Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-09-14 PC Minutes Approved: September 3, 2014 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2014 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Clayton Larson called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Clayton Larson, Commissioners Brent Bartel, Andrew Holewa, Steven Jones (Alternate), and Clayton Zimmerman. Absent: Commissioner Angela Hames, Sam Scott, and Roberta Thompson. Also present were: City Planner Ryan Streff; Associate Planner Matthew Bachler; and Councilmember Fran Holmes. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – JULY 9, 2014 Chair Larson stated that the agenda for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting will stand as published. Chair Larson stated that item 2A would be removed from the agenda for the Planning Commission Work Session. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 7, 2014 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Holewa, to approve the May 7, 2014, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). June 4, 2014 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to approve the June 4, 2014, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 2 PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 14-020; Variance – 3200 Lake Lane – Not a Public Hearing City Planner Streff stated that the applicants in this case own the property located at 3200 Lake Lane. The property is zoned R-2 Single & Two Family Residential and is generally positioned north of County Road D West, south of Edgewater Avenue, east of Lake Josephine and west of Lexington Avenue North. The property is located on a through-lot between Lake Lane and Shoreline Lane and consists of a single-family dwelling and a nonconforming detached accessory structure. City Planner Streff commented that the applicant is proposing to reconstruct and expand the nonconforming accessory structure on the property from sixteen and one half (16.5) feet by twenty-two and one half (22.5) feet to twenty (20) feet by twenty-four (24) feet, an increase of 108.75 square feet. City Planner Streff indicated that the existing structure is approximately ten (10) feet from the east property line/secondary front yard, five (5) feet from the south side yard and eighteen and one half (18.5) feet from the north side yard. As indicated by the applicant on the submitted site plan the proposed structure would be relocated an additional ten (10) feet from the east property line resulting in a setback of twenty (20) feet. The structure would also be moved five (5) feet to the north resulting in a setback of ten (10) feet from the south side yard and ten (10) feet from the north side yard. Setbacks – Accessory Structure Setbacks Existing Setbacks Proposed Permitted Secondary Front Yard/East Property Line 10’ 20’ 40’ South Side Yard 5’ 10’ 5’/15’ (Min/Total) North Side Yard 18.5’ 10’ 5’/15’ (Min/Total) City Planner Streff explained that the applicant has indicated that a vinyl siding material will be used on the new detached accessory structure with roofing materials to match the single-family dwelling. The property owner has stated that the house would be painted to match the vinyl siding material that is selected. Following the construction, an addition to the existing driveway would be added for access purposes. Site Data Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential Zoning: R-2: Single Family & Two Family Residential Current Lot Sizes: .22 Acres (9,583 Square Feet) Topography: The property has a fair amount of grade change as the lot slopes towards Lake Josephine. City Planner Streff reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and the Variance Evaluation Criteria. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 3 City Planner Streff provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings 1. The property is in the R-2 Single & Two Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The lot is 8,276 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 40 feet in width, and 200 feet in depth. 3. The existing accessory structure is a nonconforming structure within the R-2 Zoning District because of its existing setbacks to the east property line. 4. The existing accessory structure is thirty (30) feet into the forty (40) foot secondary front yard setback along Shoreline Lane. 5. The existing accessory structure does not encroach into either side yard setback. 6. The proposed accessory structure encroaches twenty (20) feet into the forty (40) foot setback along Shoreline Lane. 7. The proposed accessory structure increases the footprint from sixteen and one half (16.5) feet by twenty-two and one half (22.5) feet to twenty (20) feet by twenty-four (24) feet, which is an increase of 108.75 square feet. 8. The proposed structure and landscaping coverages are not within the zoning district requirements. The new structure will increase the lot coverage from 35.56% to 38.81% and decreases the landscaping coverage from 64.44% to 61.19%. 9. The proposed accessory structure would not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. 10. Detached accessory structures are permitted structures within the R-2 Zoning District. 11. All structures on the lot are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. Variance Findings: 12. The proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as the Ordinance generally allows flexibility for unique parcels and situations when impacts to surrounding properties are minimized. 13. The proposal is consistent with the Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan as it allows the reasonable use of residential property. 14. Detached accessory structures are permitted and a reasonable use within the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 15. The lot has rather unique topography and size leaving limited options for expansion or movement of the accessory structure to an area that meets the all setback regulations. 16. The proposed accessory structure would be visible from neighboring properties; however, the proposed design and the use of quality materials for the detached structure that are compatible in appearance to the single family dwelling should minimize the impacts on surrounding property owners. 17. The proposed accessory structure is unlikely to have negative impacts to the property or to the neighborhood as a whole. 18. The proposed plans and requested variances for the accessory structure do not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. City Planner Streff stated that the property is unique when compared to many properties in Arden Hills because of its topography, size and its designation as a Through-Lot. Because of the lot’s topography and configuration of structures on the lot, options for expansion or the movement of the accessory structure to an area that meets all setback regulations is very limited. Due to the scope of the project and the proposed changes to the structure, the character of the neighborhood or the City is not expected to be negatively affected as a structure already exists in ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 4 the general location of the proposed structure. It does not appear that the variance request is based on economic considerations alone. A detached accessory structure is a permitted use in the R-2 Zoning District and is a reasonable request for the subject property. City Planner Streff indicated that the findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this variance, Staff recommends the following seven (7) conditions: 1. That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted to encroach twenty (20) feet into the secondary front yard setback along Shoreline Lane. 3. That the proposed accessory structure shall not exceed a footprint of 480 square feet. 4. That the exterior façade and roofing materials of the proposed garage shall be compatible in appearance and material used with the principal structure. 5. That no living quarters shall be constructed within the proposed accessory structure and that the attic area shall be used for storage purposes only. 6. That the structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. That building and demolition permits for the construction of the new accessory building and a zoning permit for the construction of the driveway shall be required. 7. That the applicant shall obtain a Grading and Erosion Control Permit from the City before the building permit is issued. City Planner Streff reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted. 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Chair Larson asked if this was a conforming lot of record. City Planner Streff explained that the subject property was a nonconforming lot. He reported the lot was 8,276 square feet when the minimum lot area was 11,000 square feet in the R-2 zoning district. Commissioner Holewa requested further information on what trees would be removed. City Planner Streff indicated that two trees would be impacted by the proposed project. Staff did not believe that more than 10% of the total caliper inches of significant trees on the property would be lost and for that reason, no tree replacement would be required. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 5 Commissioner Holewa questioned in what direction the property drained. City Planner Streff commented that the property drained towards the west to Lake Josephine. He reported the project plans have been reviewed by the Assistant City Engineer. It was noted that a grading and erosion control plan would have to be acquired before construction could begin. Commissioner Holewa inquired if rain gardens had been considered on this property. City Planner Streff stated this has not been discussed, but pervious pavers had been considered. Charles Campbell, 3200 Lake Lane, explained that his home was bordered by trees on the north and south. He explained that he would try to save a healthy six inch cedar tree along his driveway. Chair Larson questioned what siding would be used on the new garage. He explained that it would be important for the applicant to match the color and materials of the garage to the home. Mr. Campbell indicated he would be using hardboard siding that would complement or match the home. He wanted to avoid placing cedar siding on the garage as his home would need to be resided in the future. Chair Larson stated a caveat could be placed on this request if the applicant could ensure staff the house siding would be redone in the next year or two to match the garage. He was comfortable leaving this matter to staff. Commissioner Holewa inquired how long the applicant has owned the home. Mr. Campbell reported he has owned the home since 1989. Chair Larson questioned the age of the garage. Mr. Campbell indicated that the garage was likely constructed at the same time as the house in the 1930s. Commissioner Bartel stated this request was difficult because the applicant was requesting a larger garage that would expand the current non-conforming structure. He reported the Council was not in favor of variances and he did not want to see this case create a precedent. Chair Larson commented this was an odd sized lot. Mr. Campbell indicated he was requesting to upsize his single car garage to the smallest sized two car garage possible on his 40 foot wide lot. He noted he was relocating the garage on the lot to move it away from the road. He believed he had a unique lot given its elevation and size. Chair Larson thanked Mr. Campbell for his comments. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 6 City Planner Streff explained that an alternative for the Commission to consider would be to place a condition on the motion that would ensure the applicant does not increase lot coverage along with requiring pervious pavers. This would eliminate the need for the third variance. Commissioner Jones supported this recommendation and found it to be a reasonable exchange. Commissioner Bartel agreed as well, but struggled with the expansion of the garage. Chair Larson commented that expansions of nonconforming structures have been a problem for the City. Commissioner Holewa indicated this lot was difficult and did not see another solution. He would support tabling action on this request or denial. Commissioner Holewa moved to recommend denial of Planning Case 14-020 for a Variance at 3200 Lake Lane based on the findings of fact that the three variances were excessive and the request would expand a nonconforming use. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Bartel suggested the Planning Case be tabled to allow the applicant to modify his request. Chair Larson stated the recommendation from staff would eliminate the need for the third variance. Commissioner Zimmerman indicated the property was currently nonconforming for impervious coverage requirements and setbacks. He believed that tabling the request made the most sense at this time to allow the applicant to find a better solution. Commissioner Bartel moved and Commissioner Jones seconded a motion to table action on Planning Case 14-020 to the August Planning Commission meeting to allow staff to work with the applicant on an alternative request that would reduce the number of variances and improve the setback situation. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. Planning Case 14-017; Variance – 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard – Not a Public Hearing City Planner Streff stated that at the June 4, 2014, Planning Commission meeting the applicants proposed to reconstruct and expand a nonconforming accessory structure from twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet to twenty-four (24) feet by twenty-six (26) feet, an increase of 140 square feet. After a close review of the application by the Commission, the variance request was tabled in order to give the applicant’s additional time to reevaluate their proposal and provide an alternate plan that would more closely conform to the existing nonconforming structure in terms of the building footprint and setbacks. The applicants have since reviewed and updated their plans for the nonconforming accessory structure. Their proposal for the new accessory structure now includes a footprint that is identical to the existing structure with slight variations to the placement and roof design. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 7 City Planner Streff explained that the applicants are proposing to reconstruct the twenty-two (22) foot by twenty-two (22) foot existing nonconforming accessory structure on the property. Along Fairview Avenue, the proposed structure would be realigned to be parallel with the western property line and constructed with a setback of two (2) foot two (2) inches. The previous proposal suggested a setback of eight (8) inches from the west property line. From the south property line, the proposed structure would be moved to the north an additional one (1) foot, which would result in a seven (7) foot three (3) inch setback. The setback proposed between the structure and the south property line during the previous review was four (4) feet one (1) inch. City Planner Streff commented that as proposed the roofline of the accessory structure would change from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientation in order for the garage to be accessible from the existing driveway. The new design of the accessory structure would also incorporate one (1) foot eaves on the north/south facades and (1) foot six (6) inch eaves east/west facades in order to match the existing home City Planner Streff stated that the applicants have indicated within their narrative that the façade and roofing materials to be used on the new detached accessory structure would match the materials on the existing single family dwelling. Site Data Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential Zoning: R-2: Single Family & Two Family Residential Current Lot Sizes: .35 Acres (15,241 Square Feet) Topography: The property has a fair amount of grade change as the lot slopes toward Lake Johanna. The area around the existing garage is fairly flat. City Planner Streff reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and the Variance Evaluation Criteria. City Planner Streff provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings 1. The property is in the R-2 Single & Two Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The lot is 15,241 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 100 feet in width, and 165 feet in depth. 3. The existing accessory structure is a nonconforming structure within the R-2 Zoning District because of its existing setbacks to the south and west property lines. 4. Because the existing accessory structure is positioned at an angle relative to the west property line, the structure encroaches between twenty-five (25) feet six (6) inches and twenty-nine (29) feet four (4) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along the west property line, leaving a setback of four (4) feet six (6) inches at its furthest point and eight (8) inches between the structure and the west property line at its closest point. 5. The existing accessory structure encroaches three (3) feet nine (9) inches into the ten (10) foot setback along the south property line, leaving a setback of six (6) feet three (3) inches between the structure and the south property line. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 8 6. The existing accessory structure does not encroach into the north or east property line setbacks. 7. The proposed accessory structure encroaches twenty-seven (27) feet ten (10) inches into the thirty (30) foot setback along the entire length of the structure, leaving a setback of two (2) feet two (2) inches from the west property line. 8. The proposed accessory structure encroaches two (2) feet nine (9) inches into the (10) foot setback, leaving a setback of seven (7) feet three (3) inches from the south property line. This is an increase of one (1) foot further from the property line when compared to the existing structure. 9. The proposed accessory structure will not increase the footprint and will remain twenty- two (22) feet by twenty-two (22). 10. The proposed accessory structure would be rotated approximately fifteen (15) degrees to align the garage with the western property line and the angle of the existing home. 11. The proposed accessory structure would change the direction of the roofline from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientation with one (1) foot eaves on the north/south facades and (1) foot six (6) inch eaves east/west facades in order to match the existing home 12. The existing single family dwelling and attached garage meet all property line setbacks. 13. The proposed structure and landscaping coverages are within the zoning district requirements. 14. The proposed accessory structure would not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. 15. Detached accessory structures are permitted structures within the R-2 Zoning District. 16. All structures on the lot are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. Variance Findings: 17. The proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as the Ordinance generally allows flexibility for unique parcels and situations when impacts to surrounding properties are minimized. 18. The proposal is consistent with the Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan as it allows the reasonable use of residential property. 19. Detached accessory structures are permitted and a reasonable use within the R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 20. The lot has rather unique characteristics as the property slopes towards Lake Johanna approximately 18 (eighteen) feet from west to east leaving limited options for expansion or movement of the accessory structure to an area that meets the setback regulations. 21. The proposed accessory structure would be visible from neighboring properties; however, the proposed design and the use of quality materials for the detached structure that match the single family dwelling should minimize the impacts on surrounding property owners. 22. The proposed accessory structure is unlikely to have negative impacts to the property or to the neighborhood as a whole. 23. The proposed plans and requested variances for the accessory structure do not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. City Planner Streff stated that the property is unique when compared to many properties in Arden Hills because of its topography. From Fairview Avenue to Lake Johanna Boulevard the property slopes approximately 18 (eighteen) feet from west to east. Because of the lot’s topography and configuration of structures on the lot, options for expansion or the movement of the accessory structure to an area that meets the setback regulations is very limited. The proposed ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 9 realignment and change in the roof orientation is reasonable in order for the applicant to construct a functional garage that is accessed from the existing driveway. Due to the scope of the project and the proposed changes to the structure, the character of the neighborhood or the City is not expected to be negatively affected as a structure already exists in the general location of the proposed structure. It does not appear that the variance request is based on economic considerations alone. A detached accessory structure is a permitted use in the R-2 Zoning District and is a reasonable request for the subject property. City Planner Streff explained that the findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this variance, Staff recommends the following ten (10) conditions: 1. That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted with a setback of two (2) foot two (2) inches from the west property line and seven (7) feet three (3) inches from the south property line. 3. That the proposed accessory structure shall not exceed the footprint of the existing accessory structure that is twenty-two (22) feet by twenty-two (22) feet. 4. That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted to be rotated so that the alignment matches that of the western property line and the angle of the existing single family dwelling. 5. That the proposed accessory structure shall be permitted to change the direction of the roofline from an east/west orientation to a north/south orientation with one (1) foot eaves on the north/south facades and (1) foot six (6) inch eaves east/west facades in order to match the existing home 6. That the exterior façade and roofing materials of the proposed garage shall match the colors and materials used on the single family dwelling. 7. That the existing driveway apron leading to the accessory building shall be removed and that any damage to the right-of-way shall be repaired by the property owner. 8. That no living quarters shall be constructed within the proposed accessory structure and that the attic area shall be used for storage purposes only. 9. That the structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. That building and demolition permits for the construction of the new accessory building and a zoning permit for the construction of the driveway shall be required. 10. That the applicant shall obtain a Grading and Erosion Control Permit from the City before the building permit is issued. City Planner Streff reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted. 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 10 Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Chair Larson reported that the planned garage was the same size as the existing garage. He believed that the tabling of this request at the June Planning Commission meeting was successful. Commissioner Bartel agreed stating the new plan would greatly improve the site. He supported the Planning Case but believed only one variance was being requested. He suggested the language of the variance be reworded regarding the rotation of the structure. Commissioner Bartel moved and Commissioner Zimmerman seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 14-017 for a Variance at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the ten (10) conditions in the July 9, 2014, report to the Planning Commission with rewording of the variance. The motion carried unanimously 4-1 (Holewa opposed). B. Planning Case 14-019; Zoning Code Amendment – Lighting Regulations – Not a Public Hearing Associate Planner Bachler stated that at the meeting on June 4, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed the City’s regulations on exterior lighting and discussed several areas where revisions could be made. Specifically, the discussion focused on how best to address the higher levels of luminosity associated with LED lights. Staff has since begun working on a draft of Ordinance 2014-006 that would update the exterior lighting requirements in Section 1325.05 of the Zoning Code. Section 1320 also includes detailed requirements on exterior lighting for specific districts within the City. With the proposed revisions to Section 1325.05, some of the district-specific regulations will become duplicative. The final draft of Ordinance 2014-006 will include updates to Section 1320 to ensure consistency on lighting standards throughout the Zoning Code. Associate Planner Bachler explained that the Commissioners were generally in agreement that the regulations should be written to limit light trespass and establish prescriptive design requirements to reduce light pollution. Additionally, it was recommended that a maximum lumen level be set to limit the intensity of individual light fixtures. The Commissioners also discussed having height limits for exterior lights, with more restrictive requirements for lights within a certain distance of adjoining properties. Associate Planner Bachler reported that the applicability of the lighting regulations was discussed as well. In order to evaluate compliance with many of the standards, a detailed lighting plan would be required. The Planning Commission concluded that only commercial, industrial, and multi-family properties should have to submit these plans. However, residential properties would still be required to follow the established standards. Finally, staff was instructed to look into whether certain types of lighting, such as holiday lights and illumination of flagpoles, should be exempted from these regulations. Lighting Plan Associate Planner Bachler stated that the first section of Ordinance 2014-006 addresses in what situations the City would require a lighting plan and the details that would need to be included in these plans. Staff believes that an appropriate time to require a lighting plan would be when a ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 11 new development, redevelopment, or addition is proposed for a commercial, industrial, or multi- family property. For these types of projects, a Site Plan Review is typically required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council, and the lighting plan could be evaluated concurrently. A lighting plan would need to show the location of each light fixture, provide details on the type of light, and include a grid of photometric readings for the entire site. Luminaire Design Associate Planner Bachler commented that the Ordinance would prescribe specific design requirements for lighting based on whether a horizontal surface (parking lots and sidewalks) or a vertical surface (building walls and landscaping) is being illuminated. All downward cast lighting would be required to meet full cut-off design criteria, which means the luminaire must be fully shielded with no light being cast above a horizontal plane extending out from the light source. Staff is recommending that an exception be included allowing for non-shielded ornamental light fixtures when it can be shown that through design or arrangement such lights will not create undesirable impacts off-site. Many developments, in particular retail and multi-family, use ornamental lights to provide lighting for storefronts and pedestrian areas. These features can contribute to the overall quality of a site design and should be permitted when appropriate. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that for upward cast lighting, fixtures are required to be fully shielded. Light fixtures must be arranged so that light is cast only on the area intended to be illuminated and does not shine past a building, onto an adjoining property, or skyward. A final provision in this section would prohibit any light fixture that produces glare. The Model Lighting Ordinance developed by the Illuminating Engineering Society and the International Dark-Sky Associate defines glare as, “lighting entering the eye directly from luminaires or indirectly from reflective surfaces that causes visual discomfort or reduced visibility.” Light Trespass Associate Planner Bachler explained that the existing lighting regulations address light trespass onto residential properties and public roadways. These requirements would be maintained in Ordinance 2014-006 and light trespass limits would be added for commercial and industrial properties. To evaluate whether light trespass will occur, a photometric analysis showing footcandle readings across a site is needed. A “footcandle” is a unit of measure that quantifies the amount of light received on a surface. The maximum footcandle reading at the property line would be 0.4 footcandles if the abutting property is residential, and 1.0 footcandle if the property is commercial or industrial. When a property abuts a public street, the maximum measurement would also be 1.0 footcandle, but the reading would be taken at the street centerline. Illumination Associate Planner Bachler noted that the Ordinance would set a maximum lumen level for individual light fixtures. The purpose of this would be to restrict high-luminosity lights, which are more likely to create a public nuisance. A lumen is a unit measurement for the amount of light produced by a lamp. It contrasts with a watt, which is a measure of energy consumption. The limit would be set at 50,000 lumens for commercial and industrial properties and 30,000 lumens for residential properties. The standards included in the draft were taken from the exterior lighting ordinance adopted by the City of Bloomington, which went into effect in 2008. Before finalizing Ordinance 2014-006, staff would like to complete additional research on appropriate ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 12 maximum lumen levels to ensure that these requirements conform with industry standards and are not overly restrictive. Height Limits Associate Planner Bachler stated that a recommended maximum height limit of 35 feet is included in Ordinance 2014-006. This requirement would apply to light poles as well as light fixtures mounted to the exterior of a building. For properties abutting residential uses, within 50 feet of the property line light fixtures could be no more than 20 feet in height in order to reduce light trespass and glare. A similar provision is not included for when an abutting property is industrial or commercial. These uses often have shared or adjoining parking facilities and a more restrictive height limit within 50 feet of the property line may result in less efficient use of lighting for parking areas. Exceptions Associate Planner Bachler reported that certain types of lights would be excluded from the City’s exterior lighting standards due to their temporary nature or the City not having regulatory authority. Specific types of temporary lights that would not need to conform to these standards include exterior holiday lighting displays and lighting for sporting events. Federal and state agencies are often required to use certain types of lighting for public safety purposes, and these lights would also be exempted. A final exception is for the illumination of the national or state flag. When the national flag is kept up at night, federal law requires that it be illuminated. Associate Planner Bachler requested that the Commission review the draft Ordinance and provide staff with feedback on how to proceed. Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Chair Larson questioned if up-lighting on flags could be limited in commercial areas, as car dealerships often have numerous flags. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that this would be difficult to regulate as there were federal mandates that require the national flag to be illuminated if displayed at night. Commissioner Holewa asked if the City had the equipment to measure foot candles and questioned where the measurements were taken. Associate Planner Bachler stated that the City did not have the capability to take these measurements. He reported that measurements were taken at the surface of the ground. Discussion ensured regarding the blue LED lighting used on the existing Holiday gas station monument sign. Chair Larson provided comment on ornamental lighting and asked if the globes provided any “shielding”. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 13 Associate Planner Bachler reported that partial shielding would likely be provided as the globes were clouded over, which reduced the intensity of the light source. He stated typically the lumen levels of ornamental lights were significantly less than lights used to illuminate surface parking lots. Commissioner Zimmerman questioned whether from an architectural design standpoint if architects design to City lighting standards, or to their own development standards. Chair Larson discussed how architects design lighting plans with the assistance of engineers and in conformance with City standards. REPORTS A. Planning Commission Comments and Requests None. B. Report from the City Council Councilmember Holmes updated the Planning Commission on City Council activities from June 30, 2014, City Council Meeting, noting the City Council approved 3-2 (Holmes & Holden opposed) Planning Case 14-014, which was a Variance request at 1850 Venus Avenue to construct a 26 foot by 30 foot garage addition that would encroach 18 feet into the secondary front yard. At the Planning Commission meeting on May 7, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this case 5-1 (Holewa opposed). The City Council also approved Planning Case 14-021 for a 60 day extension to the temporary wall signage at 1290 County Road F West. The extension was requested by Arden Flats to allow them additional time to utilize the temporary signage on their building to help attract future residents. The case was originally approved by the City Council in Planning Case 13-023 through a Site Plan Review and Sign Standard Adjustment on January 27, 2014. The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 13-023 on January 8, 2014, and unanimously recommended approval. The City Council voted to approve the TCAAP Master Plan Land Use Map on June 30, 2014. The motion carried 3-2 (Werner & McClung opposed). With this approval the City is now able to proceed with the policy and regulation section that will add design standards, setback and other urban form. Councilmember Holmes provided an update on the bridge improvements or replacements planned in and around Arden Hills for the next two years. She described the diverging diamond interchange (DDI) that was planned for the Highway 96/I-35W interchange. She encouraged all to take part in National Night Out Celebrations on August 5, 2014. She noted two State of the City Events would be held this year. The first would be at Flaherty’s at 7:30 a.m. on Thursday, September 18, 2014 and the second was scheduled for Tuesday, September 23, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 14 C. TCAAP Update City Planner Streff reported that the City Council met on June 16 and 23, 2014, to review the draft master plan land use map. Based on discussions at those meetings, the following changes were made to the land use map since the JDA last reviewed the map on June 2, 2014. • A U10/12 soccer field was eliminated from the Hill Neighborhood park. Reducing the size of the park decreased the size of the surrounding neighborhood and restored 6.3 acres of commercial use to the area east of the Spine Road. • The athletic facility on the west side of the Spine Road was moved to a 5.6-acre residential block east of the Spine Road and south of the surface water management area. • At the Highway 96 access point, 5.0 acres of land that was previously flex business was designated for retail use. Staff stated that the City Council approved the master plan land use map on June 30, 2014. City Planner Streff indicated that the City Council reviewed the draft Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan on June 30, 2014. The document will be forwarded to state agencies and the Metropolitan Council. If no agency objections are received, the City Council will consider approval of the Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan on July 28, 2014. City Planner Streff commented that with City Council approval of the master plan land use map on June 30, 2014, staff and consultants are scheduling work for the regulations and policies component of the master planning process. City Planner Streff explained that Planning Commissioners are encouraged to attend the City Council workshops with Gateway Planning tentatively scheduled for August 18 and September 15, 2014. As well as the City Council meetings listed below, TCAAP zoning will be discussed at the September through December Planning Commission meetings. July 14, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room • Stormwater System Review (Infrastructure) July 28, 2014, Regular Meeting at 7:00 pm, Council Chambers • Consider approval of Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan August 11, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room • Water and Sewer System Review (Infrastructure) • Density/Maximum Residential Unit Discussion August 18, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers • Workshop with Gateway Planning o Discuss Performance Based Zoning process o Discuss zoning elements and framework ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 9, 2014 15 o Present zoning sections 1 – 7 (Introduction, Components of the Code, Administration, Definitions, Schedule of Uses, Building Form and Site Development Standards, Building Design Standards) August 25, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room • Discuss Zoning Sections 1 – 5 (Introduction, Components of the Code, Administration, Definitions, Schedule of Uses) September 8, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room • Spine Road and Grading Design Review (Infrastructure) • Discuss Zoning Sections 6 – 7 (Building Form and Site Development Standards, Building Design Standards) September 15, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers • Workshop with Gateway Planning o Discuss comments and direction on Sections 1 – 7 (Introduction, Components of the Code, Administration, Definitions, Schedule of Uses, Building Form and Site Development Standards, Building Design Standards) o Present Zoning Sections 8 – 12 (Street Design Standards, Parkland Standards, Open Space Standards, Streetscape and Landscape Standards, Sign Standards) September 22, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers (4th of 5 Mondays) • Final Discussion of Zoning Sections 1 – 7 (Introduction, Components of the Code, Administration, Definitions, Schedule of Uses, Building Form and Site Development Standards, Building Design Standards) September 29, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room • County Road I and Thumb Road Design Review (Infrastructure) • Discuss Zoning Sections 8 and 11 (Street Design Standards, Streetscape and Landscape Standards) City Planner Streff anticipated that additional regular and special work session meetings will be scheduled to discuss regulations and policies, the infrastructure study, and other TCAAP issues. Future meeting topics will be defined as those dates draw nearer. Commissioner Jones suggested that the five acres of retail along Highway 96 be increased in size as this was a prime retail location. ADJOURN Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to adjourn the July 9, 2014, Planning Commission Meeting at 8:15 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0).