the required 6 ft. spacing between the principal
and any accessory structure. These two constraints substantially limit the possibilities
for a detached garage location. To illustrate the issues with a conforming garage
location, we identified two possible scenarios that satisfy the 10 ft. side and rear setback
requirements (see the two corresponding attachments). We estimate that both options
would require between 225-270 cubic ft. (25-30 cubic yds) of fill to accommodate the
downward slope of the yard. Most critically, both of these options would place the
garage within 6 ft. of our house and directly on the main drainage route for our yard,
which would require significant regrading and potentially result in serious drainage and
erosion issues. Both possibilities would also require an extra ~200 sq. ft. of driveway
surface to connect the garage with our existing driveway for access to the street, and
would essentially cover the only flat section of sideyard we have on the propert y. Thus,
we conclude that these conforming options are impractical given the topology of our lot.
Support from the neighbors
The proposed garage reconstruction was discussed with 6 neighbors adjacent to our
property, who all expressed their enthusiastic support for the plan (see attached
supporting letters). In particular, the neighbor to the south of our property, toward whom
our new garage structure will move slightly has approved of the project (see letter from
Nyuget Ky, 3433 Lake Johanna Blvd). Several neighbors mentioned that they are
anxious to see this major eyesore on our street replaced by an aesthetically pleasing
garage that is consistent with the look and the quality of our house.
Analysis of Hardship Criteria:
A specific response to each hardship criterion is included below:
1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions
allowed by the official controls.
Given that the existing garage is non -conforming, any change to the footprint
would not be allowed by official controls. The current garage footprint is not
aligned with our house and thus, will significantly detract from the site’s
aesthetics if it were to be reconstructed as is. Furthermore, the existing footprint
will not accommodate the storage of bo ats and other equipment that are typically
associated with a lakeshore property, which are reasonable use of our property.
The unique topology of our lot severely limits the practicality of any conforming
arrangement of the detached structure.
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner.
Our situation is the result of three factors: location and condition of the existing
detached garage, the relative location of the house to the detached structu re,
and the steep incline (26 ft.) of our lot from the west to east property lines. We
had no role in creating any of these circumstances.
3. The deviation from the Ordinance with any attached conditions will still be in keeping
with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance.
We believe the proposed variance preserves the spirit and intent of the
Ordinance. We are proposing relatively modest changes to the existing footprint,
that will result in a substantially more functional garage that allows for reasonable
use of our property for us and any future owners. The end product will be an
aesthetically pleasing garage with high-quality construction that blends in with
and raises the character of our neighborhood with little to no negative impact on
our own or our neighbors’ property. We are also improving the conformance of
the structure with respect to the placement of the garage doors relative to the
street.
4. The variance will not create a land use not permitted in the zone.
The proposed garage will be used only for personal storage, which is permitted in
the current zoning of the property.
5. The variance will not alter the essential character of the City.
We believe that the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the
city. On the contrary, if approved, our garage reconstruction project will remove a
major eyesore from our neighborhood, which will improve the character and
encourage investment in other properties in the area.
6. The variance is not for economic reasons alone.
We are not requesting this variance for economic reasons. Our primary
motivation is to improve the aesthetics of our property and neighborhood, and to
make the garage as functional as possible while not negatively impacting the site
for us or our neighbors.
3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard Garage Project, May 2014
Proposed Garage Location
Proposed
retaining wall
Proposed
driveway
Existing garage
Proposed footprint
6 ft.
4.3 ft.
Existing Proposed
Lot area: 15,761 sq. ft. 15,761 sq. ft.
Lot covered by structure: 2800 sq. ft. 2939 sq. ft.
Landscape area: 11236 sq. ft. = 71% 10,734 sq. ft. = 68%
Principal Building footprint: 2128 sq. ft. 2128 sq. ft.
Accessory Building footprint: 486 sq. ft. 624 sq. ft.
Total area of driveway/walkways: 1725 sq. ft. 2193 sq. ft.
Setbacks Existing Proposed
Principal Structure:
Front yard: 47" 9' 47" 9'
Rear yard: 30' 6" 30' 6"
Side yard: 7' 7"/40' 9" 7' 7"/40' 9"
Accessory structure:
Front yard: 141' 1" 139' 7"
Rear yard: 8" 8"
Side yard: 6' 3" / 63' 3" 4' 3" / 59' 4"
3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard Garage Project, May 2014
Drainage/Stormwater Management Plan
Silt fence during
construction
Existing retaining wall
Primary drainage path (drains side
yard, ~50% of garage, and ~30%
of house stormwater)
Proposed
retaining wall
Proposed
driveway
3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard Garage Project, May 2014
Attempt at Conforming Positioning: Scenario #1
Existing retaining wall
Primary drainage path (drains side
yard, ~50% of garage, and ~30%
of house stormwater)
10 ft.
4.5 ft.
Additional driveway area
needed beyond proposed
plan (concrete or pavers)
3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard Garage Project, May 2014
Attempt at Conforming Positioning: Scenario #2
Existing retaining wall
Primary drainage path (drains side
yard, ~50% of garage, and ~30%
of house stormwater)
10 ft.
5.5 ft.
Additional driveway area
needed beyond proposed
plan (concrete or pavers)
3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard Garage Project, May 2014
Garage Plans
Map D ate: May 29, 2014P:\GIS_Data\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-017¯3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard
3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard - Variance - PC 14-017
F
a
i
r
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
n
u
e
N
o
r
t
h
L
a
k
e
J
o
h
a
n
n
a
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Photos of existing garage and property
3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard Garage Project, May 2014
Aerial photo of property
3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard Garage Project, May 2014
Mr. Ryan Streff, City Planner
Department of Planning and Zoning
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
Dear Mr. Streff and the City of Arden Hills Planning Commission:
As neighbors of Chad and Sasha Myers, we have added our signatures below to
express our support for their proposed plans to rebuild the detached garage on their
property at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard. Chad and Sasha have reviewed their
building plans with uS, including the proposed placement of the garage and new
footprint. We find these plans acceptable and believe that this reconstruction will
significantly improve the character of the neighborhood. We hope the Planning
Commission will approve a variance and allow them to proceed with construction.
Sincerely,
Neighbors of Chad & Sasha Myers
Name:
Address:
Phone:
Signature:
Date:
f1 vJ en fhl lo 'i1 /')(v r \L
17
Mr. Ryan Streff, City Planner
Department of Planning and Zoning
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
Dear Mr. Streff and the City of Arden Hills Planning Commission:
As neighbors of Chad and Sasha Myers, we have added our signatures below to
express our support for their proposed plans to rebuild the detached garage on their
property at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard. Chad and Sasha have reviewed their
building plans with us, including the proposed placement of the garage and new
footprint. We find these plans acceptable and believe that this reconstruction will
significantly improve the character of the neighborhood. We hope the Planning
Commission will approve a variance and allow them to proceed with construction.
Sincerely,
Neighbors of Chad & Sasha Myers
Name:
Address:
Phone:
Signature:
Date:
7A<- Liq - /L/K>
Mr. Ryan Streff, City Planner
Department of Planning and Zoning
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
Dear Mr. Streff and the City of Arden Hills Planning Commission:
As neighbors of Chad and Sasha Myers, we have added our signatures below to
express our support for their proposed plans to rebuild the detached garage on their
property at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard. Chad and Sasha have reviewed their
building plans with us, including the proposed placement of the garage and new
footprint. We find these plans acceptable and believe that this reconstruction will
significantly improve the character of the neighborhood. We hope the Planning
Commission will approve a variance and allow them to proceed with construction.
Sincerely,
Neighbors of Chad & Sasha Myers
Name: a;. C'+rJ'rerr
Address: 3'f.\ lj L.-*L.- - J.-!1..v!v\,i.. B\lzal
phone: b\z kc"[ 7r"c I
signature, 1 *"-i/ }rLl,f
Date: 5tS '4
Mr. Ryan Streff, City Planner
Department of Planning and Zoning
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
Dear Mr. Streff and the City of Arden Hills Planning Commission:
As neighbors of Chad and Sasha Myers, we have added our signatures below to
express our support for their proposed plans to rebuild the detached garage on their
property at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard. Chad and Sasha have reviewed their
building plans with us, including the proposed placement of the garage and new
footprint. We find these plans acceptable and believe that this reconstruction will
significantly improve the character of the neighborhood. We hope the Planning
Commission will approve a variance and allow them to proceed with construction.
Sincerely,
Neighbors of Chad & Sasha Myers
Name:
Address:
Phone:
Signature:
</-.,^. {Su-{ r cla*1
I <,t) C ftr\-N- 1,. , O
Date: {- 7->>,tt
Mr. Ryan Streff, City Planner
Department of Planning and Zoning
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
Dear Mr. Streff and the City of Arden Hills Planning Commission:
As neighbors of Chad and Sasha Myers, we have added our signatures below to
express our support for their proposed plans to rebuild the detached garage on their
property at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard. Chad and Sasha have reviewed their
building plans with us, including the proposed placement of the garage and new
footprint. We find these plans acceptable and believe that this reconstruction will
significantly improve the character of the neighborhood. We hope the Planning
Commission will approve a variance and allow them to proceed with construction.
Sincerely,
Neighbors of Chad & Sasha Myers
Name: Gu"r ctJol6# r,,'^'
Address: lf Tt /rob/.&".*.t
Phone: /t7,0)1- 1L+4'
Signature:
Date: /'t' ,,- \ , )-t 1 4
L
Mr. Ryan Streff, City Planner
Department of Planning and Zoning
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
Dear Mr. Streff and the City of Arden Hills Planning Commission:
As neighbors of Chad and Sasha Myers, we have added our signatures below to
express our support for their proposed plans to rebuild the detached garage on their
property at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard. Chad and Sasha have reviewed their
building plans with us, including the proposed placement of the garage and new
footprint. We find these plans acceptable and believe that this reconstruction will
significantly improve the character of the neighborhood. We hope the Planning
Commission will approve a variance and allow them to proceed with construction.
Sincerely,
Neighbors of Chad & Sasha Myers
Name: h /J 0,.'"', 14 n ll,t4 r n
Address: L! 35 fvrda* Rrs nr.l ri,-cien #i lls lLt^i 55 I I L
Phone: h;t- 3A+-4+qu
Signature: ilatt,x-i /zy'rr%atN*t
Date: {h /14
_________________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-019 - Zoning Code Amendment - Lighting Regulations\Memos_14-019
Page 1 of 4
DATE: June 4, 2014 PC Agenda Item 3.B
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case #14-019: Zoning Code Amendment – Lighting Regulations
Requested Action
Provide further direction on how the Zoning Code could be updated to improve the City’s
regulations regarding exterior lighting.
Background
The 2014 Planning Commission Work Plan was discussed and adopted at the March 17, 2014,
City Council Work Session. One of the items on the plan concerns light-emitting diode (LED)
lighting. Compared to incandescent lighting, LED lights produce a greater amount of luminosity,
or brightness. The City Council asked staff to review the City’s existing regulations on lighting
and to update relevant ordinances if necessary to address the potential impacts associated with
brighter LED lights. This memo provides an overview of the sections in the Zoning Code that
regulate lighting and also discusses ideas for additional regulations that could be considered.
Based on the direction provided by the Planning Commission, staff will draft an ordinance that
would amend the Zoning Code to update the City’s lighting regulations.
Zoning Code Review
Provisions on lighting are generally confined to Section 1325.05 Design Standards in the Zoning
Code. Lighting is required to be directed away from adjacent lots and streets and the source of
illumination must be controlled in such a way that light is only directed onto the site. The Zoning
Code restricts light trespass by stipulating that light cast onto adjacent travel lanes or roadways
cannot exceed 1.0 foot candle and 0.4 foot candles on adjoining residential properties. No more
MEMORANDUM
_________________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-019 - Zoning Code Amendment - Lighting Regulations\Memos_14-019
Page 2 of 4
than 25 percent of non-residential façades that are visible from residential properties can be
illuminated by direct light from a source such as a flood light.
Section 1320 District Regulations includes special requirements for specific districts in the City.
The Neighborhood Business, B-4 Retail Center, Gateway Business, and Civic Center Districts all
have special requirements regarding lighting that go beyond the provisions in Section 1325.05:
• In the Neighborhood Business District, accent lighting is only permitted when used to
delineate the main entrance into a building. Parking lot lighting is restricted to a
maximum of 14 feet in height.
• In the B-4 Retail Center District, the source of illumination must be concealed so as not
to be visible from adjoining lots and streets. Accent lighting of buildings and sites may be
permitted by the City. A lighting plan including the location, type, and design of light
fixtures is required when development that involves new construction, redevelopment, or
significant modification to an existing building is proposed.
• In the Gateway Business District, the source of illumination must be concealed so as not
to be visible from adjoining lots and streets, or residential areas east and south of Round
Lake. Accent lighting of buildings and sites may be permitted by the City. A lighting plan
including the location, type, and design of light fixtures is required when development
that involves new construction, redevelopment, or significant modification to an existing
building is proposed.
• In the Civic Center District, exterior lighting is required to be consistent in type, design,
and scale to create unity in the district. The source of illumination must be concealed so
as not to be visible from adjoining lots and streets, or residential areas south of Highway
96. Light washing of buildings is prohibited and wall packs are only allowed at building
entrances. Accent lighting of buildings and sites may be permitted by the City. A
photometric plan and a lighting plan including the location, type, and design of light
fixtures is required when development that involves new construction, redevelopment, or
significant modification to an existing building is proposed.
The Additional Design Standards for the B-2 and B-3 Districts (Section 1325.05 Subdivision 8)
also include lighting standards that only apply to building or site elements being developed or
altered. For example, the lighting standards could come into effect if the remodeling of a parking
lot was proposed. A lighting plan including the location, type, and design of light fixtures is
required in all cases, and a photometric analysis is needed for new construction or
redevelopment. Consistency in lighting in terms of type, design, scale, and color is required to
create unity in the district, and the City may require certain types of lighting color. Excessive
lighting is not permitted for any building or parking lot lighting. For gasoline stations, canopy
lighting must be recessed so as not to be visible from the street. Light washing and accent
lighting may only be allowed if it does not negatively impact residential areas or traffic safety.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-019 - Zoning Code Amendment - Lighting Regulations\Memos_14-019
Page 3 of 4
Discussion
Staff has begun to research how other cities regulate lighting in their communities and has come
across four general approaches to addressing the impact of exterior lighting on adjoining
properties. These approaches are not mutually exclusive and can be used in combination with
one another:
1. Limit the total overall amount of light that can be used on a site
• This is typically addressed by setting an allowance for the total initial luminaire
lumens allowed using a Parking Space Method (# of lumens per parking stall) or a
Hardscape Area Method (# of lumens per square foot).
• In order to determine compliance, a lighting plan would be required that includes the
lumen output for each light fixture on the site.
2. Limit the maximum lumen level for individual exterior light fixtures
• This can be addressed by setting a maximum allowable lumen rating for backlighting,
uplighting, and glare for each light fixture. Communities that have taken this
approach have set their standards based on recommendations made by the
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA).
• In order to determine compliance, a lighting plan would be required that includes the
specific ratings for backlighting, uplighting, and glare of each light fixture.
3. Limit light trespass from a property onto abutting properties
• This can be addressed by setting a maximum footcandle level at or near the property
line. Typically, specific maximum levels are set for residential properties,
commercial/industrial properties, and public streets.
• In order to determine compliance, a photometric analysis would be required that
includes footcandle readings for the entire property area.
4. Limit light pollution, such as glare or sky glow, as viewed from abutting properties and
public streets
• This is addressed with prescriptive requirements on how light fixtures are designed.
For example, lighting for a parking lot may be required to be “full cut-off style”,
which describes a fully hooded light fixture that directs light straight down, or an
accent light may need to be fully shielded to direct light only at the object being
illuminated and not beam onto to adjacent properties or skyward.
• Cities that have adopted this type of requirement also prohibit light fixtures that
produce glare that is clearly visible beyond a property line or that creates a sensation
within the visual field that causes impairment or discomfort.
Other common regulations in municipal lighting ordinances include height limit restrictions and
the prohibition of certain types of lights. Height restrictions apply to both parking lot light poles
and exterior lighting mounted to a building wall. Some cities set a lower height limit for lights
_________________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-019 - Zoning Code Amendment - Lighting Regulations\Memos_14-019
Page 4 of 4
within a certain number of feet of a property line to help reduce light trespass. Currently, Arden
Hills only has an established height limit for lighting in the Neighborhood Business District.
Common types of lights that are prohibited by other cities include lights that blink, flicker, flash,
and change in intensity or color. There are no specific limits on the types of lights allowed in the
Zoning Code.
In order to get a better sense on how the Planning Commission would like to proceed in the
review and revision of the City’s lighting regulations, staff is requesting feedback on the
following questions:
1. Of the four different approaches used by other cities to regulate the impact of exterior
lights on adjoining properties, which approaches would best address the City’s concerns
about LED lights?
2. How should the City balance the need to create stricter lighting regulations with the need
to ensure that property owners can easily interpret and implement these requirements?
3. Should the City consider setting a height limit for exterior lights?
4. Should the City consider establishing a list of prohibited types of exterior lighting?
Requested Action
Provide further direction on how the Zoning Code could be updated to improve the City’s
regulations regarding exterior lighting.
Attachments
A. Excerpts from Sections 1320 and 1325 of the Zoning Code
B. City Council Work Session, March 17, 2014
City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code
Section 1320 – District Provisions
Adopted: November 13, 2006
Page 1 of 2
Chapter 13 – Zoning Code
Section 1320 – District Provisions
1320.08 Special Requirements for the Neighborhood Business (NB) District. (revised 4/28/08)
Subd. 5 Building Exteriors, Site Features and Site Development. Accomplishing the
stated purpose of the NB District requires particular concern for the design of buildings,
site features (such as landscaping, lighting, and signage) and site design. The
arrangement, geometry, massing, materials and colors shall be responsive to existing
buildings, site features and site design on adjoining sites in the district.
G. Lighting shall adhere to the requirements in Section 1325.05 Subd 3.
Lighting shall not be permitted to wash the building, except for accent lighting
to delineate the main entryway into the building. Security and parking lot
lighting shall be on pedestals not to exceed fourteen (14) feet in height.
1320.10 Special Requirements for the B-4 Retail Center District. (revised 12/17/08)
Subd. 6 Building Exteriors, Site Features and Site Development. Accomplishing the
stated purpose of the B-4 District requires particular concern for the design of buildings,
site features (such as landscaping, lighting and signage) and site design. The
arrangement, geometry, massing, materials and colors shall be responsive to existing
buildings. The City Council will make the final determination on the compatibility and
consistency with this provision.
D. Lighting (GB District regulations, Section 1320.13,) shall apply)
1320.11 Special Requirements for the Civic Center (CC) District. (revised 4/28/08)
Subd. 4 Development Standards.
J. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be provided for the safety and
convenience of occupants and visitors.
1. A lighting plan shall be submitted that shows location, type of
illumination and design.
2. Exterior lighting shall be consistent in type, design, and scale to
create unity in the CC District.
3. The source of illumination shall be hooded, concealed or controlled in
a manner so as not to be visible from adjoining lots, streets or highways
or residential areas south of Highway 96.
4. Light washing of buildings is prohibited. Wall packs are allowed at
entrances only. Accent lighting of buildings and sites may be permitted by
City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code
Section 1320 – District Provisions
Adopted: November 13, 2006
Page 2 of 2
the City. A photometric analysis of site and building shall be submitted for
City approval.
1320.12 Special Requirements for the Gateway Business (GB) District. (revised 4/28/08)
Subd. 6 Development Standards.
H. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be provided for the safety and convenience
of occupants and visitors.
1. The source of illumination shall be hooded, concealed or controlled in
a manner so as not to be visible from adjoining lots, streets or highways
or residential areas east and south of Round Lake.
2. Accent lighting of buildings and sites may be permitted by the City.
3. A lighting plan shall be submitted that shows location, type of
illumination and design.
City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 - Zoning Code
Section 1325 – General Regulations
Adopted: November 13, 2006
Page 1 of 2
Chapter 13 – Zoning Code
Section 1325 - General Regulations
1325.05 Design Standards. The standards established in this section are designed to
encourage a high standard of development by providing assurances that neighboring land uses
and neighboring properties will be compatible. The standards shall also apply to all future
development and shall apply to existing development where so stated. Before any applications
for development or construction under the City Code are approved, it shall be determined that
the proposal will be in conformance with these standards unless a deviation has been granted.
It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate such conformance. (revised 4/28/08)
Subd. 3 Lighting.
A. Direction. In all districts lighting shall be so arranged as to direct light
away from adjoining lots and public streets. Direct or sky-reflected glare,
from floodlights or high temperature processes such as combustion or
welding, shall not be directed at any adjoining lots or public streets.
B. Concealment or Hooding of Source. The source of illuminate shall be
hooded, concealed or controlled in a manner so as to direct the lighting
pattern only on the site to which the lighting is intended.
C. Intensity. Any light or combination of lights shall not cast light that
exceeds a meter reading of one foot candle on the travel lanes of
adjoining public streets or 0.4 foot candles on adjoining residential
property.
D. Exterior Lighting of Building Facade. For non-residential uses, visible
from residentially zoned property, a maximum of twenty-five (25) percent
of the facade visible from such residential property may be illuminated by
direct lighting from spot lights or flood lights.
Subd. 8 Additional Design Standards for New Development, Redevelopment, and
Modifications to Existing Sites in the B2 and B3 Districts. (revised 12/17/08) Unless
preempted by the standards in this section, all other zoning provisions shall apply:
O. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be provided for the safety and
convenience of occupants and visitors.
1. A lighting plan shall be submitted that shows location, type of
illumination and design. A photometric analysis of site and building
shall be submitted for City approval with all new construction or
redevelopment projects.
2. Exterior lighting shall be consistent in type, design, scale, and
color to create unity in the Districts. High-pressure sodium lighting
City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code
Section 1325 – General Regulations
Adopted: November 13, 2006
Page 2 of 2
and other similar types of lighting color may be required by the City to
promote a unified lighting color throughout the Districts. Other lighting
colors may be considered during the City review process.
3. Exterior lighting for parking lots and buildings shall not be
excessive and shall be directed at their intended purposes.
4. Lighting under a gasoline station canopy shall not be directly
visible from the street but shall be recessed into the canopy or
otherwise shielded.
5. Light washing of buildings and accent lighting may be permitted
through the City review process provided that it does not negatively
impact residential areas or traffic safety and is complementary to the
district as a whole.
Approved: May 12, 2014
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MARCH 17, 2014
5:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
A. 2014 Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting
City Planner Streff stated that the City Council is being asked to provide input and feedback on
the Planning Commission’s draft 2014 Work Plan. In addition, this meeting is intended to be an
open dialog and an opportunity to discuss other planning-related items. The City Council may
provide feedback to the Planning Commission on their role, ask questions and discuss items of
concern. The Planning Commission may provide input to the City Council on important planning
items they see in the community and bring up topics of interest or concern.
City Planner Streff reported that the Planning Commission differs from the City’s other
committees and commissions in that the purpose and scope of the Commission’s work is largely
determined by State Statute. The majority of the Planning Commission Work Plan is dedicated to
continuing the work of evaluating and providing recommendations on land use applications,
zoning code amendments, and other planning-related items that come before the City.
Vice Chair Thompson reviewed the Planning Commission Work Plan in detail with the Council.
She commented that the City was hoping to recruit another Commission member in 2014.
Commissioner Holewa stated that the Commission would like to see the Sign Code more closely
aligned to those of neighboring communities. He believed that the most common request s
reviewed by the Planning Commission are sign standard adjustments and this could be
streamlined by reviewing and making appropriate revisions to the City’s Sign Ordinance.
Councilmember Holden recommended that the Commission consider the base size for
monument signs when the sign standards are reviewed.
Commissioner Bartel wanted to see more structure in the sign code as this would provide further
guidance to the Commission when reviewing requests for sign standard adjustments.
Councilmember McClung believed that even if the Sign Code was amended, there would always
be future applicants requesting additional signage.
Commissioner Bartel explained that by making the sign sizes proportionate to building sizes, this
would address a number of the requests for sign standard adjustments. He was in favor of
temporary sign requests being approved at a staff level.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – MARCH 17, 2014 2
Commissioner Jones suggested that the number of tenants within a building and the size of the
parking lot be considered in the Sign Code.
Councilmember Holden stated that the Sign Ordinance was developed due to the number of
large sign requests. She reported that Arden Hills did not want to become a neon lit community
with extremely large signs.
Mayor Grant reported that a level of flexibility could be written into the Sign Code, however,
there had to be a limit. He asked if the Council opposed the Planning Commission reviewing the
Sign Ordinance.
The Council supported the Commission moving forward with reviewing the Sign Ordinance.
Mayor Grant discussed LED lighting and recommended that the City and Planning Commission
get out in front of this issue. He suggested that staff speak with neighboring communities
regarding the regulation of LED lighting.
Vice Chair Thompson agreed.
Councilmember Holden questioned which aspects of LED lighting would be reviewed by the
Planning Commission.
Vice Chair Thompson indicated that this has yet to be determined by the Planning Commission.
City Planner Streff anticipated that this would include LED lighting on canopies and signs.
Community Development Director Hutmacher reported that more and more businesses were
changing light fixtures out from incandescent or fluorescent to LED’s for cost saving measures.
She distinguished between LED’s used for traditional lighting purposes and LED’s used in a
neon-like manner as decorative accents.
Councilmember Holden discussed the brightness of Presbyterian Homes’ new sign. She
suggested that the Commission review all areas where LED lights could be used.
Commissioner Jones suggested that the Commission consider the different lumens available in
LED lights and which areas are most appropriate for brighter LED lights and which are not.
Vice Chair Thompson commented that the Commission would have to research how other areas
of the metro were managing this issue.
Mayor Grant requested further information on the Illustration Guide for the B-2 and B-3 design
standards.
Vice Chair Thompson explained how the Planning Commission was approaching the B-2 design
standards.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – MARCH 17, 2014 3
Associate Planner Bachler commented that the City had made updates to the B-2 and B-3 district
design standards last year. He explained that building materials and architectural features were
reviewed to provide guidance to future developers in these zoning districts.
Commissioner Bartel hoped that the Commission could find visual examples of preferred
streetscape design and building materials that the City could incorporate into an Illustration
Guide. This would assist future developers with planning for redevelopments.
Councilmember Holden recommended that the design standards include LEED building
standards. She commented that these standards would push the use of recycled materials in
redevelopment of the City. She suggested that the Commission create a checklist that can be
reviewed for each Planning Case. She explained that she depends on the Planning Commission to
address drainage and building material issues.
Commissioner Holewa commented that LEED building standards have been discussed, however,
he believed it would be more important to have good economical design.
Commissioner Jones had an issue with the LEED standards given the increased building
expense. He proposed the City pursue Energy Star ratings instead.
Mayor Grant agreed that the energy ratings for buildings should be considered.
Associate Planner Bachler explained that staff had checklists that were reviewed with each of
the different land use applications. The plans necessary in order to consider an application
complete are spelled out within these checklists. Depending on the nature of the proposed project,
required plans might include lighting plans, traffic studies, grading and drainage plans, etc.
Councilmember Holmes recommended that the Planning Commission further review the issue of
transparent windows. She believed that this issue would continue to come before the City.
Councilmember Werner requested further information on the League of Minnesota Cities
training.
City Planner Streff discussed the training courses proposed for the Planning Commission
members and staff.
Vice Chair Thompson explained that the training courses provided valuable information to the
Commissioners.
Councilmember Holden thanked the Planning Commission for their efforts stating that they did
a wonderful job reviewing Planning Cases.
Mayor Grant agreed and thanked the Planning Commission for their attendance this evening.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014
Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 4, 2014 PC Agenda Item 5.B
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Report from the City Council
May 27, 2014, City Council Meeting
The City Council approved Planning Case 14-015, which was a request from Boston Scientific
for a PUD Amendment allowing for the construction of a 730 square foot addition on the south
side of Building 10. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this case
5-0 at their meeting on May 7, 2014.
The City Council also reviewed Planning Case 14-014 for a variance at 1850 Venus Avenue to
construct a garage addition that would encroach thirty feet into the secondary front yard setback.
A motion to table this request was approved and the applicant was instructed to revise their plans
for the addition in order to reduce the overall encroachment into the required setback area. At
the Planning Commission meeting on May 7, 2014, the Commission recommended approval of
this case 5-1 (Holewa opposed).
Page 1 of 3
DATE: June 4, 2014
TO: Planning Commission Chair Larson and Commissioners
FROM: Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: TCAAP Update
Requested Action
None.
Master Plan
The City Council has been meeting to discuss topics related to the approval of the TCAAP
master plan land use map as follows:
• Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee recommendations for park needs and amenities
(April 21)
• Surface water amenity (April 21)
• Residential development and densities (May 19)
• Flex space land use (May 19)
Summaries of Council direction at the April 21, 2014, work session meeting were provided to
the Planning Commission in the May 7, 2014, TCAAP Update.
The City Council discussed residential densities and the flex space land use on May 19, 2014.
The City Council chose not to set a maximum number of dwelling units at this time, although the
Council may revisit a maximum unit count during the regulations and policies component of the
master planning process.
The City Council did not make changes to the amount of land designated for the flex space land
use. The City Council discussed their preference for office development and that this type of
development should be allowed and encouraged in the flex space area. The City Council will
consider regulations that limit the amount of warehouse/distribution uses at TCAAP.
Based on City Council direction on May 19, 2014, revisions have been made to the draft master
plan land use map which can be summarized as follows:
MEMORANDUM
Page 2 of 3
• Parks in the Creek, Hill, and Town neighborhoods have been adjusted slightly to
accommodate recommended amenities. It is important to note that the exact size,
dimensions, and layouts of parks will be determined at a later date. The PTRC
recommendations focused on the amenities required in each park; how those amenities
are accommodated at each site will be determined during park design.
• The town neighborhood park adjacent to the existing water treatment facility has been
more clearly identified as a park. The civic area adjacent to the park contains the water
treatment facility and space for another civic use such as a small amphitheater or a
historical marker/display.
• In the Creek neighborhood, the park location has been shifted to be closer to the entrance
to the neighborhood. This has been done to limit the amount of program-related traffic
driving through the neighborhood. In the case of the Hill park, this was not possible due
to the terrain. The ball fields need relatively flat surface areas, and there are limited
locations in the Hill neighborhood where this is possible.
• Pocket parks were removed as they are too small to be maintained and programmed by
the City. Developers will be encouraged to include pocket parks that will be privately
owned and maintained.
• An adult athletic facility (softball, ice rinks) has been added to the flex space area west of
the Spine Road. Because this facility will need to be lighted and will attract primarily
adult users, it is appropriate that it be located outside of residential neighborhoods and
along the County road. Shared parking with adjacent businesses will be considered,
similar to what is currently in place at Cummings Park.
• A block of residential development at the north end of the town neighborhood was
removed to accommodate anticipated storm water management needs in that area.
The City Council will review the revised draft master plan land use map on June 16, 2014.
Planning Commission comments on the revised map will be conveyed to the Council at that
time. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to approve the master plan land use map on June
30, 2014.
AUAR
The public comment period for the draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan ended on May 28, 2014.
Comments were received from Mr. Lyle Salmela, the City of Shoreview, the Minnesota
Department of Health, MnDOT, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Metropolitan
Council. A summary of the public comments is attached. City staff and consultants are
reviewing the comments to determine how they should be reflected in the final draft document.
The City Council will review the final draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan on June 30, 2014, and is
tentatively scheduled to approve the final document on July 28, 2014.
Page 3 of 3
Infrastructure Study
The team of Kimley-Horn and Associates and Wenck Associates was selected by Ramsey
County and the City of Arden Hills for the development and design of the TCAAP
Redevelopment Site Infrastructure. Their scope of services addresses design of public
infrastructure including roadways, drainage, and stormwater management features, and utilities
to support the redevelopment. The consultants will spend the next several months developing
preliminary design layouts for the Spine Road, thumb road connection to County Road I,
regional stormwater management system, grading plan, mitigated wetlands, and sanitary sewer
and water supply systems. Their work will require close coordination with ongoing planning and
remediation activities and development of the adjacent interchange on County Road H at I-35W.
The preliminary designs will enable the consultant team to develop refined construction cost
estimates to assist in the development of an infrastructure financing plan. The consultant team
will also ultimately prepare construction documents for public bidding of the site infrastructure
improvements.
Upcoming Meetings
With City Council approval of the master plan land use map tentatively scheduled for June 30,
2014, staff and consultants are beginning to schedule work for the regulations and policies
component of the master planning process. Topics for Planning Commission and City Council
work session discussions will be identified in the next month.
Attachments
A. Draft Master Plan Land Use Map, December 2013
B. Revised Draft Master Plan Land Use Map, May 2014
C. Draft Open Space Plan, December 2013
D. Revised Draft Open Space Plan, May 2014
E. Summary of public comments on the Draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan
Civic
Flex Bus
MultiUse
Office
Other Open
Space
Recreation
Residential
Retail
Thumb
MultiUse8.85 acres
Office21.65 acres
Other Open
Space
40.97 acres
Recreation7.98 acres
Residential125.76 acres
Retail15.19 acres
Thumb43.44 acres
348.6 acres
Civic
Flex Bus
MultiUse
Office
Other Open
Space
Recreation
Residential
Retail
Thumb
Landuse Area
NameArea
Civic2.49 acres
Flex Bus82.27 acres
MultiUse8.85 acres
Office21.65 acres
Other Open
Space
40.97 acres
Recreation7.98 acres
Residential125.76 acres
Retail15.19 acres
Thumb43.44 acres
348.6 acres
Draft Master Plan Land Use Map, December 2013
Retail
MultiUse
Residential
Flex Bus
Office
Thumb Development
Civic
Recreation
Other Open Space
Road ROW
Spine Road ROW
MultiUse
Office
Other Open S
Recreation
Residential
Retail
Road ROW
Spine Road R
Thumb Deve
Grand total
Landuse Areas
NameArea
Civic2.5 acres
Flex Bus63.5 acres
MultiUse8.9 acres
Office21.6 acres
Other Open Space42.6 acres
Recreation26.6 acres
Residential120.1 acres
Retail14.6 acres
Road ROW60.4 acres
Spine Road ROW25.2 acres
Thumb Development43.4 acres
Grand total429.6 acres
Revised Draft Master Plan Land Use Map, May 2014
0
n
400’800’1600’
Draft Open Space Plan, December 2013
Revised Draft Open Space Plan, May 2014
May 2014 1
Summary of Comments Received on the Draft AUAR
At the end of the comment period on the Draft AUAR (May 28, 2014), six comments had been received from five
state, regional, and local agencies and one member of the general public. Commenters included:
x Minnesota Department of Health
x Minnesota Department of Transportation
x Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
x Metropolitan Council
x City of Shoreview
x Lyle Salmela
Minnesota Department of Health
x Affordable Housing – The City should consider incorporating a mix of housing types including single-
family detached homes, single-attached homes, condominiums, townhomes, apartments, and senior
housing options, as well as providing affordable housing options.
x Energy/Climate Change – The project should consider ways to conserve energy, reduce energy use,
eliminate or reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote the use of renewable energy.
x Flooding – With the project’s vicinity to Rice Creek and the associated 100 year flood zone, the project
should consider whether the proposed stormwater infrastructure would have capacity for extreme rainfall
events.
x Health Impact Assessment – An HIA could provide recommendations to policy makers to support positive
health outcomes and to mitigate or prevent possible negative health outcomes to improve the public’s
health and to inform zoning, permitting, and monitoring policies.
x Physical Activity – The project should consider bicycle and pedestrian connections, accessibility, and
wayfinding to parks, recreational facilities, and trails and between proposed uses (i.e., connections
between proposed commercial and residential areas).
x Demolition – Prior to demolition of remaining structures and utilities on site an inspection must be
conducted according to 40 CFR 61 National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP). Any required asbestos inspection activities must be completed in compliance with the
Minnesota Asbestos Abatement Act, and a pre-demolition survey must be conducted according to
Minnesota Rules 7035.0805 to identify all hazardous waste in the facility.
x Hazardous Materials – The AUAR should provide clear guidelines for establishing the presence of
hazardous materials in soils prior to their disturbance during construction.
x Stormwater Runoff/Impervious Surfaces – The project should consider whether stormwater infrastructure
and retention facilities designed for larder storm events would be appropriate to accommodate
anticipated future climatic events.
x Well Construction – New wells that are constructed must be constructed according to the requirements of
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103I and Minnesota Rules chapter 4725. Abandoned wells must be properly
sealed.
May 2014 2
Minnesota Department of Transportation
x I-35W/County Road H Interchange
o Stages 3 and 4 of the proposed interchange improvements will require approval from the Joint
Interchange Planning Review Committee
o Stages 2, 3, and 4 of the proposed interchange improvements are not shown in enough detail.
MnDOT is not requesting additional information at this time but sharing information. MnDOT lists
specific concerns for each stage.
o MnDOT will not support plans which will add capacity or traffic volume to the I-35W/CR H
interchange if it retains the existing weaving from the CR H loop to southbound I-35W. The loop
should be closed until the barrier separation is in place.
o The CR H bridge will need to accommodate the planned MnPASS lane, the two-lane ramps
connecting US 10 with I-35W to and from the north, and the loop to eastbound US 10 and in
stage 3, southbound I-35W.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
x No comments at this time
Metropolitan Council
x Item 6 Project Description
o Clarify that the comprehensive plan amendment will reflect the land use plan selection and align
with the final organization of those land uses on the property, including any adjustments to land
use densities or intensities, if needed.
o If Ramsey County pursues the land exchange, an amendment to the Rice Creek North Regional
Trail Master Plan must be approved by the Metropolitan Council. The land exchange will also
need to comply with the System Protection requirements delineated in the Regional Parks Policy
Plan.
x Item 8 Permits and Approvals Required
o When the City makes application to the MPCA for a permit to construct each segment of the
sanitary sewer, a copy of the plans, design data, and a location map will also need to be
submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review by Environmental Service Municipal Services
staff.
x Item 9 Land Use
o Revise reference to Rice Creek Regional Park to Rice Creek North Regional Trail
x Item 11 Water Resources
o Future analysis may be needed to evaluate potential water supply impacts resulting from severe
contamination on the TCAAP property and neighboring areas
o The Council encourages implementation of new water conservation and stormwater
management strategies as part of construction and site landscaping.
o New data from the National Weather Service should be used in the calculation of runoff from the
site to ensure that proposed stormwater conveyance, treatment, and infiltration facilities will be
properly sized to accommodate future runoff events.
May 2014 3
x Item 13 Fish, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources
o The Council encourages the City to incorporate an evaluation of the woodlands identified in
Figure 7-1 in the Final AUAR and give consideration to preserving and incorporating as many as
possible as an amenity into the stormwater treatment and infiltration system planned for the
northwest portion of the study area.
o The Council recommends, consistent with DNR impact minimization guidance for the Blanding’s
turtle, that the proposed new roadways through the site specify the utilization of sloping,
surmountable curbing through the project site.
o Update reference to Rice Creek North Regional Trail Master Plan Amendment
x Item 18 Transportation
o Review Appendix D of the TPP to determine the most appropriate classification for the spine
road
o Stages 3 and 4 of the I-35W/CR H interchange improvements will need to be reviewed by the
Joint Interchange Planning Review committee.
x Figures – Update maps to reflect the entire Rice Creek North Regional Trail and Wildlife Corridor
x Draft Mitigation Plan
o Item 13a – This section should discuss how the proposed green corridor will interact with
Ramsey County’s wildlife corridor
x Figure T2 – Future planning for the potential roadway crossing Rice Creek North Regional Trail should be
coordinated with Ramsey County Parks
x Appendix C. TCAAP Traffic Study
o Using ITE trip generation rates is generally not recommended for large developments, and local
data has shown that many ITE trip generation rates are likely higher than observed in this area.
o Delays shown in unmitigated traffic analysis are unrealistic and do not take in account likely
diversion of trips to other roadways. Forecasts using a regional scale model would show this.
o Any new freeway access at CR H will need to be reviewed by MnDOT/Metropolitan Council
interchange committee as discussed earlier in the comment letter
City of Shoreview
x Study Area Delineation – Future development of the TCAAP property will have an impact on Rice Creek,
the Ramsey County Regional Trail and Wildlife Corridor, and County Road I. The study area should be
expanded or additional information provided in order to determine the full impact on these natural
features and the adjacent transportation network that includes Shoreview.
x Section 9 Land Use – Future development efforts should preserve the integrity of the Rice Creek
Regional Trail (and planned future improvements as outlined in the 2013 amendment to the Rice Creek
Regional Trail Master Plan) and provide local connections.
x Section 18 Transportation
o Aligning a future road connection with Rice Creek Parkway has the potential to change the
character of roadway given that it will become an attractive alternative for the congestion at I-
35W/Highway 10 in the peak rush hour. Such a connection could result in potential impacts to
May 2014 4
residential land uses in the area because of the traffic volumes and vehicle distribution (i.e.,
more trucks and heavy commercial).
o It is unclear how a potential six-legged intersection of Rice Creek Parkway/CR I/TCAAP/I-35W
Freeway Ramp would function and preserve existing access to I-35W. The City strongly desires
to maintain existing access to and from I-35W at CR I for their residents.
o The AUAR does not provide sufficient details about the potential future connection CR I. More
detailed analysis including traffic projections and alignment options need to be identified so the
impacts to the road system and adjoining land uses in Shoreview can be determined. A
collaborative approach involving MnDOT, Ramsey County, and adjoining cities should be
initiated to assess and review the transportation impacts from future improvements that support
the TCAAP development.
Lyle Salmela
x VOC/Radon Abatement
o Per state and city building codes, all new residential structures at TCAAP should be protected
and abated for radon and VOCs; the public should have this knowledge and it should be
discussed with the MDH radon/VOC regulatory personnel.
o The AUAR states that VOCs will be remediated to comply with MPCA Tier 1 residential
standards. This may be misleading because VOCs/radon are not remediated but abated but
building codes and construction standards.
o Where can the public review the RAP/DRAP?
o Commercial and industrial construction requires vapor barriers under concrete slabs. Whether to
provide further code regulation would be up to the City to amend the applicable codes. To
prevent past 3M and General Mills issues it should be discussed.
x Transportation – CR H/I-35W
o Will phases 1-4 (Figure 18-1) come in succession until the total project is done or on separate
start and completion dates? If not in succession then phase 4 should be included with phase 1
because major construction would be on the same side of 35W. Also a traffic lane should
connect Hwy 10 north with the CR H roundabout.
o It appears that the traffic analysis is based on the full build out of TCAAP and 2030 I-35W traffic.
The analysis does not mention anything about what the Metropolitan Council, Ramsey County,
MnDOT, Metro Transit, Chamber of Commerce, and I-35W corridor cities including Arden Hill s
have for further plans for I-35W north and I-694. The AUAR should address what these
governmental bodies are planning and how they view this rebuild.