Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-04-19 PCAPPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 6th, 2019 Planning Commission Regular Meeting 11 -06 -19 PC MINUTES.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 19 -16 - Expansion Of The Boundaries Of Development District No. 1 (No Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF Planning Case 19 -015 –3244 Sandeen Road –Variance (No Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council Planning Commission Comments ADJOURNMENT ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair: Nick Gehrig Commissioners: Steven Jones James Lambeth Subbaya Subramanian Paul Vijums Jonathan Wicklund Clayton Zimmerman Council Liaison: Dave McClung Planning Commission December 4, 2019 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address: 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone: 651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City Vision Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. Agenda CALL TO ORDER 1. 2. 2.A. Documents: 3. 3.A. Documents: 3.B. Documents: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. 6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDAAPPROVAL OF MINUTESNovember 6th, 2019 Planning Commission Regular Meeting11-06 -19 PC MINUTES.PDFPLANNING CASESPlanning Case 19 -16 - Expansion Of The Boundaries Of Development District No. 1 (No Public Hearing Required)MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFPlanning Case 19 -015 –3244 Sandeen Road –Variance (No Public Hearing Required)MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council Planning Commission Comments ADJOURNMENT ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair:Nick GehrigCommissioners:Steven JonesJames LambethSubbaya SubramanianPaul VijumsJonathan WicklundClayton Zimmerman Council Liaison:Dave McClung Planning Commission December 4, 2019 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone:651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. AgendaCALL TO ORDER1.2.2.A.Documents:3.3.A.Documents:3.B.Documents: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. 6. Approved: December 4, 2019 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2019 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Vice Chair Steven Jones called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Commissioners Steven Jones, Subbaya Subramnian, Paul Vijums, Jonathan Wicklund, and Clayton Zimmerman. Absent: Chair Nick Gehrig and James Lambeth. Also present were: Community Development Manager/City Planner Mike Mrosla, Associate Planner Joe Hartmann, and Councilmember Dave McClung. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – NOVEMBER 6, 2019 Vice Chair Jones stated the agenda will stand as published. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 9, 2019 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Vijums, to approve the October 9, 2019, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 19-010; Valentine Hills Elementary School – Site Plan Review, Amended Conditional Use Permit – Public Hearing Associate Planner Hartmann stated Valentine Hills Elementary School is a two-story brick building located on a 10.92-acre parcel that abuts a regional parks and trails system within a residential neighborhood adjacent to Interstate I35 W. The Subject Property is bounded by single- ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 6, 2019 2 family residential homes to the south and west and by parks and recreation spaces to the north and east. The original structure was built in 1969. Associate Planner Hartmann reported the property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District and is guided as Public or Institutional on the Land Use Plan. The use as a public elementary school was originally granted under a Conditional Use Permit when the school underwent a significant expansion in 1987 (Planning Case 87-03). The last major remodel to the property occurred in 2000 (Planning Case 00-023) for a 10,000 square foot classroom addition. As per City Code Section 1320.075 subd. 2, the Subject Property meets the special requirements for a general education school within the Single Family Residential (R-1) District. Associate Planner Hartmann explained as per the plans submitted, the Applicant is proposing two (2) building additions. The classroom addition is located on the south side of the building and is highlighted in orange in the image above. This proposed addition is located on existing greenspace onsite. The proposed addition will be two (2) stories totaling 9,000 square feet and match the height of the existing school. The proposed addition will include flex learning space, one (1) additional classroom and the relocation of existing academic programs that are currently located within three (3) existing classrooms. The three (3) existing classrooms will then be remodeled and utilized as standalone classrooms. The proposed addition on the west side of the building highlighted in yellow in the image above is a 1,000-square foot addition to the existing cafeteria that will match the height of the existing cafeteria. Associate Planner Hartmann stated the Zoning Ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit for a “general education school” in the R-1 Zoning District where the Subject Property is located under City Code Section 1320.05. Because the renovation will expand the area of the building, a Conditional Use Permit amendment is required for the Subject Property. Per City Code Section 1355.06, an application for a Conditional Use Permit amendment shall be administered in the same manner as required for a new application. Any structural alteration, enlargement or intensification change in site plan, or similar change not specially permitted, shall require City Council action and all procedures shall apply as if a new application were being requested. Associate Planner Hartmann reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. Valentine Hills Elementary School is a two-story brick building located on a 10.92-acre parcel within a residential area. 2. Mounds View Public Schools ISD #621 is requesting site plan review for a proposed expansion to the Valentine Hills Elementary School. 3. The use of the Subject Property as a public elementary school is permitted under a Conditional Use Permit. 4. Any expansion of the existing building would require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit Amendment. 5. The new addition will allow for a new cafeteria renovation and expansion, and four additional classrooms, as well as upgrades to the utilities and exterior lighting. 6. Zoning Code Review of the Subject Property regulations concludes that the proposed land use application conforms to City district provisions. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 6, 2019 3 7. The proposed site plan will not impact parking, loading, or circulation demands since the addition is to better accommodate existing building uses and will not increase capacity or intensity of use. 8. The proposal is not expected to adversely affect the surrounding area of the community as a whole. Associate Planner Hartmann stated if the Commission were to approve Planning Case 19-010 for a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Amendment at 1770 County Road E2, the recommendation should include the findings of fact and submitted plans, subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions of the original Conditional Use Permit shall remain in full force and effect. The Conditional Use Permit Amendment approvals shall expire one year from the date of City Council approval unless a building permit has been requested or a time extension has been granted by the City Council. 2. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to the plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 3. A Grading and Erosion permit shall be obtained from the city’s Engineering Division prior to commencing any grading, land disturbance or utility activities. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary from other agencies, including but not limited to, MPCA, Rice Creek Watershed District, and Ramsey County prior to the start of any site activities. 4. Heavy duty silt fence and adequate erosion control around the entire construction site shall be required and maintained by the Developer during construction to ensure that sediment and storm water does not leave the project site. 5. The Applicant shall be responsible for protecting the proposed on-site storm sewer infrastructure and components and any existing storm sewer from exposure to any and all stormwater runoff, sediments and debris during all construction activities. 6. Prior to the issuance of a Grading and Erosion permit, the Engineering Department shall review and approve final grading and utility plans in writing. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape financial security of $2,500 shall be submitted. Landscape financial security shall be held for two full growing seasons. 8. All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be hidden from view with the same materials used on the building in accordance with City Code requirements. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a materials board to be approved in writing by staff. 10. All light poles, including base, shall be a maximum of 25 feet in height and shall be shoebox style, downward directed, with high-pressure sodium lamps or LED and flush lenses. Other than wash or architectural lighting, attached security lighting shall be shoebox style, downward directed with flush lenses. If complaints are received the lighting adjacent to residential uses shall utilize house shields as directed by the City. In addition, any lighting under canopies (building entries) shall be recessed and use a flush lens. Associate Planner Hartmann reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 6, 2019 4 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted. 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Vice Chair Jones opened the floor to Commissioners’ comments. Commissioner Vijums requested further information regarding the purpose of the filtration pond. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla deferred this question to the projects civil engineer. Maddie Backstrom, Civil Engineer for this project, explained the Rice Creek Watershed requires that any disturbed area that is paved or covered with hard surface be treated for 1.1 inches of rainfall off of this area. She explained the proposed filtration pond to the north would pick up water off of the driveway and parking area. Commissioner Subramanian questioned how many students use the cafeteria. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated there were approximately 700 students enrolled in the school. He commented further on the improvements that would be made to the cafeteria area to improve lighting in the space. John Wartz, Superintendent for Mounds View Public Schools, explained the cafeteria at this school has been undersized for a number of years and the proposed project would increase the cafeteria size while letting in more natural light for the students. Commissioner Vijums asked how the school would secure the exterior doors on the proposed classroom additions. Paul Apilkowski, Wold Architects, explained these doors were required as a fire exit. He anticipated the doors would be used for recess and also when loading buses at the end of the day. He reported the door would be locked during the day and would require a card key for staff to enter. He indicated all visitors to the school would have to enter through the main entrance of the building. Vice Chair Jones opened the public hearing at 6:51 p.m. Vice Chair Jones invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. Jim Wetzel, 1792 Chatham, stated he has lived in his home for the past 40 years. He indicated he supported the project. He explained he was concerned with the water runoff going into the filtration pond. He feared the proposed pond would not be adequate. He stated he was also concerned with the new lighting as this may shine into his home. He asked if the HVAC system ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 6, 2019 5 would be increased in size and recommended the noise levels be mitigated. He requested further information on how the garbage and recycling would be managed on the site. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported the stormwater pond size and location had been reviewed and approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District and would hold the correct amount of water during a large rain event. He stated some air handling would occur on the site and would have to be screened. Mr. Apilkowski explained the garbage and recycling area would be reconfigured slightly but noted services would remain the same. He reported the chiller on the building would remain in the same spot but would be replaced with new equipment which would improve sound on the property. Commissioner Subramanian asked if the dead trees on the site could be replanted through this improvement project. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated staff could look at the trees that have deceased on the site and work with the applicant to get this resolved. He noted a condition for approval could be made by the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Jones questioned if the stormwater pond size should be increased in size to cover drainage of the existing drive. Ms. Backstrom commented at present the system was designed to have catch basins to collect water flowing down the driveway. She explained if she were to change this, the stormwater system would become worse. She discussed the grade changes on the site and recommended the stormwater ponding system proceed as submitted. There being no additional comment Vice Chair Jones closed the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. Vice Chair Jones stated he has had three children attend this school and he noted he supported the proposed improvements. Commissioner Zimmerman moved and Commissioner Wicklund seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 19-010 for a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Amendment at 1770 County Road E2, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the ten (10) conditions in the November 6, 2019, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). B. Planning Case 19-015; 3244 Sandeen Road – Variance – No Public Hearing Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated City Staff received a land use application for a request to build a new single-family dwelling at the subject property which is currently a vacant lot in the R-2, Single- and Two-Family Residential District. The Applicant is requesting a variance to build a single-family detached dwelling on the subject property adjacent to Lake Johanna. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 6, 2019 6 Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained the previous owners demolished the existing house on 3244 Sandeen Road prior to selling the subject property to the current owner. The original house was built with a five (5) foot variance from the front yard setback, allowing it to be built thirty-five (35) feet from the front yard property line due to lot encumbrances. The Applicant is requesting a thirty (30) foot front yard setback from the property line and flexibility in the FAR requirements via variance. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla indicated the subject property is a legal non-conforming lot with encumbrances. The subject parcel is approximately 50 feet in width and is 9,400 square feet. The R2 district standards require a minimum lot width of 85 feet and 11,000 square feet. In addition, a bluff is located on the Lake Johanna side of the subject property. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported the subject property has a grade of slope of 56% from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high. Atop the bluff is the bluff impact zone. A bluff impact zone is established for preservation and management of shoreland vegetation and soils, and all structural development is excluded from this zone, except for stairways, lifts and landings. The bluff impact zone has a required setback of 20 feet from the top of a bluff. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reviewed the Plan Evaluation, the Variance Requirements and provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a request to build a new single-family dwelling at the Subject Property 3244 Sandeen Road. 2. The Subject Property is currently a vacant lot in the R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District that is non-conforming given the R-2 District's minimum width and area requirements. 3. The proposed increase FAR of 3,400 square feet would be 30 percent on a standard 11,000 square foot lot and would constant with the R-2 zoning district requirements. 4. The Applicant is requesting a variance to build a single-family detached dwelling with a 30-foot front yard setback instead of 40 feet required by ordinance. 5. If granted a variance, the proposed property would meet all other minimum setback requirements for the R-2 District, as indicated by the plans submitted by the Applicant. 6. The proposed development would not encroach on the bluff or any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. 7. The proposed development is not expected to impact any significant trees on the property. Variance Findings: 1. The variance request would comply with the purpose and intent of the R-2 Zoning District and with the policies within the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed addition is a reasonable use of the property. 3. The proposed addition will not alter the character of the neighborhood and is consistent with the other dwellings in the neighborhood. Staff do not believe that granting a variance would negatively impact neighboring properties. 4. The proposed variance is not based on economic consideration. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 6, 2019 7 5. A solar energy system is not proposed. However, the proposed addition would not impact the ability to construct a solar energy system onsite or on an adjoining property. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated should the Planning Commission proceed with approval of Planning Case 19-015 for a Variance at 3244 Sandeen Road this would be based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the three (3) conditions in the November 6, 2019 Report to the Planning Commission: 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 Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. 3. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla 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 Jones opened the floor to Commissioners’ comments. Commissioner Subramanian asked if this lot was smaller than the other lots in the area. He questioned how many smaller lots the City had. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated this was correct and noted the City had 30 lots that were 9,400 square feet or smaller. He indicated a lot of the smaller non- conforming lots in Arden Hills were near the lake and have been grandfathered over time. Commissioner Wicklund requested further comment regarding the height issue. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla commented the maximum height allowed within the Zoning Ordinance was 35 feet and noted the applicant’s request does meet this standard. He reported the applicant was not requesting any flexibility regarding the building height. Further discussion ensued regarding the proposed setback from the lake and the road in relation to neighboring properties. Vice Chair Jones opened the meeting for public comment. Jim Day, 3242 Sandeen Road, recommended the variance not be approved. He stated he had concerns with the excessive square footage that was being requested noting it was simply too much. He explained he was a building contractor by trade. He questioned how the City could justify the requested 3,400 square foot house when the subject lot was less than 9,400 square feet ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 6, 2019 8 in size. He commented on Exhibit C which addressed the three stories of the proposed home. He stated there was a discrepancy between the square footages between the proposed plans and the actual plans. He objected to what was happening and recommended the Commission not approve the variance. Mr. Day explained he was also concerned with the proposed height of the new home as it would be 17 feet higher than his home. He feared this would negatively impact his property value. He noted there were no homes on Sandeen Road that were three stories in height. He indicated the proposed home was not keeping in line with the character of the neighborhood. He reviewed photos of the homes in the neighborhood and reiterated the fact that the proposed home did not have the same character. He believed the proposed home was not the right home for the property and recommended the Commission deny the variance. Steve Campbell, 3248 Sandeen Road, stated he shared the same feelings as Mr. Day. He explained the applicant was proposing a very large house for a very small lot. He indicated this was completely out of character for the neighborhood. He reported this house would be taller than it was wide and would block sunlight from the neighboring homes. He recommended action on this item be tabled to allow the applicant to work with the City and the neighbors to allow for the plans to be modified. Megan Kell, Kell Architects representing the applicant, reiterated that this was not a designed house yet. She noted a feasibility study had been completed for the owners so they understood what type of home could be built on the lot. She reported a height variance was not being requested. She explained the FAR variance requests were for below grade and would not impact the neighbors. She reported the extra basement space was needed for physical therapy for the owner’s special needs child. She indicated the property owners wanted to be good neighbors and were saddened by the fact so many of the neighbors were objecting to the project. She commented the 30-foot setback has not been a concern for the neighbors and would actually protect the views of the lake for the neighbors. Commissioner Subramanian commented the request had two main variables which were the non-conforming lot size and the non-conforming house size. He indicated the lot size cannot be adjusted but noted the house size could be adjusted. He questioned how the psychology of the neighbors would be impacted by looking at a 70-foot wall for the proposed home. Commissioner Wicklund requested further comment regarding the FAR. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained the FAR ratio was in place to assure that properties were sized properly to accommodate the proposed structure on the lot. He noted the subject property was unique because it was only 9,400 square feet. He explained the proposed house would work on a normal sized lot (11,000 square feet). He commented further on how the City does not dictate the architecture of homes. Mr. Day asked if the physical therapy area room, mechanical room and bathroom only took up 534 square feet of the basement. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla deferred this question to the applicant. He noted the applicant was calculating the numbers on the plan. He commented on ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 6, 2019 9 how the City was going to review the plans to ensure the square footage was no higher than 3,400 square feet prior to issuing a building permit. Ms. Kell explained the habitable spaces in the lower level would include the therapy room, the hallway and the stairs. She indicated the mechanical room, bathroom and storage area would not be considered habitable space. Mr. Day expressed concern with the fact the basement would have 990 square feet of space with varying ceiling heights. He questioned why the City would allow a 20.5% increase in square footage on this property. He noted this was a small lot and recommended a proportionate sized house be built on it. Vice Chair Jones asked if the garage space was included in the FAR. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported this space was not included in the FAR ratio. Vice Chair Jones stated he was not comfortable with the size of the house being proposed for this lot. He indicated he would like to see action on this item tabled and for the plans to be reworked. Commissioner Zimmerman concurred with this recommendation. Commissioner Wicklund discussed the role of the Planning Commission. He explained the State determines what is habitable space and reported the applicant was requesting a max of 3,400 square feet. He indicated he could support the matter being tabled, but would rather keep the item moving forward in order to allow the City Council to make the final determination. Commissioner Vijums stated he was struggling with the FAR. He did not believe the numbers on the plan because the applicant could not confirm the numbers. He explained this was a unique lot because it was 9,400 square feet in size and should be approached in a way that was unique. He believed a home should have been designed to fit onto a 9,400 square foot lot and not a home that would fit onto an 11,000 square foot lot. He feared that the proposed home may negatively impact or impede the neighborhood because it would be so different. For this reason, he supported the house plans being altered. Vice Chair Jones questioned how much wider the home could be without requiring a side yard setback variance. He also asked if the roof pitch could be changed. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported the side yard setbacks in the R-2 zoning district was five and ten feet. He indicated the home could be widened slightly. Ms. Kell stated she was approximately eight feet from the north property line and was 12 feet from the south property line. She indicated the home could be pushed closer to the property lines if this was desired. She noted the roof pitch could also be changed. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 6, 2019 10 Vice Chair Jones commented part of the concern with the proposed plans was that the home was not designed. He encouraged the owners to recognize the fact that they have a 9,400 square foot lot and not an 11,000 square foot lot. Commissioner Wicklund questioned how the Commission wanted to proceed. He reported he would prefer the item proceed with a fourth condition. This condition would read: The proposed FAR ratio shall not exceed 33% for the 9,400 square foot lot. He stated this would address the neighbor’s concerns. Vice Chair Jones indicated he could support this condition. Commissioner Vijums commented his concerns with the request were with the FAR ratio. He supported the property having a better design for this unique lot before the item being approved by the Commission. Vice Chair Jones asked what the next step would be if this item were to go forward to the City Council. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported if the item were approved by the City Council the applicant would have to submit plans for building permit consideration. He stated the Commission could place conditions on this request in order to move the item forward. Mr. Day suggested a condition be drafted to ensure the home appears to be a two-story structure from the street. He indicated he was not trying to keep this family out of the neighborhood but rather wanted to keep the neighborhood looking consistent. He recommended the item be tabled to allow for the plans to be reworked. Commissioner Vijums asked if the house should be reworked before the Commission takes action on this item. Ms. Kell commented the site did have lot coverage considerations. She noted if the home were made wider and if it was pushed closer to the lake, this could be detrimental to the lake. Mr. Campbell reiterated that the proposed home was too large for the lot. He recommended a two-story house be built to fit into the neighborhood. Commissioner Wicklund moved a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 19-015 for a Variance at 3244 Sandeen Road, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the three (3) conditions in the November 6, 2019, report to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Subramanian stated this was a unique situation because the lot size was non- conforming. He explained this led the house to being viewed as a three-story due to the elevation. He understood the property owners had to enjoy the house they were going to build and the neighbors had to live with it. He indicated this lot may not be suitable for the proposed home. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 6, 2019 11 Commissioner Vijums supported the house having a different architectural design with a 33% FAR. Vice Chair Jones agreed with this recommendation. Commissioner Wicklund withdrew his motion. He anticipated this item would have to be tabled in order for more information to be provided to the Commission before the variance could proceed. Commissioner Wicklund moved and Commissioner Subramanian seconded a motion to table action on Planning Case 19-015 for a Variance at 3244 Sandeen Road, based on the fact the Planning Commission would like more detail and review of FAR. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 6, 2019 12 REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Councilmember McClung provided the Commission with an update from the City Council. He explained the Council had a concept review at the October worksession for the parcel at 3246 New Brighton Road. He indicated the new subdivision was proposing three lots instead of four. He reported the Council would be addressing parking in driveways in the future. He stated Councilmember Holmes would be attending the December Planning Commission for him as he would be out on medical leave. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests Vice Chair Jones commented on the high traffic levels at Mounds View High School during drop off and pick up times. He noted the crosswalks were a nightmare and the lighting was unsafe. He requested staff speak with the school in order to require the school district to paint the crosswalk and to provide better lighting. Commissioner Subramanian agreed the crosswalk and lighting was a major concern. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained the City would be having a phone conversation with the school tomorrow to discuss the improvements that need to be put in place. He indicated safety was a concern for the City and he would bring these concerns to the school district. Commissioner Zimmerman suggested a Community Service Officer or Ramsey County Sheriff be at the school during drop off and pick up times to improve pedestrian safety. Vice Chair Jones stated he would like to see flashing lights at the pedestrian crossings. C. Staff Comments None. ADJOURN Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Wicklund, to adjourn the November 6, 2019, Planning Commission Meeting at 8:35 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). _____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2019 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2018\PC 19-014 - Mounds View School District - 1901 Lake Valentine Road\Memos Reports Page 1 of 1 Requested Action The City Council is expanding the boundaries of Development District No. 1 to be coterminous with the corporate boundaries of the City. Prior boundaries excluded TCAPP and other property in the City north of Highway 96. The City Council is modifying the boundaries in preparation of creating two new TIF districts for TCAAP. As required by State Statute, they have to consult with the Planning Commission on if expanding the boundaries is consistent with development plans (comprehensive plan) of the City, which it is. Attachments A. Ehlers Memo B. Development District No 1. 2019 Modification C. Resolution MEMORANDUM DATE: December 4, 2019 PC Agenda Item 3A TO: Planning Commission FROM: Mike Mrosla, Community Development Manager/City Planner SUBECT: Planning Case # 19-016 Applicant: City of Arden Hills Request: Expansion of the Boundaries of Development District No. 1 Memo To: Mike Mrosla – Community Development Manager/City Planner From: Stacie Kvilvang - Ehlers Date: December 9, 2019 Subject: Expansion of the Boundaries of Development District No. 1 Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.126, cities are allowed to create development districts within the boundaries of their city. These development districts provide the authority for cities to complete development and redevelopment within their community, develop and implement redevelopment programs and create TIF Districts. On June 26, 1989, the City created Development District No. 1 within the City and it was comprised of the boundaries of TIF District No. 1 and TIF District No. 2. The Boundaries of Development District No. 1 were expanded in 1997 to include TIF district No. 3 and in 2010 to include all property in the City, except TCAAP The City is looking to expand the boundaries of Development District No. 1 to be coterminous with the corporate boundaries of the City. This is to allow for development within TCAAP and to provide the ability for them to create TIF districts for TCAAP. The City Council is currently contemplating creating two (2) new TIF districts for TCAAP pursuant to the special legislation they received for the property back in 2009. Statute requires the City Council to consult with the Planning Commission when it expands the boundaries of the Development District, as it has done in the past. The City Council in consulting with the Planning Commission is asking if expanding the boundaries of Development District No. 1 to include the TCAAP property (and other property located North of Highway 96) is consistent with the general development plans of the City. In this case it is as the Planning Commission and City Council both approved the TCAAP Regulating Plan, TCAAP Redevelopment Code and an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan to allow for development of TCAAP. Staff and fiscal/legal consultants recommend having the Planning Commission approve the attached resolution. The City Council will hold the required public hearing on the expansion of the boundaries of Development District No. 1 on December 16, 2019. Please contact me at 651-697-8506 with any questions.         MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Development District No. 1 City of Arden Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota Adopted: June 26, 1989 Modification 1: April 26, 1993 Modification 2: May 27, 1997 Modification 3: December 14, 2009 Modification 4: December 20, 2010 Modification 5: December 16, 2019         Municipal Action Taken Based upon the statutory authority described in the Development Program attached hereto, the public purpose findings by the City Council and for the purpose of fulfilling the City's development objectives as set forth in the Development Program, the City Council has created, established and designated Development District No. 1 pursuant to and in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.124 through 469.134. The following municipal action was taken in connection therewith: June 26. 1989: The Development Program for Development District No. 1 was adopted by the City Council. April 26, 1993: The Development Program for Development District No. 1 was modified by the City Council. May 27, 1997: The Development Program for Development District No.1 was modified to expand the boundaries and revise the budget and project costs. The following municipal action was taken with regard to the Tax Increment Financing District(s) located within Development District No. 1: Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 (Economic District - Round Lake Housing): June 26, 1989: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 was adopted by the City Council. May 27, 1997: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 was modified by the City Council to revise the budget and project costs. Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 (Redevelopment District Round Lake Office Park): June 26 1989: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 was adopted by the City Council. April 26, 1993: The Modified Development Program for Development District No. 1 was approved by the City Council. May 27, 1997: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 was modified by the City Council to revise the budget and project costs. The following municipal action was taken with regard to Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 located within Development District No. 1: Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (Housing District -Cottage Lifestyles Housing): April 26, 1993: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 was adopted by the City Council. May 27, 1997: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 was modified by the City Council to revise the budget and project costs.         (AS MODIFIED DECEMBER 14, 2009) December 14, 2009: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 was modified by the City Council to extend the duration of the district to its statutory maximum and revise the budget and project costs. (AS MODIFIED DECEMBER 20, 2010) December 20, 2010: The Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 4 was adopted by the City Council. (AS MODIFIED DECEMBER 16, 2019) December 16, 2019: The boundaries of Development District No. 1 were expanded to be coterminous with the corporate boundaries of the City and the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5 (TCAAP) and No. 6 (TCAAP Thumb) were adopted by the City Council.         (AS MODIFIED MAY 27, 1997) Article I: Modified Development Program for Development District No. 1 Background This document was prepared to modify the Development Program that was adopted by the City Council on June 26, 1989 and modified on April 26, 1993. On June 26, 1989, the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota adopted a Development Program. The changes herein are intended to supplement the existing Development Program and modifications on file with the City of Arden Hills. Introduction to May 27, 1997 Modifications The following text represents a modification to the Development Program for Development District No. 1 (“Development District No. 1"). Generally, the substantive changes include changes to Development District No. 1 boundaries and budget modifications to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1, 2, and 3. For further information, a review of the Development Program for Development District No. 1, adopted June 26, 1989, and modified on April 26, 1993; the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1 and 2, adopted June 26, 1989, and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 adopted April 26, 1993, is recommended. They are available from the City Administrator's office of the City of Arden Hills. (AS MODIFIED DECEMBER 16, 2019) For further information, a review of the Development Program for Development District No. 1, as modified over the years and the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the City, is recommended. They are available from the City Administrator's office of the City of Arden Hills. Section 1.1. Definitions. The terms defined below shall, for purposes of this Development Program, have the meanings herein specified, unless the context otherwise specifically requires: "City" means the City of Arden Hills, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota. "Comprehensive Plan" means the City's Comprehensive Plan which contains the objectives, policies, standards and programs to guide public and private land use, development, redevelopment and preservation for all lands and water within the City. "Council" means the City Council of the City. "County" means the County of Ramsey, Minnesota. "Development District" means the City's Development District No. 1 as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.125, Subdivision 9. "Development District Act" means the statutory provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.124 through 469.134, inclusive, as amended and supplemented from time to time.         "Development Program" means the Development Program for the Development District, adopted by the City Council on June 26, 1989, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.125, Subdivision 5. "Governing Body" means the City Council of the City. "Land Use Regulations" means all federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations, ordinances and plans relating to or governing the use or development of land in the City, including but not limited to environmental, zoning and building code laws and regulations. "Project" means Development District No. 1, the public improvements and facilities to be constructed within Development District No. 1, as more fully described in Section 1.5. of the Development Program. "Project Area" means the real property located within the geographic boundaries of Development District No. 1. "Public Costs" means the costs eligible to be financed by tax increments under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 4. "State" means the State of Minnesota. "Tax Increment Bonds" means any general obligation or revenue tax increment bonds issued and to be issued by the City to finance the public costs associated with Development District No. 1 as stated in the Development Program and in the Tax Increment Financing Plan for each Tax Increment Financing District within Development District No. 1. The term "Tax Increment Bonds" shall also include any obligations issued to refund the Tax Increment Bonds. "Tax Increment Financing District" means any Tax Increment Financing District presently established or to be established in the future within Development District No. 1. "Tax Increment Financing Act" means the statutory provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174 through 469.179, inclusive, as amended and supplemented from to time. "Tax Increment Financing Plan" means the respective Tax Increment Financing Plan for each Tax Increment Financing District located within Development District No. 1. Section 1.2. Statement and Finding of Public Purpose. The City Council (the "Council") of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota (the "City") has determined there is a need for the City to take certain actions designed to encourage, ensure and facilitate development and redevelopment by the private sector of underutilized and unused land located within the corporate limits of the City in order to provide additional employment opportunities for residents of the City and the surrounding area, to improve the tax base of the City, the County and Independent School District No. 621 (the "School District") thereby enabling them to better utilize existing public facilities and provide needed public services, and to improve the general economy of the City, the County and the State. Specifically, the City has determined that the property within Development District No. 1 is either underutilized or unused due to a variety of factors which has resulted in a lack of private investment. As a result, the property is not providing adequate employment opportunities, and is not contributing to the tax base and general economy of the City, the School District, the County and the State to its full potential. Therefore, the City has determined to exercise its authority to develop, implement and finance a program for improving Development District No. 1 within the City to provide an impetus for private         development and redevelopment, to maintain and increase employment, to utilize existing potential and to provide other facilities as are outlined in Section 1.4. of the Development Program. The City has also determined that the proposed development or redevelopment would not occur solely through private investment in the foreseeable future; that the Tax Increment Financing Plans proposed herein are consistent with the Development Program; and that the Tax Increment Financing Plans will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the municipality as a whole for the development or redevelopment of Development District No. 1 by private enterprise. The City finds that the welfare of the City as well as the State of Minnesota requires active promotion, attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound housing, industry and commerce to carry out its stated public purpose objectives. (AS MODIFIED DECEMBER 16, 2019) The City acknowledges that School District No. 623 is also located within Development District No. 1. Section 1.3. Statutory Authority. The City has determined that is desirable and in the public interest to designate a specific area within the corporate limits of the City as Development District No. 1 and to establish, develop and implement a Development Program pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.124 through 469.134, inclusive, as amended and supplemented from time to time, (the "Development District Act"). Funding of the necessary activities and improvements in Development District No. 1 shall be accomplished through tax increment financing in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179, inclusive, as amended and supplemented from time to time, (the "Tax Increment Financing Act"). The City has designated a specific area within the corporate limits of the City as Development District No. 1 as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.124 through 469.134, inclusive, as amended and supplemented from time to time. Within Development District No. 1, the City plans to undertake one (1) Redevelopment District and one (1) Economic District as types of Tax Increment Financing Districts established pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivisions 10, 12. (AS MODIFIED DECEMBER 16, 2019) The City established Development District No. 1 pursuant to the Municipal Development District Act. It is authorized that the City will administer the Development District and any tax increment financing districts. Within Development District No. 1, the City plans to create one or more tax increment financing districts established pursuant to the Tax Increment Act to finance the public improvements proposed for Development District No. 1. The public improvements may be initially financed from other City sources, including, but not limited to the use of improvement bonds issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, which sources the City may reimburse from tax increment proceeds derived from tax increment districts to be created within Development District No. 1. The tax increment district or districts will be created at such time as will enable the City to capture the increase in taxable value of private improvements to be constructed within         Development District No. 1. Section 1.4. Statement of Objectives. The City has determined that the establishment of Development District No. 1 will provide the City with the ability to achieve certain public purpose goals not otherwise obtainable in the foreseeable future without City intervention in the normal development or redevelopment process. The public purpose goals include: restoration and improvement of the tax base and tax revenue generating capacity of Development District No. 1; increased employment opportunities; realization of comprehensive planning goals; removal of blighted conditions; revitalization of the property within Development District No. 1 to create an attractive, comfortable, convenient, and efficient area for housing, industrial, commercial, and related uses. The Council seeks to achieve the following Development Program objectives: 1. Promote and secure the prompt development or redevelopment of certain property in Development District No. 1, which property is not now in productive use or in its highest and best use, in a manner consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and with a minimum adverse impact on the environment, and thereby promote and secure the development of other land in the City. 2. Promote and secure additional employment opportunities within Development District No. 1 and the City for residents of the City and the surrounding area, thereby improving living standards, reducing unemployment and the loss of skilled and unskilled labor and other human resources in the City. 3. Secure the increase of property subject to taxation by the City, the School District, the County, and other taxing jurisdictions in order to better enable such entities to pay for governmental services and programs required to be provided by them. 4. Provide for the financing and construction of public improvements in and adjacent to Development District No. 1 necessary for the orderly and beneficial development or redevelopment of Development District No. 1 and adjacent areas of the City. 5. Promote the concentration of new desirable residential, commercial, office, and other appropriate development or redevelopment in Development District No. 1 so as to maintain the area in a manner compatible with its accessibility and prominence in the City. 6. Encourage local business expansion, improvement, development or redevelopment whenever possible. 7. Create a desirable and unique character within Development District No. 1 through quality land use alternatives and design quality in new and remodeled buildings. 8. Encourage and provide maximum opportunity for private development or redevelopment of existing areas and structures which are compatible with the Development Program. 9. Provide rental housing for low- and moderate-income individuals and families to increase housing opportunities within the City, diversify the economic development in, and encourage orderly and beneficial development of, Development District No. 1 (AS MODIFIED DECEMBER 14, 2009) 10. Provide the impetus for the development and redevelopment of housing by private enterprise consistent with the goals of the City.         11. To attempt to provide housing consistent with the policies, present and future housing needs and housing implementation programs of the City. 12. Encourage housing rehabilitation by directing appropriate resources to targeted neighborhoods. 13. Eliminate land use conflicts as identified in existing City plans. 14. Develop housing opportunities for market segments under-served in the City. 15. Acquire blighted, deteriorated or underutilized property for rehabilitation or clearance and redevelopment. Section 1.5. Estimated Public Costs. The estimated costs of the public improvements to be made within Development District No. 1 and financed by tax increments derived from Tax Increment Financing Districts within Development District No. 1 are described on the attached Exhibit I-A. (AS MODIFIED MAY 27, 1997) The estimated costs of the public improvements to be made within Development District No. 1 and financed by tax increments derived from the Tax Increment Financing Districts within Development District No. 1 are described on the attached Exhibit I-A and in each Tax Increment Financing Plan. (AS MODIFIED DECEMBER 14, 2009) The Development District budget equals all the budgets of all tax increment financing plans adopted and any future tax increment financing plans adopted. The current budgets of each tax increment district is included in the individual plan for the district. Section 1.6. Environmental Control. The proposed development or redevelopment in Development District No. 1 does not present significant environmental concerns. All municipal actions, public improvements and private development or redevelopment shall be carried out in a manner consistent with existing environmental standards. Section 1.7. Administration and Maintenance. Maintenance and operation of the public improvements will be the responsibility of the City Administrator who shall also serve as Administrator of Development District No. 1. The powers, duties and responsibilities of the Administrator are spelled out in the Administrative Guide for the Administration of the Development Program for Development District No. 1, attached hereto as Appendix A. Each year the Administrator will submit to the Council the maintenance and operation budget for the following year. The Administrator will administer Development District No. 1 pursuant to the provisions of the Development District Act and the Tax Increment Financing Act; provided, however, that such powers may only be exercised at the direction of the City. No action taken by the Administrator pursuant to the above-mentioned powers shall be effective without authorization by the City.         Section 1.8. Rehabilitation. Owners of properties within Development District No. 1 will be encouraged to rehabilitate their properties to conform with the applicable state and local codes and ordinances, as well as any design standards. Owners of properties who purchase property within Development District No. 1 from the City may be required to rehabilitate their properties as a condition of sale of land. The City will provide such rehabilitation assistance as may be available from federal, state, or local sources. A developer or redeveloper may be any person, business, corporation or government unit, including the City. A developer or redeveloper may initiate a plan and participate with the City in the development or redevelopment thereof. Section 1.9. Relocation. The City accepts its responsibility for providing for relocation, if and when applicable, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.030. Section 1.10. Boundaries. The parcels included within Development District No. 1 are described on the attached Exhibit I-B and the boundaries of Development District No. 1 are illustrated on Exhibit I-C. (AS MODIFIED MAY 27, 1997) This modification of Development District No. 1 is to increase the District boundaries to add a small area of property between two existing areas of the Development District and to clarify that the boundaries include all internal and adjacent streets and rights-of-way. The boundaries of Development District No. 1 are described on the attached Exhibit I-B and illustrated on Exhibit I- C. (AS MODIFIED DECEMBER 16, 2019) This modification of Development District No. 1 is to increase the District boundaries to be coterminous with the corporate boundaries of the City and is illustrated in Exhibit A. Section 1.11. Parcels to be Acquired. Parcels which may be acquired in whole or in part are described on the attached Exhibit I-D. (AS MODIFIED MAY 27, 1997) Parcels which may be acquired in whole or in part are described on the attached Exhibit I-D. (AS MODIFIED DECEMBER 16, 2019) The City intends to acquire such property, or appropriate interest therein, within Development District No. 1 as the City may deem to be necessary or desirable to assist in the implementation of the Development Program.         Exhibit A: Map of Development District No. 1 City of Arden Hills Development District 1 ±Development District No. 1 §¨¦35W £¤10 §¨¦694 The boundaries of Development District No. 1 are being expanded to be coterminous with the City's corporate boundaries. Expanded boundaries of Development District No. 1 12212148v1 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City of Arden Hills (the "City") proposes to adopt a Modification to the Development Program for Development District No. 1 (the "Development Program Modification") to enlarge the boundaries of Development District No. 1 to include TCAAP and other property located north of Highway 96 and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.126, subd. 1 the City is required to consult with the Planning Commission prior to the enlargement of the Development District No. 1, and WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Development Program Modification to determine its conformity with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Development Program Modification conforms to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. Dated: December 4, 2019 _______________________________________ Chair ATTEST: Secretary City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for December 4th, 2019 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-015 - 3244 Sandeen Road\Memos Reports Page 1 of 6 MEMORANDUM DATE:December 4, 2019 PC Agenda Item 3.B TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Joe Hartmann, Associate Planner Mike Mrosla, Community Development Manager/City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #19-015 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Richard and Kristen Priore Property Location: 3244 Sandeen Road Request: Variance Requested Action Richard and Kristen Priore (“Applicant”) have requested a front yard setback variance in order to construct a new single-family detached dwelling located at 3244 Sandeen Road (“Subject Property”). Background At their November 6, 2019 meeting, the Planning Commission heard testimony from the Applicant and neighbors. Upon hearing the testimony, the Planning Commission motioned to table the request until the next Planning Commission to review the definition and interpretation of the floor area ratio (“FAR”) in the Arden Hills Zoning Code. Since the meeting, the Applicant met with City Staff to amend their variance request. The Applicant has requested to proceed with a 10 foot front yard setback variance and forgo the FAR request. 1. Overview of Request The Applicants are requesting a variance to build a single-family detached dwelling on the Subject Property adjacent to Lake Johanna. The Subject Property is currently a vacant lot. The Subject Property is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential District and is guided as Low Density Residential on the land use plan. The previous owners demolished the existing house on 3244 Sandeen Road prior to selling the Subject Property to the current owner. The original house was built with a five (5) foot variance to encroach on the front yard setback, allowing it to be built thirty-five (35) feet from the front yard property line due to lot encumbrances. The Applicant is requesting a thirty (30) foot front yard setback from the property line via a variance. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for December 4th, 2019 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-015 - 3244 Sandeen Road\Memos Reports Page 2 of 6 The Subject Property is a legal non-conforming lot with encumbrances. The Subject Property is 50 feet in width and has a lot area of 9,900 square feet. The R-2 district standards require a minimum lot width of 85 feet and 11,000 square feet. In addition, a bluff is located on the Lake Johanna side of the Subject Property. The zoning code definition of a bluff is as follows: Bluff - A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics (an area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): ∙ Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; ∙ The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the water body; ∙ The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high water level averages 30 percent or greater; and ∙ The slope must drain toward the waterbody. The Subject Property has a grade of slope of 56% from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high. Atop the bluff is the bluff impact zone. A bluff impact zone is established for preservation and management of shoreland vegetation and soils, and all structural development is excluded from this zone, except for stairways, lifts and landings. The bluff impact zone has a required setback of 20 feet from the top of a bluff and shown on the image below. Staff note that permits and building plans are not required as part of a submission for a Land Use Application awaiting approval from the Planning Commission because the nature of the request is regarding the front setback on the property. The Planning Commission is being asked to determine if a variance request for flexibility with the front setback requirement should be approved. The plans that have been submitted show only the buildable area and the evaluation of the proposal should be based on the District Provisions in Section 1320.06 and the Requirements for a Variance in Section 1355.04, Subd. 4. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for December 4th, 2019 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-015 - 3244 Sandeen Road\Memos Reports Page 3 of 6 Plan Evaluation Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 1.District Provisions (R-2 Single Family Residential District) – Section 1320.06 Lot Size and Dimensions Per the submitted survey, the Subject Property is 9,900 square feet or 0.24 acres in size. The proposed Subject Property is on a legal non-conforming lot given the R-2 District's 11,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement. In addition, the lot features a bluff on the north size of the property that further restricts the buildable area allowed under City Code. Lots within an R-2 District have a minimum length and width requirement of 85 feet and 120 feet. The Subject Property meets the length requirement for a parcel in the R-2 district, which is approximately 180 feet long, but the lot is only 50 feet wide and does not meet the minimum width requirement. Structure Setbacks - Flexibility Requested In the R-2 District, the minimum front and rear setback requirements for a property are forty (40) feet and thirty (30) feet, respectively. The minimum side yard setback is five (5) feet and the combined side yard setbacks shall total 15 feet or more. As previously stated, the Applicant is requesting flexibility to encroach ten (10) feet into the front yard for a thirty (30) foot front yard setback. Otherwise, the proposed development would meet setback requirements for the R-2 district. Moving the house forward ten (10) feet will also preserve existing lake views for both neighboring homes. It would also decrease the size of the driveway required to get to the house, thus decreasing the amount of impervious cover required for the project. If granted a variance for flexibility with the front setback, the Applicant’s proposal would meet all other district provisions. 2.Variance Review The role of the Planning Commission is to determine and consider how the facts presented to them compare with the city’s articulated standards. The Commission should base their decision on the facts presented and then apply those facts to the legal standards contained in city ordinances and relevant state law. Neighborhood opinion alone is not a valid basis for granting or denying a variance request. While the Planning Commission may feel their decision should reflect the overall will of the residents, the task in considering a variance request is limited to evaluating how the variance application meets the statutory practical difficulties factors. Residents can often provide important facts that may help in addressing these factors, however, unsubstantiated opinions and reactions to a request do not form a legitimate basis for a variance decision. The Planning Commission may impose conditions when granting variances as long as the conditions are directly related and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. For instance, if a variance is granted to exceed the front setback limit, any conditions attached should presumably relate to mitigating the effect of the encroachment. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for December 4th, 2019 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-015 - 3244 Sandeen Road\Memos Reports Page 4 of 6 3.Variance Requirements – Section 1355.04, Subd. 4 The Applicant requests a variance to construct a new residential dwelling unit that would encroach into the front yard setback by 10 feet. The Planning Commission will need to make a determination utilizing the following variance findings and criteria on whether there are practical difficulties with complying with the zoning regulations. If the applicant does not meet all the factors of the statutory test, then a variance should not be granted. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 1.Purpose and Intent. The variance request shall comply with the purpose and intent of the provisions of the City’s Zoning Regulations and with the policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The variance request for 3244 Sandeen Road would comply with the purpose and intent of the R-2 Zoning District and with the policies within the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 2.Practical Difficulties. The Applicant for a variance shall establish that there are practical difficulties in complying with the provisions of the Arden Hills Zoning Regulations. The term “Practical Difficulties” as used in the granting of a variance means: a.Reasonable Use. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. A single family home is a reasonable use of the Subject Property in the R-2 Zoning District. b.Unique Circumstances. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The following circumstances are unique to the property 3244 Sandeen Road. When the subject parcel was platted, it based on the requirements of that time and is now considered legal non-conforming. The Subject Property has a non-conforming lot width of 50 feet and has a lot area of 9,900 square feet. While the R-2 zoning district requires a minimum lot width of 85 feet and minimum lot area of 11,000 square feet. In addition, the Subject Property is encumbered a 20 foot bluff impact zone and within the zone no structural development is permitted. With all of the encumbrances on the subject parcel, significantly reduce the buildable area. c.Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The existing neighborhood has homes with a variety of different front yard setbacks and proposed variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for December 4th, 2019 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-015 - 3244 Sandeen Road\Memos Reports Page 5 of 6 3.Economic Consideration. Economic consideration alone does not constitute a practical difficulty. The proposed variance is not based on economic consideration. 4.Access to Sunlight. Inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems shall be considered a practical difficulty. A solar energy system is not proposed. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following findings for consideration: General Findings: 1.City Staff received a land use application for a request to build a new single family dwelling at the Subject Property 3244 Sandeen Road. 2.Single-family detached dwelling is a permitted use in the R-2 district. 3.The Subject Property is currently a vacant lot in the R-2. 4.The Subject Property is non-conforming with the R-2 districts standards for minimum lot width and area requirements. 5.The subject parcel is encumbered by a bluff and a 20 foot bluff impact zone. 6.The proposed development of the subject parcel would conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-2 district and Shoreland Management Regulations. 7. The proposed development would not encroach on the bluff or any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. 8.A variance may be granted if enforcement of a provision in the zoning ordinance would cause the landowner practical difficulties. 9.Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. Options and Motion Language Staff has provided the following options and motion language for this case. The Planning Commission should consider providing additional findings of fact as part of the motion to support their recommendation for approval or denial. •Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 19-015 for a Variance at 3244 Sandeen Road, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions below: 1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. 2.The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for December 4th, 2019 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-015 - 3244 Sandeen Road\Memos Reports Page 6 of 6 •Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 19- 015 for a Variance at 3244 Sandeen Road, based on the findings of fact and the submitted materials. •Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial Planning Case 19-015 for a Variance at 3244 Sandeen Road, based on the following findings: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. •Table: Motion to table Planning Case 19-015 for a Variance at 3244 Sandeen Road: a specific reason and 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 500 feet of the Subject Property. Minnesota statute does not clearly require a public hearing before a variance is granted or denied, however, after consulting with the City Attorney, staff agree that the best practice is to allow public forum on all variance requests. A public forum allows the city to establish a record and elicit facts to help determine if the application meets the practical difficulties factors. Public Comments Staff have not received comments in regards to this proposal for the new request that was amended after being tabled at the November 6th meeting. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on October 24, 2019. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by December 23 2019 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. With consent of the Applicant, the City may extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Attachments A.Land Use Application and Survey B.Location Map C.Variance Request Letter D.Submitted Setback Variance Plan LAKE JOHANNASANDEEN ROADN:\Projects Current\17-0310.00 Toffoli\dwg\17-0310COS 12-14-18 final.dwg, 12/14/2018 9:47:15 AM Disclaimer: This m ap is intended for reference purposes only and is not a legally recorded map or survey. The City of Arden Hills shall not be liable for any damages or claims that arise due to accuracy,availability, use or misuse of the inform ation herein pursuant to MNStatute 466.03 Subd 21. Location Map Lake Johanna BoulevardSandeen Road ± Park and Open Space Subject Parcel §¨¦35W §¨¦694 £¤10 26 November 2019 DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUEST – 3244 SANDEEN ROAD The applicant is requesting a variance from the front yard setback requirement for the property located at 3244 Sandeen Road. 3244 Sandeen Road is located in the R- 2 Single and Two Family Residential District (with Shoreland Overlay) on the southwest corner of Lake Johanna. While the previous house on the lot has since been torn down, prior to its construction, it was awarded a 5’ front yard setback variance. This application requests a 10’ front yard setback variance on this nonconforming property. Allowing the new home on this lot to be constructed closer to the street will accomplish two main goals: 1. It will allow for a more thorough and complete reconstruction and restoration of the existing bluff and shoreline, allowing for more appropriate site drainage in the design. 2. It will maintain existing lake views for neighboring structures by allowing the new home at 3244 to be pulled further away from the lakeside elevations of neighboring homes. 30'-0"4 0 ' F R O N T Y A R D S E T B A C K5' SIDE YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK2 0 ' B L U F F I M P A C T Z O N E S E T B A C K MAXIMUM ALLOWEDIMPERVIOUS SITE COVERAGE3,465 SQ.FT.FRONT YARD VARIANCE: 22 NOV 2019