HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-9-14-PCAPPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 7, 2014, Regular Meeting
05 -07 -14PC.DOC
June 4, 2014, Regular Meeting
06 -04 -14PC.DOC
PLANNING CASES
Planning Case 14 -020 - Variance - 3200 Lake Lane (No Public Hearing Required)
PC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF,
ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF
UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
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, ATTACHMENT G.PDF, ATTACHMENT H.PDF
Planning Case 14 -019 - Zoning Code Amendment - Lighting Regulations (No Public
Hearing Required)
PC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF,
ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF
COMMENTS AND REPORTS
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS & REQUESTS
Report From The City Council
7 -09 -14 - REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.PDF
TCAAP Update
PC 07 09 14.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.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
July 9, 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:
2.B.
Documents:
3.
3.A.
Ryan Streff, City Planner
Documents:
4.
4.A.
Ryan Streff, City Planner
Documents:
4.B.
Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner
Documents:
5.
5.A.
5.B.
Ryan Streff, City Planner
Documents:
5.C.
Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director
Documents:
Prepared By
Prepared By
Prepared By
Prepared By
Prepared By
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDAAPPROVAL OF MINUTESMay 7, 2014, Regular Meeting 05 -07 -14PC.DOCJune 4, 2014, Regular Meeting 06 -04 -14PC.DOCPLANNING CASESPlanning Case 14 -020 - Variance - 3200 Lake Lane (No Public Hearing Required) PC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDFUNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
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, ATTACHMENT G.PDF, ATTACHMENT H.PDF
Planning Case 14 -019 - Zoning Code Amendment - Lighting Regulations (No Public
Hearing Required)
PC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF,
ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF
COMMENTS AND REPORTS
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS & REQUESTS
Report From The City Council
7 -09 -14 - REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.PDF
TCAAP Update
PC 07 09 14.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.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 CommissionJuly 9, 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:2.B.Documents:3.3.A.Ryan Streff, City PlannerDocuments:4.
4.A.
Ryan Streff, City Planner
Documents:
4.B.
Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner
Documents:
5.
5.A.
5.B.
Ryan Streff, City Planner
Documents:
5.C.
Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director
Documents:
Prepared By
Prepared By
Prepared 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. T he 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.
City Planner Streff reported that t he 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
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 7, 2014 2
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 t he 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 g rading 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 t he 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.
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
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 7, 2014 4
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
Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments.
Commissioner Thompson requested further information on how the property will be graded.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 7, 2014 5
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 Venu s Avenue and Rolling Hills Road are both City right-of-
ways.
Commissioner Holewa asked whether staff had discussed the option of vacating the Rolling
Hills Road right-of-way. He explained that if the right-of-way were to be vacated, the need for a
variance would be eliminated.
Chair Larson stated that if the right-of-way was vacated, the property would have to be divided
between the two adjacent property owners.
City Planner Streff commented that City staff has discussed the possibility of vacating this right
-of-way, which c ould eliminate the need for a variance. However, after discussion among staff,
this was not re commended as a feasible option because of the public utilities and the trail located
within the right-of-way.
Commissioner Hames explained she lived across the street from the subject property. She
indicated the original intention was to extend a roa d 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- 0 14 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
t he May 7 , 2014 , report to the P lanning Commission. T he motion carried 5 - 1 (Holewa
opposed).
B.Planning Case 14- 0 15 ; 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 (11 th )
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 t he 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 exterior finish
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 7, 2014 6
will be face brick with color and coursing to match the existing construction.
Associate Planner Bachler commented that t he existing landscaped area where the addition will
be constructed is turf grass with a mix of mature trees. All areas disturbed 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.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 7, 2014 7
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:
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
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 7, 2014 8
A.Planning Commission Comments and Requests
None.
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 stat ing 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 potential 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, t he 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. Before 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, t he 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
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 7, 2014 9
Planning Commission work session, January 8, 2014
Public Open House, January 22, 2014
Five Cities meeting, March 10, 2014
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 t he 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 t he 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 t he 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 R amsey 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 p roposals 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 t he 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
Flex Space Land Use Discussion
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 7, 2014 11
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).
Approved:
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2014
6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Clayton Larson called to order the regular
Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present were: Chair Clayton Larson, Commissioners Brent Bartel, Andrew Holewa, Steven Jones
(Alternate), Roberta Thompson, and Clayton Zimmerman.
Absent: Commissioners Angela Hames and Sam Scott.
Also present were: Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher; City Planner Ryan Streff;
Associate Planner Matthew Bachler; and Councilmember Brenda Holden.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA – JUNE 4, 2014
Chair Larson stated the agenda will stand as published.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 7, 2014 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Commissioner Holewa requested the minutes be corrected to reflect the changes he presented to
staff and be brought back to the Commission at the July meeting for approval.
Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Thompson seconded a motion to table
action on the May 7, 2014 meeting minutes to the July Planning Commission meeting. The
motion carried unanimously (6-0).
PLANNING CASES
A.Planning Case 14- 0 1 7 ; Variance ; 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard – Not a P ublic
Hearing
City Planner Streff stated that 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
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 2
and west of Lake Johanna/Lake Johanna Boulevard. The property is located on a through-lot
between Fairview Avenue and Lake Johanna Boulevard and consists of a conforming single-
family dwelling and a nonconforming detached accessory structure.
City Planner Streff indicated that t he 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.
City Planner Streff reported that t he 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.
Site Data
Land Use Plan:Low Density Residential
Existing Land Use:Single Family Detached Residential
Zoning:R-2: Single Family & Two Family Residential
Current Lot Sizes:.35 Acres (15,241 Square Feet)
Topography:The property has a fair amount of grade change as the lot slopes
toward Lake Johanna. The area around the existing garage is fairly
flat.
City Planner Streff reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and the Variance
Evaluation Criteria.
City Planner Streff provided the Findings of Fact for review:
General Findings
1. The property is in the R-2 Single & Two Family Residential Zoning District.
2. The lot is 15,241 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 100 feet in width,
and 165 feet in depth.
3. The existing accessory structure is a nonconforming structure within the R-2 Zoning
District because of its existing setbacks to the south and west property lines.
4. Because the existing accessory structure is positioned at an angle relative to the west
property line, the structure encroaches between twenty- five (25 ) feet six (6) inches and
twenty-nine (29) feet four (4) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along the west
property line, leaving a setback of f our (4 ) feet six (6) inches at its furthest point and
eight (8) inches between the structure and the west property line at its closest point.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 3
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 east 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.
9. The proposed accessory structure increases the footprint from twenty-two (2 2) feet by
twenty-two (22) feet, or 484 square feet , to twenty-four (24) feet by twenty-six (26) feet ,
or 624 square feet. This would amount to a n increase of the building footprint by 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.T he 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.
City Planner Streff stated that 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 four (4 ) feet
six (6) inches from the west property line and a setback of six (6) feet one (1) inch from
the south property line.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 4
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.
City Planner Streff reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter:
1. Recommend Approval with Conditions
2. Recommend Approval as Submitted.
3. Recommend Denial
4. Table
Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments.
Chair Larson questioned what the rear yard setback would be.
City Planner Streff explained that after the garage structure was completed, the rear yard
(Fairview) setback would be 8 inches.
Commissioner Zimmerman questioned the age of the current garage.
City Planner Streff deferred this question to the applicant. He noted the home was replaced in
2010, but the garage was pre-existing.
Commissioner Bartel inquired if any variances were requested in 2010 for the home.
City Planner Streff stated that the property owner at the time requested a variance for the home,
however, this request was denied.
Commissioner Zimmerman indicated that the proposed 24’ x 26’ foot garage was reflective of
modern garage design.
Chad Meyers , 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard, thanked the Commission for considering his
variance request. He noted he has lived at the property for the past year and was not the party
that reconstructed the home. He believed that the exist ing two car garage did not suit the home
and was an eyesore for the neighborhood. He requested the Commission allow him to rebuild
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 5
the garage to meet the needs of his family on this lake lot. He believed the conditions
recommended by staff were too restrictive. He discussed the current encroachment of the garage
was nine feet and four inches and he explained he was not asking to encroach further to the west
property line. He reported he would be working with the same contractor that was used to build
the house.
Commissioner Jones asked if the power pole would be moved.
Mr. Meyers stated that Xcel Energy would be moving the transmission pole to the other side of
the garage.
Commissioner Thompson questioned what options were available to build a structure that
would be in conformance with City setbacks and asked why this was not pursued.
Mr. Meyers explained that after discussions with staff, it was determined that the rear yard
(Fairview Avenue) setback for an accessory structure was 30 feet. He commented this setback
would make a new garage impractical. He stated with a 10 foot setback a garage would be more
feasible, but would require 250 cubic feet of fill and would be located on a drainage field.
Commissioner Thompson inquired if the drainage field had been reviewed by staff.
City Planner Streff stated the Assistant City Engineer had reviewed the request and determined
the drainage would not be affected with the current proposal. However, staff did not provide
comment on how a different placement of the garage would impact the property.
Chair Larson questioned if the variance were to be approved, if the new garage would become a
conforming use.
City Planner Streff indicated the garage would be nonconforming in terms of setbacks, but
would be permitted due to the variance.
Chair Larson stated he was not typically in favor of expanding nonconforming uses; however,
he believed turning the garage made sense.
Commissioner Thompson commented she was torn by this request. She stated setbacks were
established for a reason. She then discussed the unique aspects of this lot noting it had two front
yard setbacks and had topography issues to deal with. She explained that by turning the garage,
the structure would look better on the lot.
Commissioner Zimmerman concurred with Chair Larson regarding the expansion of
nonconforming uses. He struggled with approving the expansion, but was supportive of the
proposed reorientation of the garage.
Commissioner Bartel stated the existing garage was an eyesore, but he did not believe the
increased garage size was necessary.
Commissioner Thompson understood that two car garages were normal, but she did not believe
that a three car garage was a requirement.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 6
Commissioner Holewa understood why the homeowners wanted to replace the garage;
however, he did not support all three variances. He questioned if the Commission should table
action to allow the applicant to reconsider his request, or make a motion for denial.
Chair Larson stated the expansion of a nonconforming use was a concern for the Commission.
He suggested the owner provide comment on why the garage needed to be expanded.
Mr. Meyer s believed that the proposed garage would allow him reasonable use of his property.
He stated the garage would cost him $50,000 to reconstruct and he wanted the garage to become
reasonably useful. He commented that Condition 2 should be revised to reflect that the setbacks
would be changed. He reported that he was not interested in building a garage if he had to
follow these conditions, as one stall of the garage would be unusable.
Mr. Meyers questioned whether the Commission would be supportive of a plan to rebuild the
garage so as not to encroach further into the rear and side setbacks, but rather expand the garage
towards the house.
Chair Larson believed the consensus of the Commission was to not expand a nonconforming
use. He asked if Mr. Meyers was willing to reconsider his request.
Mr. Meyers was willing to reconsider his garage expansion.
Chair Larson questioned how the Commission would like to proceed with this variance request.
Commissioner Zimmerman stated the easiest solution would be to rebuild the existing garage
on the current footprint.
Commissioner Bartel feared that tabling action on this may not allow for this matter to be
resolved as the applicants were hoping for a garage larger than 22’ x 22’.
Chair Larson stated tabling the matter would allow Mr. Meyers to continue with the request
without making Mr. Meyers reapply for a variance.
Commissioner Holewa was in favor of the applicant rebuilding on the existing footprint. He
indicated he could go either way on this request but noted he would support the matter being
tabled.
Commissioner Bartel recommended the request be tabled.
Commissioner Jones stated this was a unique lot and discussed the number of homes that have
been rebuilt along this street.
City Planner Streff discussed the setbacks as determined by the City for throug h-lots. Staff
believed that a 4 0 foot setback was appropriate for the lakeside and front of the home. It was
determined that a 30 foot setback was appropriate for the rear yard along Fairview Avenue.
Commissioner Bartel moved and Commissioner Holewa seconded a motion to table action
on Planning Case 14-017 for a V ariance at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard to allow for
further examination of the request by the applicant and staff.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 7
City Planner Streff requested the Commission provide staff comment on what setbacks would
be acceptable.
Chair Larson believed that eight inches was not a desirable setback. He stated he could
entertain a lesser setback than 30 feet; however, the size of the structure should not be overly
expanded. He recommended a reasonable setback from Fairview be created.
Commissioner Bartel agreed stating the size of the garage was more of a concern than the
setbacks.
The motion carried unanimously (6-0).
B.Planning Case 14- 0 1 9 ; Zoning Code Amendment – Lighting Regulations – Not a
Public Hearing
Associate Planner Bachler stated that 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.
Associate Planner Bachler indicated that p rovisions 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 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.
Associate Planner Bachler indicated that 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.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 8
• 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.
Associate Planner Bachler reported that t he 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.
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).
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 9
• 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 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.
Associate Planner Bachler explained that o ther 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 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.
Associate Planner Bachler stated that i n 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?
Associate Planner Bachler requested the Commission p rovide further direction on how the
Zoning Code could be updated to improve the City’s regulations regarding exterior lighting.
Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 10
Chair Larson favored an approach that would create regulations to limit light trespass.
Commissioner Holewa supported regulations that would limit light trespass as well as setting
prescriptive requirements on the design and arrangement of light fixtures to limit light pollution.
Commissioner Bartel agreed with this recommendation.
Commissioner Jones discussed the Holiday gas station sign and stated glare was a concern for
him in residential neighborhoods.
Commissioner Thompson also supported the approach to regulate the lumen level of individual
light fixtures.
Associate Planner Bachler discussed the Ordinances adopted by the cities of Bloomington and
St. Louis Park regarding exterior lighting, noting that additional research could be conducted on
neighboring communities.
Commissioner Holewa commented that up lighting would have to be allowed on Americ an
flags in the overnight hours, as this was a federal regulation.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked if the City has investigated how neighboring cities address
lighting regulations. He anticipated that each zoning district would have to have specific lighting
regulations.
Discussion ensued regarding lighting regulations for different zoning districts.
Chair Larson believed the City should set a reasonable limit for the height of light fixtures.
Commissioner Thompson agreed. She questioned if the City could restrict fixture heights on
MnDOT and County roads.
Associate Planner Bachler stated he would investigate this further.
Chair Larson believed it would be difficult for the City to prohibit certain types of exterior
lighting. He explained that lighting was creative and was an ever changing market.
Commissioner Bartel indicated language addressing temporary Christmas lights that may blink
or flash could be included in the lighting regulations.
Commissioner Holewa recommended the City encourage the use of LED lights because of the
energy efficiencies associated with this type of lighting.
Associate Planner Bachler thanked the Commission for their input.
UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
None.
REPORTS
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 11
A.Planning Commission Comments and Requests
None.
B.Report from the City Council
Councilmember Hol den updated the Planning Commission on City Council activities stating
that at the May 27, 2014, City Council Meeting the 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).
Councilmember Holden invited the Commission to attend the 70 th Anniversary of D-Day
Celebration that would be held at TCAAP on June 6th.
C.TCAAP Update
Community Development Director Hutmacher reported that 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.
Community Development Director Hutmacher reported that t he 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.
Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated that t he 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.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 12
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:
• 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.
Community Development Director Hutmacher reported that t he 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.
Community Development Director Hutmacher explained that t he 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. 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.
Community Development Director Hutmacher stated that t he 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
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 13
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.
Community Development Director Hutmacher noted that t he 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.
Community Development Director Hutmacher commented that w ith 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.
Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated that the JDA approved the issuance
of an Energy Plan that would review energy redundancy and alternative energy forms on
TCAAP. She explained a task force would be appointed to assist with this initiative.
ADJOURN
Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman , to adjourn the
June 4 , 2014 , Planning Commission Meeting at 8: 24 p.m. The motion carried unan imously
(6-0).
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-020 - Variance - 3200 Lake Lane\Memo_Reports_14-020
Page 1 of 10
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 9 , 2014 PC Agenda Item 3.A
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case #14-020 – No Public Hearing Required
Applicant: Charles Campbell
Property Location: 3200 Lake Lane
Request: Variance
Requested Action
The applicant is requesting three (3) variances in order to reconstruct and expand a
nonconforming accessory structure located at 3200 Lake Lane.
1) Expand the nonconforming structure from sixteen and one half (16.5) feet by twenty-two
and one half (22.5) feet to twenty (20) feet by twenty-four (24) feet.
2) Increase the lot coverage from 35.56% to 38.81%. Maximum lot coverage for
impervious surfaces is 35%.
3) Encroach into the secondary front yard setback twenty (20) feet leaving a setback of
approximately twenty (20) feet between the property line and the accessory structure.
Background
1. Overview of Request
The applicants in this case own the property located at 3200 Lake Lane. The property is
zoned R-2 Single & Two Family Residential and is generally positioned north of County
Road D West, south of Edgewater Avenue, east of Lake Josephine and west of Lexington
Avenue North. The property is located on a through-lot between Lake Lane and Shoreline
Lane and consists of a single family dwelling and a nonconforming detached accessory
structure.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-020 - Variance - 3200 Lake Lane\Memo_Reports_14-020
Page 2 of 10
The applicant is proposing to reconstruct and expand the nonconforming accessory structure
on the property from sixteen and one half (16.5) feet by twenty-two and one half (22.5) feet
to twenty (20) feet by twenty-four (24) feet, an increase of 108.75 square feet.
The existing structure is approximately ten (10) feet from the east property line/secondary
front yard, five (5) feet from the south side yard and eighteen and one half (18.5) feet from
the north side yard. As indicated by the applicant on the submitted site plan the proposed
structure would be relocated an additional ten (10) feet from the east property line resulting
in a setback of twenty (20) feet. The structure would also be moved five (5) feet to the north
resulting in a setback of ten (10) feet from the south side yard and ten (10) feet from the
north side yard.
Setbacks – Accessory
Structure Setbacks Existing Setbacks Proposed Permitted
Secondary Front Yard/East
Property Line
10’ 20’ 40’
South Side Yard 5’ 10’ 5’/15’ (Min/Total)
North Side Yard 18.5’ 10’ 5’/15’ (Min/Total)
The applicant has indicated that a vinyl siding material will be used on the new detached
accessory structure with roofing materials to match the single family dwelling. The property
owner has stated that the house would be painted to match the vinyl siding material that is
selected. Following the construction, an addition to the existing driveway would be added
for access purposes.
The applicant has submitted a narrative of the proposed project and a response to the
variance evaluation criteria (Attachment A), 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: .22 Acres (9,583 Square Feet)
Topography: The property has a fair amount of grade change as the lot slopes towards Lake
Josephine.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-020 - Variance - 3200 Lake Lane\Memo_Reports_14-020
Page 3 of 10
3. Surrounding Area
Direction Future Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use
North Low Density Residential R-2: Single & Two Family
Residential
Single Family Detached
Residential
South Low Density Residential R-2: Single & Two Family
Residential
Single Family Detached
Residential
East Low Density Residential R-2: Single & Two Family
Residential
Single Family Detached
Residential
West Low Density Residential R-2: Single & Two Family
Residential
Single Family Detached
Residential
Plan Evaluation
1. R-1 Regulations, Existing Conditions, and Proposed Redevelopment
A. Lot Size & Dimensions – Non-Conforming
The main lot is 8,276 square feet in size
with approximate dimensions of 40 feet in
width, and 200 feet in depth.
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.
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 July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-020 - Variance - 3200 Lake Lane\Memo_Reports_14-020
Page 4 of 10
The existing detached accessory structure is considered a nonconforming structure
because of its location within the forty (40) foot designated setback for a through-lot 1
determined as properties along Lake Lane have varying setback encroachments and
principal and accessory structure orientation. The existing accessory structure
encroaches thirty (30) feet into the secondary front yard setback, leaving a setback of ten
(10) feet from the east property line. The existing accessory structure does not encroach
into either side yard setback on the property. The Zoning Code permits detached
accessory structures within this district; however, they are not permitted within the
designated setbacks for a through-lot.
. In
this case, staff has not determined that one of the front yards is in fact a rear yard based
on the Through-Lot criteria. New setbacks requirements for this property were not
As indicated by the applicant, the proposed accessory structure would encroach twenty
(20) feet into the secondary front yard setback. This would leave a setback of twenty
(20) feet from the east property line. The proposed structure would increase the footprint
of the existing detached garage from sixteen and one half (16.5) feet by twenty-two and
one half (22.5) feet to twenty (20) feet by twenty-four (24) feet. This would be an
increase of 108.75 square feet.
C. Lot Coverage – Variance Required
The existing and proposed lot coverage both 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%.
1 Through-Lot:
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.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-020 - Variance - 3200 Lake Lane\Memo_Reports_14-020
Page 5 of 10
Proposed Lot Coverage = 38.81%
Proposed Landscape Coverage = 61.19%
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
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 371 square feet and proposed accessory structure at 480 square feet do not
exceed this requirement.
F. Tree Preservation – Meets Requirements
The proposed construction would impact two (2) trees on the property. A final tree
inventory would need to be completed by the property owner before a building permit
would be issued. Initial calculations show that less than 10% of the significant caliper
inches will be removed with this project. If more than the 10% are removed as a result of
the project, the applicant will be required to meet the City’s tree preservation standards,
and mitigation may be necessary.
Existing Proposed
Square Feet % Square Feet %
House/Garage 1,482 17.91% 1,482 17.91%
Accessory Structure 371 4.48% 480 5.80%
Decks/Patios 670 8.09% 670 8.09%
Driveway/Walkways 420 5.07% 580 7.00%
Structural Coverage 2,943 35.56% 3,212 38.81%
Landscaping Coverage 64.44% 61.19%
Lot Size 8,276
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-020 - Variance - 3200 Lake Lane\Memo_Reports_14-020
Page 6 of 10
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. Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements
The proposed addition is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements.
4. 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 3200 Lake
Lane.
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”.
Therefore, in evaluating variance requests under the new law, in order to find a practical
difficulty, cities should adopt findings addressing the following questions:
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-020 - Variance - 3200 Lake Lane\Memo_Reports_14-020
Page 7 of 10
• 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 eighteen (18) findings of fact for review:
General Findings
1. The property is in the R-2 Single & Two Family Residential Zoning District.
2. The lot is 8,276 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 40 feet in width, and
200 feet in depth.
3. The existing accessory structure is a nonconforming structure within the R-2 Zoning
District because of its existing setbacks to the east property line.
4. The existing accessory structure is thirty (30) feet into the forty (40) foot secondary front
yard setback along Shoreline Lane.
5. The existing accessory structure does not encroach into either side yard setback.
6. The proposed accessory structure encroaches twenty (20) feet into the forty (40) foot
setback along Shoreline Lane.
7. The proposed accessory structure increases the footprint from sixteen and one half (16.5)
feet by twenty-two and one half (22.5) feet to twenty (20) feet by twenty-four (24) feet,
which is an increase of 108.75 square feet.
8. The proposed structure and landscaping coverages are not within the zoning district
requirements. The new structure will increase the lot coverage from 35.56% to 38.81%
and decreases the landscaping coverage from 64.44% to 61.19%.
9. The proposed accessory structure would not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height.
10. Detached accessory structures are permitted structures within the R-2 Zoning District.
11. All structures on the lot are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements.
Variance Findings:
12. The proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as the
Ordinance generally allows flexibility for unique parcels and situations when impacts to
surrounding properties are minimized.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-020 - Variance - 3200 Lake Lane\Memo_Reports_14-020
Page 8 of 10
13. The proposal is consistent with the Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan as it allows the
reasonable use of residential property.
14. Detached accessory structures are permitted and a reasonable use within the R-2 Single
Family Residential Zoning District.
15. The lot has rather unique topography and size leaving limited options for expansion or
movement of the accessory structure to an area that meets the all setback regulations.
16. The proposed accessory structure would be visible from neighboring properties; however,
the proposed design and the use of quality materials for the detached structure that are
compatible in appearance to the single family dwelling should minimize the impacts on
surrounding property owners.
17. The proposed accessory structure is unlikely to have negative impacts to the property or
to the neighborhood as a whole.
18. The proposed plans and requested variances for the accessory structure do not appear to
be based on economic considerations alone.
Discussion
The property is unique when compared to many properties in Arden Hills because of its
topography, size and its designation as a Through-Lot. Because of the lot’s topography and
configuration of structures on the lot, options for expansion or the movement of the accessory
structure to an area that meets all setback regulations is very limited. Due to the scope of the
project and the proposed changes to the structure, the character of the neighborhood or the City
is not expected to be negatively affected as a structure already exists in the general location of
the proposed structure. It does not appear that the variance request is based on economic
considerations alone. A detached accessory structure is a permitted use in the R-2 Zoning
District and is a reasonable request for the subject property.
Recommendation
The findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. However,
if the Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact
would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial.
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this variance, Staff recommends the
following 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.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-020 - Variance - 3200 Lake Lane\Memo_Reports_14-020
Page 9 of 10
2. That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted to encroach twenty (20) feet
into the secondary front yard setback along Shoreline Lane.
3. That the proposed accessory structure shall not exceed a footprint of 480 square feet.
4. That the exterior façade and roofing materials of the proposed garage shall be
compatible in appearance and material used with the principal structure.
5. That no living quarters shall be constructed within the proposed accessory structure
and that the attic area shall be used for storage purposes only.
6. That the structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. That
building and demolition permits for the construction of the new accessory building
and a zoning permit for the construction of the driveway shall be required.
7. That the applicant shall obtain a Grading and Erosion Control Permit from the City
before the building permit is issued.
Options
1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case
14-020 for three (3) variances at 3200 Lake Lane to replace the existing nonconforming
accessory structure with modifications to its location and size, based on the findings of fact,
the submitted plans, and the seven (7) conditions in the July 9 , 2014, Report to the Planning
Commission.
2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 14-
020 for three (3) variances at 3200 Lake Lane to replace the existing nonconforming
accessory structure with modifications to its location and size, based on the findings of fact
and the submitted plans in the July 9 , 2014, Report to the Planning Commission.
3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 14-020 for three (3)
variances at 3200 Lake Lane to replace the existing nonconforming accessory structure with
modifications to its location and size, based on the following findings of fact…
4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 14-020 for three (3) variances at 3200 Lake Lane to
replace the existing nonconforming accessory structure with modifications to its location and
size: 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.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-020 - Variance - 3200 Lake Lane\Memo_Reports_14-020
Page 10 of 10
Resident Comment
The City has not received any comments from surrounding residents in regards to this planning
case.
Deadline for Agency Actions
The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on June 2, 2014.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by August 1, 2014 (60
days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day
review period. The City may extend the review period beyond the 120 days, with the applicant’s
permission.
Attachments
A. Application and Narrative
B. Site Plan – Proposed and Existing
C. Garage Elevations/Building Plans
D. Aerial Photo
E. Property Photos
5/30/2014
To: Dept of Planning and Zoning
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
To the City Planning Commission:
After due consideration and discussion with city officials, I am hereby submitting a request for a variance
to build a new detached garage on the East end of my lot at 3200 Lake Lane, Arden Hills, MN 55112. The
variance would specifically allow the structure to be built with a 20’ lot setback instead of the current
30’ setback requirement.
I have reviewed the city code in respect to applying for a variance and have also reviewed 2 recent
variance applications. In considering the six matters referenced in the Variance procedure, I feel that
the size, elevation, and area of my lot, along with its dual frontage on Shoreline and Lake Lane constitute
a unique situation that allows for a variance to be considered.
I have an extremely small lot with a substantial drop in elevation from East to West. Approximately 54’
from the Shoreline Lane property line there is an existing retaining wall with several steps leading down
to a sidewalk that is the main entry to the home. My contractor has reported that we would need less
than a 30’ setback to locate the floating slab within the area east of the existing retaining wall and
closest in elevation to the street exit.
Another issue that I feel is a consideration for obtaining this variance is lot coverage. A chart is included
showing approximate lot coverage for the existing garage and a new garage with both 20’ and 30’
setbacks. Since the lot size is small , the existing home is non-compliant, and there is a significant
amount of sidewalk, deck, patio, and driveway, the impermeable coverage percentage is high. The 20’
setback offers a lower percentage of coverage because the driveway is shorter.
In addition to the elevation and area issues, the proposed garage location would better fit into the
existing neighborhood: A similar detached garage is located on the adjacent property to the North with
an identical 20’ setback. The existing garage on my property is currently located about 5’ from the
adjoining property line to the south. The variance would allow me to build the new garage with normal
10’ side setbacks instead of replacing the existing garage in it’s current location. From an aerial
perspective, the proposed garage location will be a much better alignment with the existing homes.
Other items of note for the project:
• We will probably want to remove 2 trees as part of the project. One is a 6” mountain ash that
has evidence of disease and damage. The other is a healthy 6” cedar that is probably too close
to the new driveway shifting north. I have reviewed the regulations on tree removal and I
believe this removal would represent far less than 10% of my total tree coverage, as my lot is
almost completely lined with trees on the north and south borders. I also plan on planting
another tree as part of the new landscaping to be done after construction.
• I contacted the Rice Creek Watershed after reviewing their website for permit requirements.
They state on their site that a permit is not required for projects under 5000 sq. ft. and my
entire project is less than 4000 sq. ft. I also detailed my intentions with grading etc. and the
email response I received from them is included with this request.
• I contacted the City Engineer upon the recommendation of the City Planner and described my
project to him for recommendations. We will be submitting erosion control and grading plans
as part of the upcoming retaining wall replacement.
• A technician was hired to locate the iron lot line markers and this has been done. We also have a
fence that runs along the South side of the property and the technician located evidence that
the fence is almost exactly on the property line, so we have a reference boundary. The yard has
been staked in lieu of a survey.
I thank you for your consideration of this request. A site plan and other documentation is either part of
this document or attached. Please feel free to contact me for additional information or action.
Sincerely,
Chas. Campbell
3200 Lake Lane
Arden Hills, MN 55112
651-490-5164
Total Lot Coverage
Existing Garage 20’ Setback 30’ Setback
Block Paver Patio 270 270 270
Decking 400 400 400
House 1482 1482 1482
Kennel 48
Sidewalk (approx.) 200 150 100
Garage 371 480 480
Driveway 220 430 651
Total Coverage 2991 3212 3383
Total Lot sq. ft. 8276 8276 8276
Total Coverage % 36.14% 38.8% 40.9%
7/1/2014
To: Dept of Planning and Zoning
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
RE: Variance request at 3200 Lake Lane, Arden Hills, MN
Retaining Wall and Landscaping Plan
The overall intention of the project is to replace the existing retaining wall, sidewalk, and steps between the
house and Shoreline lane. The new retaining wall would be built after the existing garage is demolished and in
preparation of the area to contain the new floating slab for the new garage. The retaining wall and steps would
be located in the same positions they now occupy, with slight changes in the steps and sidewalk to line up with
the new garage more centered on the lot. There is no plan to change the basic elevation of the new garage or
the lot drainage. (See drainage diagram attached.)
The existing retaining wall appears to be limestone with some type of grout. There has been significant
erosion, loss of stones, and buckling over the years along with erosion of the garden beds that parallel the wall
about 6-8ft to the East towards Shoreline lane. The intention is to install the new retaining wall to a height that
would equal the height of the stairs and then grade/backfill the area East of the wall to be at its original level
but not higher than the road, so drainage flow would be mostly unchanged.
The existing stairway has 4 steps that were originally about 8” each. There has been some settlement of the
entire stairway as well as a several inch drop in the sidewalk prior to the steps that we will try to “make up” with
fill and grading. So the maximum height of the retaining wall at the steps would be approximately 36”. The
portion of the retaining wall to the north of the steps will follow the same curved shape/location as the existing
wall and will taper down in height to conform to the shape of the lot and existing drainage. The portion of the
wall to the south of the steps that runs west along the property line will start at approx 36” and taper to conform
to the existing slope of the lot near the property border.
There is an existing sidewalk that diagonally crosses the yard area between the retaining wall and the house.
This sidewalk went to a side entrance that no longer exists and will be removed.
The current main drainage pathways for the lot run alongside the home. There is a good sized ditch along the
south side of the property where gutters and sump pumps discharge and water flows down the sidewalk to the
ditch. There is a small swail on the north side of the property between the homes that channels water on that
side from both homes toward the lake. The new retaining wall, stairs, and sidewalks should drain in the same
fashion.
After construction, black dirt and seed will be applied.
An example of the new retaining wall/stairway system is shown along with samples of the block
surface/colors. We currently like the Antique Bronze as an approximation of the original limestone.
Shoreline Lane
Proposed Garage DrainagePlan
3200 Lake Lane, Arden Hills MN
Owner Charles Campbell 651-490-5164
Lot Dimensions: 40.6X199.4X41x200
Total Lot Area: 8276 sq. ft.
Impervious: 3212 sq. ft. Ratio: 38.8%
Mountain Ash Tree
(Diseased )
To Be removed.
Cedar Tree
(Healthy )
To Be removed.
480 sq. ft.
N
Lo
t
L
i
n
e
1
9
9
.
4
f
t
.
Lo
t
L
i
n
e
2
0
0
f
t
.
Lot Width 40.6 ft.
Scale: 1” = 5’
Concrete Driveway
Aj
a
c
e
n
t
G
a
r
a
g
e
h
a
s
3
0
’
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
Aj
a
c
e
n
t
G
a
r
a
g
e
h
a
s
2
0
’
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
Shoreline Lane
Proposed Garage Site Plan
3200 Lake Lane, Arden Hills MN
Owner Charles Campbell 651-490-5164
Lot Dimensions: 40.6X199.4X41x200
Total Lot Area: 8276 sq. ft.
Impervious: 3212 sq. ft. Ratio: 38.8%
Mountain Ash Tree
(Diseased )
To Be removed.
Cedar Tree
(Healthy )
To Be removed.
480 sq. ft.
N
Lo
t
L
i
n
e
1
9
9
.
4
f
t
.
Lo
t
L
i
n
e
2
0
0
f
t
.
Lot Width 40.6 ft.
Scale: 1” = 5’
Concrete Driveway
Aj
a
c
e
n
t
G
a
r
a
g
e
h
a
s
3
0
’
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
Aj
a
c
e
n
t
G
a
r
a
g
e
h
a
s
2
0
’
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
Map D ate: July 1, 2014P:\GIS_Data\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-020¯3200 Lake Lane
3200 Lake Lane - Variance - PC 14-020
F
a
i
r
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
n
u
e
N
o
r
t
h
Shoreline Lane
Lake Lane
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-017 - Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\Memo_Reports_14-017
Page 1 of 12
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 9 , 2014 PC Agenda Item 4.A
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case #14-017 – No Public Hearing Required (Tabled on June 4th)
Applicant: Chad & Sasha Myers
Property Location: 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard
Request: Variance
Requested Action
The applicants are requesting two (2) variances in order to reconstruct the nonconforming
accessory structure located at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard.
1) Rotate the structure approximately fifteen (15) degrees to align the garage with the
western property line and the angle of the existing home resulting in a setback of two (2)
foot two (2) inches from the west property line, and seven (7) feet three (3) inches from
the south property line.
2) Change the direction of the roofline from an east/west orientation to a north/south
orientation with one (1) foot eaves on the north/south facades and (1) foot six (6) inch
eaves east/west facades in order to match the existing home.
Background
1. Background
At the June 4, 2014, Planning Commission meeting the applicants proposed to reconstruct
and expand a nonconforming accessory structure from twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two
(22) feet to twenty-four (24) feet by twenty-six (26) feet, an increase of 140 square feet.
After a close review of the application by the Commission the variance request was tabled in
order to give the applicant’s additional time to reevaluate their proposal and provide an
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-017 - Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\Memo_Reports_14-017
Page 2 of 12
alternate plan that would more closely conform to the existing nonconforming structure in
terms of the building footprint and setbacks. The applicants have since reviewed and
updated their plans for the nonconforming accessory structure. Their proposal for the new
accessory structure now includes a footprint that is identical to the existing structure with
slight variations to the placement and roof design.
The draft Planning Commission meeting minutes (Attachment A) and the staff report to the
Planning Commission (Attachment B) from the June 4th meeting are attached.
2. Overview of Request
The applicants are proposing to reconstruct the twenty-two (22) foot by twenty-two (22) foot
existing nonconforming accessory structure on the property. Along Fairview Avenue, the
proposed structure would be realigned to be parallel with the western property line and
constructed with a setback of two (2) foot two (2) inches. The previous proposal suggested a
setback of eight (8) inches from the west property line. From the south property line the
proposed structure would moved to the north an additional one (1) foot, which would result
in a seven (7) foot three (3) inch setback. The setback proposed between the structure and
the south property line during the previous review was four (4) feet one (1) inch.
As proposed the roofline of the accessory structure would change from an east/west
orientation to a north/south orientation in order for the garage to be accessible from the
existing driveway. The new design of the accessory structure would also incorporate one (1)
foot eaves on the north/south facades and (1) foot six (6) inch eaves east/west facades in
order to match the existing home
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.
The applicants have submitted a narrative of the proposed project and a response to the
variance evaluation criteria (Attachment C), a survey and a site plan of the property
(Attachment D), and garage elevations and building plans (Attachment E).
3. 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.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-017 - Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\Memo_Reports_14-017
Page 3 of 12
4. 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
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.
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 (Principal) 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 July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-017 - Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\Memo_Reports_14-017
Page 4 of 12
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
.
The existing accessory structure encroaches between twenty-five (25) feet six (6) inches
and twenty-nine (29) feet four (4) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along the west
property line, leaving a setback of four (4) feet six (6) inches at its furthest point and
eight (8) inches at its closest point from the west property line. The existing accessory
structure encroaches three (3) feet nine (9) inches into the ten (10) foot setback along the
southern property line, leaving a setback of six (6) feet three (3) inch between the
structure and the south property line.
As indicated by the applicant, the proposed accessory structure would encroach twenty-
seven (27) feet ten (10) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along Fairview Avenue
and two (2) feet nine (9) inches into the ten (10) foot setback along the southern property
line. This would leave a setback of two (2) foot two (2) inches from the west property
line and a setback of seven (7) feet three (3) inches from the south property line. The
proposed footprint of the structure would not be increased and would remain twenty-two
(22) feet by twenty-two (22) 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. The design of the structure would also
incorporate one (1) foot eaves on the north/south facades and (1) foot six (6) inch eaves
east/west facades in order to match the existing home.
Setbacks – Accessory
Structure Setbacks Existing Setbacks Proposed Proposed w/eaves
Rear Yard/West Property Line 8” 2’ 2” 8”
Side Yard/South Property Line 6’ 3” 7’ 3” 6’ 3”
1 Through-Lots:
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.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-017 - Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\Memo_Reports_14-017
Page 5 of 12
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 = 32.76%
Proposed Landscape Coverage = 67.24%
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
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. The proposed
structure at 484 square feet does 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.
Existing Proposed
Square Feet % Square Feet %
House/Garage 2,314 15.18% 2,314 15.18%
Accessory Structure 486 3.19% 486 3.19%
Decks/Patios -- -- -- --
Driveway/Walkways 1,725 11.32% 2,193 14.39%
Structural Coverage 4,525 29.69% 4,993 32.76%
Landscaping Coverage 70.31% 67.24%
Lot Size 15,241
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-017 - Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\Memo_Reports_14-017
Page 6 of 12
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.
*Two 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 principal structures
in the immediate vicinity. This allowed for a reduction in the setback along Fairview Avenue
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 principal 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 principal structure
and the location of other principal and accessory structures on adjacent lots in the immediate
vicinity.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-017 - Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\Memo_Reports_14-017
Page 7 of 12
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”.
Therefore, in evaluating variance requests under the new law, in order to find a practical
difficulty, cities should adopt findings addressing the following questions:
• Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance?
• Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan?
• Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner?
• Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner?
• Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
As was the case before the new legislation took effect, economic considerations alone cannot
constitute a practical difficulty. Furthermore, the new law clarifies that conditions may be
imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to and bear a rough
proportionality to the impact created by the variance.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-017 - Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\Memo_Reports_14-017
Page 8 of 12
Findings of Fact
Staff offers the following twenty-three (23) findings of fact for review:
General Findings
1. The property is in the R-2 Single & Two Family Residential Zoning District.
2. The lot is 15,241 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 100 feet in width,
and 165 feet in depth.
3. The existing accessory structure is a nonconforming structure within the R-2 Zoning
District because of its existing setbacks to the south and west property lines.
4. Because the existing accessory structure is positioned at an angle relative to the west
property line, the structure encroaches between twenty-five (25) feet six (6) inches and
twenty-nine (29) feet four (4) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along the west
property line, leaving a setback of four (4) feet six (6) inches at its furthest point and
eight (8) inches between the structure and the west property line at its closest point.
5. The existing accessory structure encroaches three (3) feet nine (9) inches into the ten (10)
foot setback along the south property line, leaving a setback of six (6) feet three (3)
inches between the structure and the south property line.
6. The existing accessory structure does not encroach into the north or east property line
setbacks.
7. The proposed accessory structure encroaches twenty-seven (27) feet ten (10) inches into
the thirty (30) foot setback along the entire length of the structure, leaving a setback of
two (2) feet two (2) inches from the west property line.
8. The proposed accessory structure encroaches two (2) feet nine (9) inches into the (10)
foot setback, leaving a setback of seven (7) feet three (3) inches from the south property
line. This is an increase of one (1) foot further from the property line when compared to
the existing structure.
9. The proposed accessory structure will not increase the footprint and will remain twenty-
two (22) feet by twenty-two (22).
10. The proposed accessory structure would be rotated approximately fifteen (15) degrees to
align the garage with the western property line and the angle of the existing home.
11. The proposed accessory structure would change the direction of the roofline from an
east/west orientation to a north/south orientation with one (1) foot eaves on the
north/south facades and (1) foot six (6) inch eaves east/west facades in order to match the
existing home
12. The existing single family dwelling and attached garage meet all property line setbacks.
13. The proposed structure and landscaping coverages are within the zoning district
requirements.
14. The proposed accessory structure would not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height.
15. Detached accessory structures are permitted structures within the R-2 Zoning District.
16. All structures on the lot are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-017 - Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\Memo_Reports_14-017
Page 9 of 12
Variance Findings:
17. The proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as the
Ordinance generally allows flexibility for unique parcels and situations when impacts to
surrounding properties are minimized.
18. The proposal is consistent with the Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan as it allows the
reasonable use of residential property.
19. Detached accessory structures are permitted and a reasonable use within the R-2 Single
Family Residential Zoning District.
20. The lot has rather unique characteristics as the property slopes towards Lake Johanna
approximately 18 (eighteen) feet from west to east leaving limited options for expansion
or movement of the accessory structure to an area that meets the setback regulations.
21. The proposed accessory structure would be visible from neighboring properties; however,
the proposed design and the use of quality materials for the detached structure that match
the single family dwelling should minimize the impacts on surrounding property owners.
22. The proposed accessory structure is unlikely to have negative impacts to the property or
to the neighborhood as a whole.
23. The proposed plans and requested variances for the accessory structure do not appear to
be based on economic considerations alone.
Discussion
The property is unique when compared to many properties in Arden Hills because of its
topography. From Fairview Avenue to Lake Johanna Boulevard the property slopes
approximately 18 (eighteen) feet from west to east. Because of the lot’s topography and
configuration of structures on the lot, options for expansion or the movement of the accessory
structure to an area that meets the setback regulations is very limited. The proposed realignment
and change in the roof orientation is reasonable in order for the applicant to construct a
functional garage that is accessed from the existing driveway. Due to the scope of the project
and the proposed changes to the structure, the character of the neighborhood or the City is not
expected to be negatively affected as a structure already exists in the general location of the
proposed structure. It does not appear that the variance request is based on economic
considerations alone. A detached accessory structure is a permitted use in the R-2 Zoning
District and is a reasonable request for the subject property.
Recommendation
The findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. However,
if the Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact
would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-017 - Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\Memo_Reports_14-017
Page 10 of 12
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this variance, Staff recommends the
following ten (10) conditions:
1. That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as
amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as
determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
2. That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted with a setback of two (2)
foot two (2) inches from the west property line and seven (7) feet three (3) inches
from the south property line.
3. That the proposed accessory structure shall not exceed the footprint of the existing
accessory structure that is twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet.
4. That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted to be rotated so that the
alignment matches that of the western property line and the angle of the existing
single family dwelling.
5. That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted to change the direction of the
roofline from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientation with one (1) foot
eaves on the north/south facades and (1) foot six (6) inch eaves east/west facades in
order to match the existing home
6. That the exterior façade and roofing materials of the proposed garage shall match the
colors and materials used on the single family dwelling.
7. That the existing driveway apron leading to the accessory building shall be removed
and that any damage to the right-of-way shall be repaired by the property owner.
8. That no living quarters shall be constructed within the proposed accessory structure
and that the attic area shall be used for storage purposes only.
9. That the structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. That
building and demolition permits for the construction of the new accessory building
and a zoning permit for the construction of the driveway shall be required.
10. That the applicant shall obtain a Grading and Erosion Control Permit from the City
before the building permit is issued.
Options
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 July 9, 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 the existing nonconforming
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-017 - Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\Memo_Reports_14-017
Page 11 of 12
accessory structure with minor modifications to the location and roofline, based on the
findings of fact and the submitted plans in the July 9, 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 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 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.
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 was required to act on this request by July 4, 2014
(60 days), unless the City provided the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day
review period.
The petitioner was notified on June 9, 2014, of the City’s request for an additional 60-day review
period. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must now act on this request by September
2, 2014 (120 days). The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period
beyond the initial 120 days.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-017 - Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\Memo_Reports_14-017
Page 12 of 12
Attachments
A. Draft Planning Commission Minutes – June 4, 2014
B. Planning Commission Report – June 4, 2014
C. Application and Narrative
D. Survey and Site Plan
E. Garage Elevations/Building Plans
F. Aerial Photo
G. Property Photos
H. Letters from Neighboring Residents
Approved:
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2014
6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Clayton Larson called to order the regular
Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present were: Chair Clayton Larson, Commissioners Brent Bartel, Andrew Holewa, Steven Jones
(Alternate), Roberta Thompson, and Clayton Zimmerman.
Absent: Commissioners Angela Hames and Sam Scott.
Also present were: Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher; City Planner Ryan Streff;
Associate Planner Matthew Bachler; and Councilmember Brenda Holden.
PLANNING CASES
A. Planning Case 14-017; Variance; 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard – Not a Public
Hearing
City Planner Streff stated that 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
Fairview Avenue and Lake Johanna Boulevard and consists of a conforming single-family
dwelling and a nonconforming detached accessory structure.
City Planner Streff indicated that 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.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 2
City Planner Streff reported that the applicants have indicated within their narrative that the
façade and roofing materials to be used on the new detached accessory structure would match the
materials on the existing single-family dwelling. 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.
Land Use Plan:
Site Data
Low Density Residential
Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential
Zoning: R-2: Single Family & Two Family Residential
Current Lot Sizes: .35 Acres (15,241 Square Feet)
Topography: The property has a fair amount of grade change as the lot slopes
toward Lake Johanna. The area around the existing garage is fairly
flat.
City Planner Streff reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and the Variance
Evaluation Criteria.
City Planner Streff provided the Findings of Fact for review:
General Findings
1. The property is in the R-2 Single & Two Family Residential Zoning District.
2. The lot is 15,241 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 100 feet in width,
and 165 feet in depth.
3. The existing accessory structure is a nonconforming structure within the R-2 Zoning
District because of its existing setbacks to the south and west property lines.
4. Because the existing accessory structure is positioned at an angle relative to the west
property line, the structure encroaches between twenty-five (25) feet six (6) inches and
twenty-nine (29) feet four (4) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along the west
property line, leaving a setback of four (4) feet six (6) inches at its furthest point and eight
(8) inches between the structure and the west property line at its closest point.
5. The existing accessory structure encroaches three (3) feet 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 east 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.
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. This would amount to an increase of the building footprint by 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.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 3
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.
City Planner Streff stated that 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 four (4) 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.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 4
10. That the applicant shall obtain a Grading and Erosion Control Permit from the City before
the building permit is issued.
City Planner Streff reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter:
1. Recommend Approval with Conditions
2. Recommend Approval as Submitted.
3. Recommend Denial
4. Table
Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments.
Chair Larson questioned what the rear yard setback would be.
City Planner Streff explained that after the garage structure was completed, the rear yard
(Fairview) setback would be 8 inches.
Commissioner Zimmerman questioned the age of the current garage.
City Planner Streff deferred this question to the applicant. He noted the home was replaced in
2010, but the garage was pre-existing.
Commissioner Bartel inquired if any variances were requested in 2010 for the home.
City Planner Streff stated that the property owner at the time requested a variance for the home,
however, this request was denied.
Commissioner Zimmerman indicated that the proposed 24’ x 26’ foot garage was reflective of
modern garage design.
Chad Meyers, 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard, thanked the Commission for considering his
variance request. He noted he has lived at the property for the past year and was not the party
that reconstructed the home. He believed that the existing two car garage did not suit the home
and was an eyesore for the neighborhood. He requested the Commission allow him to rebuild the
garage to meet the needs of his family on this lake lot. He believed the conditions recommended
by staff were too restrictive. He discussed the current encroachment of the garage was nine feet
and four inches and he explained he was not asking to encroach further to the west property line.
He reported he would be working with the same contractor that was used to build the house.
Commissioner Jones asked if the power pole would be moved.
Mr. Meyers stated that Xcel Energy would be moving the transmission pole to the other side of
the garage.
Commissioner Thompson questioned what options were available to build a structure that
would be in conformance with City setbacks and asked why this was not pursued.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 5
Mr. Meyers explained that after discussions with staff, it was determined that the rear yard
(Fairview Avenue) setback for an accessory structure was 30 feet. He commented this setback
would make a new garage impractical. He stated with a 10 foot setback a garage would be more
feasible, but would require 250 cubic feet of fill and would be located on a drainage field.
Commissioner Thompson inquired if the drainage field had been reviewed by staff.
City Planner Streff stated the Assistant City Engineer had reviewed the request and determined
the drainage would not be affected with the current proposal. However, staff did not provide
comment on how a different placement of the garage would impact the property.
Chair Larson questioned if the variance were to be approved, if the new garage would become a
conforming use.
City Planner Streff indicated the garage would be nonconforming in terms of setbacks, but
would be permitted due to the variance.
Chair Larson stated he was not typically in favor of expanding nonconforming uses; however,
he believed turning the garage made sense.
Commissioner Thompson commented she was torn by this request. She stated setbacks were
established for a reason. She then discussed the unique aspects of this lot noting it had two front
yard setbacks and had topography issues to deal with. She explained that by turning the garage,
the structure would look better on the lot.
Commissioner Zimmerman concurred with Chair Larson regarding the expansion of
nonconforming uses. He struggled with approving the expansion, but was supportive of the
proposed reorientation of the garage.
Commissioner Bartel stated the existing garage was an eyesore, but he did not believe the
increased garage size was necessary.
Commissioner Thompson understood that two car garages were normal, but she did not believe
that a three car garage was a requirement.
Commissioner Holewa understood why the homeowners wanted to replace the garage; however,
he did not support all three variances. He questioned if the Commission should table action to
allow the applicant to reconsider his request, or make a motion for denial.
Chair Larson stated the expansion of a nonconforming use was a concern for the Commission.
He suggested the owner provide comment on why the garage needed to be expanded.
Mr. Meyers believed that the proposed garage would allow him reasonable use of his property.
He stated the garage would cost him $50,000 to reconstruct and he wanted the garage to become
reasonably useful. He commented that Condition 2 should be revised to reflect that the setbacks
would be changed. He reported that he was not interested in building a garage if he had to follow
these conditions, as one stall of the garage would be unusable.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 6
Mr. Meyers questioned whether the Commission would be supportive of a plan to rebuild the
garage so as not to encroach further into the rear and side setbacks, but rather expand the garage
towards the house.
Chair Larson believed the consensus of the Commission was to not expand a nonconforming
use. He asked if Mr. Meyers was willing to reconsider his request.
Mr. Meyers was willing to reconsider his garage expansion.
Chair Larson questioned how the Commission would like to proceed with this variance request.
Commissioner Zimmerman stated the easiest solution would be to rebuild the existing garage
on the current footprint.
Commissioner Bartel feared that tabling action on this may not allow for this matter to be
resolved as the applicants were hoping for a garage larger than 22’ x 22’.
Chair Larson stated tabling the matter would allow Mr. Meyers to continue with the request
without making Mr. Meyers reapply for a variance.
Commissioner Holewa was in favor of the applicant rebuilding on the existing footprint. He
indicated he could go either way on this request but noted he would support the matter being
tabled.
Commissioner Bartel recommended the request be tabled.
Commissioner Jones stated this was a unique lot and discussed the number of homes that have
been rebuilt along this street.
City Planner Streff discussed the setbacks as determined by the City for through-lots. Staff
believed that a 40 foot setback was appropriate for the lakeside and front of the home. It was
determined that a 30 foot setback was appropriate for the rear yard along Fairview Avenue.
Commissioner Bartel moved and Commissioner Holewa seconded a motion to table action
on Planning Case 14-017 for a Variance at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard to allow for
further examination of the request by the applicant and staff.
City Planner Streff requested the Commission provide staff comment on what setbacks would
be acceptable.
Chair Larson believed that eight inches was not a desirable setback. He stated he could
entertain a lesser setback than 30 feet; however, the size of the structure should not be overly
expanded. He recommended a reasonable setback from Fairview be created.
Commissioner Bartel agreed stating the size of the garage was more of a concern than the
setbacks.
The motion carried unanimously (6-0).
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 7
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
July 1, 2014
Mr. Ryan Streff, City Planner
Department of Planning and Zoning
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
Re: Planning Case #14-017
Dear Mr. Streff:
I am writing to provide a revised plan for our variance request, Planning Case #14-017.
Based on feedback from the Planning Commission meeting on June 4, we have revised our
proposal in the following ways:
(1) We have reduced the footprint of the proposed garage to 22’ x 22’ instead of the
original proposal of 24’ x 26’.
(2) We have moved the proposed structure off of the wes t property line an additional 18”
for a total of 26” and an additional 12” off of the south property line for a total of 7’ 3”.
To fit with the style of our house, the new garage will have an eave overhang o f 1’ 6”
on the east/west sides and 1’ on the north/south sides, such that the eave on the new
building would encroach no further into the setback than the existing structure.
I would also note that as originally proposed, our plan is to move the garage doo rs from the
west side (facing the street) to the north side (facing the proposed new drive way) to make
this building more conforming.
I have included a revised drawing of the property outlining the proposed placement of the
new garage as well as a modified concept drawing with corrected dimensions.
We hope that you and the Planning Commission will find this revised request more
acceptable. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks for your time and consideration,
Chad Myers
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 structure would
not be allowed by official controls. Furthermore, the unique topology of our lot severely
limits the practicality of any conforming arrangement of the detached structure , so it
would not be reasonable to reconstruct this garage in a conforming location.
We are proposing the following changes: a rotation of the garage to align it with
our house and move the garage doors off the street , shifting of the structure by 26” to
the east and 12” to the north to reduce the encroachment into the front and side -yard
setbacks, a small expansion of the eaves to match the look of our house, and a
change from a 10/12 roof pitch to a 6/12 roof pitch (to match the house) with a ~1 ft.
increase in the peak height of the building. The current garage footprint is not aligned
with our house and the roof pitch does not match and thus, will significantly detract
from the site’s aesthetics if it were to be reconstructed as is. The eaves of the current
structure are quite small (2 in. on east/west, 7 in. on north/south), which currently
results in improper drainage of rainwater off the roof down the walls of the buildi ng,
and also do not match the aesthetic of our house. Regarding the height of the building,
we are adding approximately 1 foot to the peak height of the building to accommodate
room for storage in the attic. With the extra foot, the average height in the storage area
(see drawing) would be ~5’ 3” as compared to an average height of ~4’ 5”, which
would make this area much more functional in terms of access to the storage space.
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the proper ty 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 structure, and t he
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 wi th
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 garage structure 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 ch aracter of our
neighborhood with little to no negative impact on our own or our neighbo rs’ property.
We are also improving the conformance of the structure with respect to the placement
of the garage doors relative to the street and its encroachment into the side and front-
yard setbacks.
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, June 2014
Revised Garage Location proposal
Proposed
retaining wall
Existing garage
Proposed footprint
22’x22’ footprint
8”
26”
12”
Proposed
driveway
Setbacks Existing Proposed Proposed
(including eave)
Principal Structure:
Front yard: 47" 9' 47" 9' 47" 9'
Rear yard: 30' 6" 30' 6" 30' 6"
Side yard: 7' 7"/40' 9" 7' 7"/40' 9" 7' 7"/40' 9"
Accessory structure:
Rear yard: 8" 26“ 8"
Side yard: 6' 3" 7' 3“ 6' 3"
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 July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-019 - Zoning Code Amendment - Lighting Regulations\Memos_14-019
Page 1 of 3
DATE: July 9, 2014 PC Agenda Item 4.B
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case #14-019: Zoning Code Amendment – Lighting Regulations
Requested Action
Review the draft of Ordinance 2014-006 and provide staff with further direction.
Background
At their meeting on June 4, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed the City’s regulations on
exterior lighting and discussed several areas where revisions could be made. Specifically, the
discussion focused on how best to address the higher levels of luminosity associated with LED
lights. Staff has since begun working on a draft of Ordinance 2014-006 that would update the
exterior lighting requirements in Section 1325.05 of the Zoning Code. Section 1320 also includes
detailed requirements on exterior lighting for specific districts within the City. With the proposed
revisions to Section 1325.05, some of the district-specific regulations will become duplicative.
The final draft of Ordinance 2014-006 will include updates to Section 1320 to ensure consistency
on lighting standards throughout the Zoning Code.
The Commissioners were generally in agreement that the regulations should be written to limit
light trespass and establish prescriptive design requirements to reduce light pollution.
Additionally, it was recommended that a maximum lumen level be set to limit the intensity of
individual light fixtures. The Commission also discussed having height limits for exterior lights,
with more restrictive requirements for lights within a certain distance of adjoining properties.
The applicability of the lighting regulations was discussed as well. In order to evaluate
compliance with many of the standards, a detailed lighting plan would be required. The Planning
Commission concluded that only commercial, industrial, and multi-family properties should have
to submit these plans. However, residential properties would still be required to follow the
established standards. Finally, staff was instructed to look into whether certain types of lighting,
such as holiday lights and illumination of flagpoles, should be exempted from these regulations.
MEMORANDUM
_________________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-019 - Zoning Code Amendment - Lighting Regulations\Memos_14-019
Page 2 of 3
Discussion
Lighting Plan
The first section of Ordinance 2014-006 addresses in what situations the City would require a
lighting plan from a property owner and the details that would need to be included in these plans.
Staff believes that an appropriate time to require a lighting plan would be when a new
development, redevelopment, or addition is proposed for a commercial, industrial, or multi-
family property. For these types of projects, a Site Plan Review is typically required to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council, and the lighting plan could be
evaluated concurrently. A lighting plan would need to show the location of each light fixture,
provide details on the type of light, and include a grid of photometric readings for the entire site.
Luminaire Design
The Ordinance would prescribe specific design requirements for lighting based on whether a
horizontal surface (parking lots and sidewalks) or a vertical surface (building walls and
landscaping) is being illuminated. All downward cast lighting would be required to meet full cut-
off design criteria, which means the luminaire must be fully shielded with no light being cast
above a horizontal plane extending out from the light source. Staff is recommending that an
exception be included allowing for non-shielded ornamental light fixtures when it can be shown
that through design or arrangement such lights will not create undesirable impacts off-site. Many
developments, in particular retail and multi-family, use ornamental lights to provide lighting for
storefronts and pedestrian areas. These features can contribute to the overall quality of a site
design and should be permitted when appropriate.
For upward cast lighting, fixtures are required to be fully shielded. Light fixtures must be
arranged so that light is cast only on the area intended to be illuminated and does not shine past a
building, onto an adjoining property, or skyward. A final provision in this section would prohibit
any light fixture that produces glare. The Model Lighting Ordinance developed by the
Illuminating Engineering Society and the International Dark-Sky Associate defines glare as,
“lighting entering the eye directly from luminaires or indirectly from reflective surfaces that
causes visual discomfort or reduced visibility.”
Light Trespass
The existing lighting regulations address light trespass onto residential properties and public
roadways. These requirements would be maintained in Ordinance 2014-006 and light trespass
limits would be added for commercial and industrial properties. To evaluate whether light
trespass will occur, a photometric analysis showing footcandle readings across a site is needed. A
“footcandle” is a unit of measure that quantifies the amount of light received on a surface. The
maximum footcandle reading at the property line would be 0.4 footcandles if the abutting
property is residential, and 1.0 footcandle if the property is commercial or industrial. When a
property abuts a public street, the maximum measurement would also be 1.0 footcandle, but the
reading would be taken at the street centerline.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-019 - Zoning Code Amendment - Lighting Regulations\Memos_14-019
Page 3 of 3
Illumination
The Ordinance would set a maximum lumen level for individual light fixtures. The purpose of
this would be to restrict high-luminosity lights, which are more likely to create a public nuisance.
A lumen is a unit measurement for the amount of light produced by a lamp. It contrasts with a
watt, which is a measure of energy consumption. The limit would be set at 50,000 lumens for
commercial and industrial properties and 30,000 lumens for residential properties. The standards
included in the draft were taken from the exterior lighting ordinance adopted by the City of
Bloomington, which went into effect in 2008. Before finalizing Ordinance 2014-006, staff would
like to complete additional research on appropriate maximum lumen levels to ensure that these
requirements conform with industry standards and are not overly restrictive.
Height Limits
A recommended maximum height limit of 35 feet is included in Ordinance 2014-006. This
requirement would apply to light poles as well as light fixtures mounted to the exterior of a
building. For properties abutting residential uses, within 50 feet of the property line light fixtures
could be no more than 20 feet in height in order to reduce light trespass and glare. A similar
provision is not included for when an abutting property is industrial or commercial. These uses
often have shared or adjoining parking facilities and a more restrictive height limit within 50 feet
of the property line may result in less efficient use of lighting for parking areas.
Exceptions
This section would exclude certain types of lights from the City’s exterior lighting standards due
to their temporary nature or the City not having regulatory authority. Specific types of temporary
lights that would not need to conform to these standards include exterior holiday lighting
displays and lighting for sporting events. Federal and state agencies are often required to use
certain types of lighting for public safety purposes, and these lights would also be exempted. A
final exception is for the illumination of the national or state flag. When the national flag is kept
up at night, federal law requires that it be illuminated.
Requested Action
Review the draft of Ordinance 2014-006 and provide staff with further direction.
Attachments
A. Ordinance 2014-006 – DRAFT
B. Proposed Definitions for Exterior Lighting Regulations
C. Planning Commission Draft Minutes, June 4, 2014
D. Excerpts from Section 1320 and 1325.05 of the Zoning Code
ORDINANCE NO. 2014-006
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 2014-006
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1325.05, SUBD. 3 OF THE ZONING CODE IN ORDER
TO REVISE REGULATIONS ON EXTERIOR LIGHTING
The Arden Hills City Council hereby ordains that Section 1325.03, Subd. 3 shall be amended to
read as follows:
1325.05 Design Standards.
Subd. 3 Exterior Lighting.
A. Lighting Plan. Submittal of a lighting plan shall be required to ensure compliance
with this section for all new development, redevelopment, and additions except in the R-
1, R-2, and R-3 Districts. The lighting plan shall include the following:
1. A site plan showing the location of property lines, buildings, parking areas,
landscaping, and all proposed outdoor lighting fixtures;
2. Proposed height of each outdoor light fixture;
3. Description of each outdoor light fixture including but not limited to the
manufacturers catalog information sheet, photometric data, IESNA shielding
designation, glare control package, and type of light source;
4. A photometric plan overlaid on the site plan showing foot-candle readings on a
grid of ten (10) feet by ten (10) feet or less. Each point must be to the nearest 0.1
foot-candle.
B. Luminaire design.
1. For the lighting of parking lots, pedestrian areas, and other primarily horizontal
surfaces, luminaires shall be aimed straight down and shall meet full cut-off
design criteria. Ornamental lights may be approved if undesirable off-site impacts
from direct or reflected views of the light source can be addressed through design
or arrangement.
2. For the lighting of building walls, landscaping, and other primarily vertical
surfaces, luminaires shall be fully shielded so as not to project their beam onto
adjoining properties, past the object being illuminated, skyward, or onto a public
street.
3. No light fixture shall produce glare clearly visible beyond a property line or that
crates a sensation within a visual field that causes annoyance, discomfort, or
impairment.
C. Light trespass limitations. Light fixtures shall be arranged to limit light trespass onto
adjoining properties and public streets. Any light or combination of lights shall not cast
light that exceeds a measurement of 1.0 footcandle on abutting commercial or industrial
property or 0.4 footcandles on abutting residential property, as measured at the property
line. In cases where a lot line abuts a public street, cast light shall not exceed a
measurement of 1.0 footcandle as measured at the street centerline.
D. Maximum illuminance levels. For commercial and industrial uses, the maximum
power for a light source shall not exceed 50,000 initial light output lumens. For
residential uses, the maximum power for a light source shall not exceed 30,000 initial
light output lumens.
E. Maximum height. Light poles or mounted lights shall not exceed a height of 35 feet.
For properties that abut a residential use, light poles or mounted lights shall not exceed a
height of 20 feet when within 50 feet of the property line.
F. Exceptions. The lighting standards in this section shall not apply to the following
types of exterior lighting:
1. Flagpoles. Illumination of the national or state flag is permitted with no more than
two (2) upward aimed fully shielded spotlight fixtures.
2. Temporary lighting. Temporary lighting for sporting events and civic events.
3. Holiday decorations. Outdoor light fixtures used for holiday decorations.
4. Right-of-way lighting. Public lighting located within and intended for the right-
of-way.
5. Public safety lighting. Temporary lighting for police, fire, or public safety
construction and repair personnel.
6. Required lighting. Any lighting required and regulated by the Federal Aviation
Administration or other federal, state, or local agency.
Proposed Definitions for Exterior Lighting Regulations
Footcandle: The unit of measure expressing the quantity of light received on a surface. One
footcandle is the illuminance produced by a candle on a surface one foot square from a distance
of one foot.
Full Cut-Off Luminaire: A luminaire constructed and installed in such a manner that all light
emitted by the luminaire is projected below the horizontal plane through the luminaire’s lowest
light-emitting part.
Glare: Lighting entering the eye directly from luminaires or indirectly from reflective surfaces
that causes visual discomfort or reduced visibility.
Light Pollution: Any adverse effect of artificial light including, but not limited to, glare, light
trespass, sky glow, energy waste, and compromised safety and security
Light Trespass: Light that falls beyond the property it is intended to illuminate.
Lumen: The unit measure used to quantify the amount of light produced by a lamp or emitted
from a luminaire. A lumen is distinct from a watt, which is a measure of power consumption.
Luminaire: The complete lighting unit, consisting of a lamp together with the parts designed to
distribute the light (reflector, lens, diffuser) and to position and protect the lamps.
Sky Glow: The brightening of the nighttime sky that results from scattering and reflection of
artificial light in the atmosphere. Sky glow is caused by light directed upward or sideways and
reduces one’s ability to view the night sky.
Uplight: For an exterior luminaire, flux radiated in the hemisphere at or above the horizontal
plane.
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.
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.
Approved:
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2014
6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL
A. Planning Case 14-019; Zoning Code Amendment – Lighting Regulations – Not a
Public Hearing
Associate Planner Bachler stated that 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.
Associate Planner Bachler indicated that 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 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.
Associate Planner Bachler indicated that 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
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 2
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.
Associate Planner Bachler reported that 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.
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
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 3
• 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 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.
Associate Planner Bachler explained that 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 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.
Associate Planner Bachler stated that 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?
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 4
Associate Planner Bachler requested the Commission provide further direction on how the
Zoning Code could be updated to improve the City’s regulations regarding exterior lighting.
Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments.
Chair Larson favored an approach that would create regulations to limit light trespass.
Commissioner Holewa supported regulations that would limit light trespass as well as setting
prescriptive requirements on the design and arrangement of light fixtures to limit light pollution.
Commissioner Bartel agreed with this recommendation.
Commissioner Jones discussed the Holiday gas station sign and stated glare was a concern for
him in residential neighborhoods.
Commissioner Thompson also supported the approach to regulate the lumen level of individual
light fixtures.
Associate Planner Bachler discussed the Ordinances adopted by the cities of Bloomington and
St. Louis Park regarding exterior lighting, noting that additional research could be conducted on
neighboring communities.
Commissioner Holewa commented that up lighting would have to be allowed on American flags
in the overnight hours, as this was a federal regulation.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked if the City has investigated how neighboring cities address
lighting regulations. He anticipated that each zoning district would have to have specific lighting
regulations.
Discussion ensued regarding lighting regulations for different zoning districts.
Chair Larson believed the City should set a reasonable limit for the height of light fixtures.
Commissioner Thompson agreed. She questioned if the City could restrict fixture heights on
MnDOT and County roads.
Associate Planner Bachler stated he would investigate this further.
Chair Larson believed it would be difficult for the City to prohibit certain types of exterior
lighting. He explained that lighting was creative and was an ever changing market.
Commissioner Bartel indicated language addressing temporary Christmas lights that may blink
or flash could be included in the lighting regulations.
Commissioner Holewa recommended the City encourage the use of LED lights because of the
energy efficiencies associated with this type of lighting.
Associate Planner Bachler thanked the Commission for their input.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 9, 2014
Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 9 , 2014 PC Agenda Item 5.B
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner
SUBJECT: Report from the City Council
June 30, 2014, City Council Meeting
The City Council approved 3-2 (Holmes & Holden opposed) Planning Case 14-014, which was a
Variance request at 1850 Venus Avenue to construct a 26 foot by 30 foot garage addition that
would encroach 18 feet into the secondary front yard. At the Planning Commission meeting on
May 7, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this case 5-1 (Holewa
opposed).
The City Council also approved Planning Case 14-021 for a 60 day extension to the temporary
wall signage at 1290 County Road F West. The extension was requested by Arden Flats to allow
them additional time to utilize the temporary signage on their building to help attract future
residents. The case was originally approved by the City Council in Planning Case 13-023
through a Site Plan Review and Sign Standard Adjustment on January 27, 2014. The Planning
Commission reviewed Planning Case 13-023 on January 8, 2014, and unanimously
recommended approval.
The City Council voted to approve the TCAAP Master Plan Land Use Map on June 30, 2014.
The motion carried 3-2 (Werner & McClung opposed). With this approval the City is now able
to proceed with the policy and regulation section that will add design standards, setback and
other urban form.
Page 1 of 3
DATE: July 9 , 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 met on June 16 and 23, 2014, to review the draft master plan land use map.
Based on discussions at those meetings, the following changes were made to the land use map
since the JDA last reviewed the map on June 2, 2014.
• A U10/12 soccer field was eliminated from the Hill Neighborhood park. Reducing the
size of the park decreased the size of the surrounding neighborhood and restored 6.3
acres of commercial use to the area east of the Spine Road.
• The athletic facility on the west side of the Spine Road was moved to a 5.6-acre
residential block east of the Spine Road and south of the surface water management area.
• At the Highway 96 access point, 5.0 acres of land that was previously flex business was
designated for retail use.
The City Council approved the attached master plan land use map on June 30, 2014.
AUAR
The City Council reviewed the draft Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan on June 30, 2014. The
document will be forwarded to state agencies and the Metropolitan Council. If no agency
objections are received, the City Council will consider approval of the Final AUAR and
Mitigation Plan on July 28, 2014.
MEMORANDUM
Page 2 of 3
Upcoming Meetings
With City Council approval of the master plan land use map on June 30, 2014, staff and
consultants are scheduling work for the regulations and policies component of the master
planning process.
Planning Commissioners are encouraged to attend the City Council workshops with Gateway
Planning tentatively scheduled for August 18 and September 15, 2014. As well as the City
Council meetings listed below, TCAAP zoning will be discussed at the September through
December Planning Commission meetings.
July 14, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room
• Stormwater System Review (Infrastructure)
July 28, 2014, Regular Meeting at 7:00 pm, Council Chambers
• Consider approval of Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan
August 11, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room
• Water and Sewer System Review (Infrastructure)
• Density/Maximum Residential Unit Discussion
August 18, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers
• Workshop with Gateway Planning
o Discuss Performance Based Zoning process
o Discuss zoning elements and framework
o Present zoning sections 1 – 7 (Introduction, Components of the Code,
Administration, Definitions, Schedule of Uses, Building Form and Site
Development Standards, Building Design Standards)
August 25, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room
• Discuss Zoning Sections 1 – 5 (Introduction, Components of the Code,
Administration, Definitions, Schedule of Uses)
September 8, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room
• Spine Road and Grading Design Review (Infrastructure)
• Discuss Zoning Sections 6 – 7 (Building Form and Site Development Standards,
Building Design Standards)
Page 3 of 3
September 15, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers
• Workshop with Gateway Planning
o Discuss comments and direction on Sections 1 – 7 (Introduction,
Components of the Code, Administration, Definitions, Schedule of Uses,
Building Form and Site Development Standards, Building Design
Standards)
o Present Zoning Sections 8 – 12 (Street Design Standards, Parkland
Standards, Open Space Standards, Streetscape and Landscape Standards,
Sign Standards)
September 22, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers (4th of 5 Mondays)
• Final Discussion of Zoning Sections 1 – 7 (Introduction, Components of the
Code, Administration, Definitions, Schedule of Uses, Building Form and Site
Development Standards, Building Design Standards)
September 29, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room
• County Road I and Thumb Road Design Review (Infrastructure)
• Discuss Zoning Sections 8 and 11 (Street Design Standards, Streetscape and
Landscape Standards)
It is 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.
Attachments
• Approved Master Plan Land Use Map, June 30, 2014
Residential112.8
Mixed Use8.9
Ofc. Campus43.4
Offi ce21.6
Flex75.9
Retail19.6
Park19.1
Civic2.5
Other Open Space42.6
Local Roads57.8
Spine Road 25.2
TCAAP Land Use Map
June 30, 2014
S
p
i
n
e
R
o
a
d
Spine Road
Creek
Town
ThumbThumb
Hill
S
p
i
n
e
R
o
a
d