Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-06-2020 PCAPPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 15, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes 04 -15 -20 PC.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 20 -008 - 3244 Sandeen Road Variance Request (No Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF PC 20 -008.PDF Planning Case 20 -004 - 1741 Venus Avenue Variance Request (No Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF PC 20 -004.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: Steve Scott Planning Commission May 6, 2020 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. This meeting can be accessed remotely by joining via Zoom T o join the Zoom Meeting via your computer, click this link (or copy and paste it into a new browser): https://us02web.zoom.us/j/98481093856 This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website 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 MINUTESMay 15, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes04-15 -20 PC.PDFPLANNING CASESPlanning Case 20 -008 - 3244 Sandeen Road Variance Request (No Public Hearing Required)MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF PC 20 -008.PDF Planning Case 20 -004 - 1741 Venus Avenue Variance Request (No Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF PC 20 -004.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:Steve Scott Planning Commission May 6, 2020 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. This meeting can be accessed remotely by joining via ZoomTo join the Zoom Meeting via your computer, click this link (or copy and paste it into a new browser): https://us02web.zoom.us/j/98481093856This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website AgendaCALL TO ORDER1.2.2.A.Documents:3.3.A.Documents: 3.B. Documents: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. 6. ITEM – 2A Approved: May 6, 2020 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 2020 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Nick Gehrig called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. Due to the COVID-19 crisis this meeting was held virtually. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Nick Gehrig, Commissioners Marcie Jefferys, James Lambeth, Subbaya Subramanian, Paul Vijums, Kurtis Weber, Jonathan Wicklund, and Clayton Zimmerman. Absent: Commissioner Steven Jones. Also present were: Community Development Manager Mike Mrosla, Associate Planner Joe Hartmann, Public Works Director/City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, and Councilmember Steve Scott. OATH OF OFFICE Community Development Manager Mrosla administered the Oath of Office to newly appointed Planning Commission members Marcie Jefferys and Kurtis Weber. Chair Gehrig welcomed Commissioners Jeffreys and Weber to the Planning Commission. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – APRIL 15, 2020 Chair Gehrig stated the agenda will stand as published. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 5, 2020 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambeth, to approve the February 5, 2020, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried 6-0-1 (Commissioners Jeffreys abstained). ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 15, 2020 2 PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 18-014; Mounds View High School Amended Planned Unit Development – Public Hearing Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated on May 22, 2019, the City Council approved Planning Case #18-014 for the Mounds View High School PUD, subject to several conditions. The terms of the PUD approval requires the Mounds View School District to implement safety improvements on Lake Valentine Road to address traffic and increased pedestrian crossings between the school building and the north parking lot, including installation of turn lanes and other access improvements, trail and sidewalk improvements, pedestrian signal, signage and striping modifications, and drainage and utility improvements. Following approval of Planning Case #18-014, the School District and City proceeded with a study to identify specific traffic and pedestrian improvements for Lake Valentine Road. The traffic and pedestrian study was recently completed and reviewed by City and School District staff. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reviewed the Traffic Study Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The properties located at 1900 and 1901 Lake Valentine Road are located in the R-1 Single Family Residential District. 2. The proposed conditions when implemented will create a safer environment for pedestrian movement across Lake Valentine Road. 3. The proposed roadway improvements will improve traffic flow through the road section adjacent to the school. 4. With the applied conditions, the application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 5. The proposed school zone speed limit, the effective hours, and the extent of the school zone are recommended by City staff and Mounds View School District staff. 6. The traffic and pedestrian study was reviewed by City and School District staff. 7. The City and School District staff concur on the proposed conditions and recommended improvements. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated staff recommends approval of Planning Case 18- 014 for an Amended PUD at 1900 and 1901 Lake Valentine Road, based on the findings of fact and recommendations based on the findings contained within the traffic study, an evaluation of existing site conditions, and the Planned Unit Development Agreement, and as amended by the following conditions: 1. Realignment of the west parking lot entrance to align with the west school site entrance on the south side of Lake Valentine Road (Pick-up / Drop-off Access) to be completed prior to the start of the 2021-2022 school year. The School District will need to negotiate in good faith to complete easement or property acquisition from the adjacent parcel owned by State of Minnesota to accommodate the realignment of the west parking lot entrance. 2. Elimination of eastbound left turn movements at the east parking lot access upon completing the realignment of the west parking lot entrance noted above. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 15, 2020 3 3. Installation of perimeter fencing along the southwest portion of the parking lot upon completing the relocation of the west parking lot entrance noted above. Proposed fencing shall be four (4) tall decorative fencing. 4. Installation of a centralized traffic signal controlled pedestrian crossing at the location generally depicted on Figure 8 in the study report. 5. Installation of a small raised median and pedestrian refuge adjacent to the signal controlled pedestrian crossing as determined by the City Engineer during design of the signal. 6. Installation of sidewalk on the south side of Lake Valentine Road to route pedestrians from the signal controlled pedestrian crossing to the front entrance of the school building. 7. Installation of an additional street light at the signal controlled pedestrian crossing, in addition to the street lights previously installed at the east and west parking lot entrances. 8. Installation of School Zone Speed Limit signage as previously authorized by the City Council. 9. Installation of a 150-ft long exclusive right turn lane for eastbound Lake Valentine Road at the pick-up / drop-off access (south side of street). 10. Installation of a 150-ft long exclusive right turn lane for westbound Lake Valentine Road at the east parking lot access (north side of street). 11. Installation of sidewalk along the north side of Lake Valentine Road between the east parking lot entrance and Janet Court. 12. Installation of a 2-inch mill and overlay along Lake Valentine Road between the construction limits of right turn lane construction (#9 and #10 above) to repair the existing pavement as a result of improvements noted above and utility crossings associated with the site improvements, as well as accommodating new pavement and crosswalk markings. 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 Chair Gehrig opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Lambeth asked if the school speed zone signage would be installed in the spring of 2020. Public Works Director/City Engineer Blomstrom reported the school has a plan in place for the speed zone signage and after receiving approval from the City the signage would be installed. He explained he did not have a specific date, but he anticipated installation would take place in the next six weeks. Commissioner Lambeth questioned if the school zone would be enacted during special events at the school. Public Works Director/City Engineer Blomstrom reported the school speed zone would be in effect “when children are present” per State Statute. He discussed how the school speed zone ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 15, 2020 4 worked near the Valentine Hills Elementary School. He explained compliance levels were higher when the school speed zone was active only during school days. He commented further on how the school speed sign could be programmed. Commissioner Vijums stated he supported the proposed changes and indicated he appreciated the traffic studies that have been completed. He explained he did have concerns with the traffic entering and exiting the horseshoe drop off area. He inquired if this entrance would be changed. Public Works Director/City Engineer Blomstrom commented one of the challenges was for vehicles traveling eastbound and wanting to make a turn into the west parking lot entrance on the north side of the road, they were in a left turn lane which conflicted with the vehicles trying to turn into the parent drop off area (the horseshoe). He explained this was the primary motive for moving the west parking lot entrance to the west and aligning it with the parent drop off entrance. He indicated this would address the confusion of traffic exiting from the west parking lot. Commissioner Vijums indicated the restriping of the roadway would also help with traffic and pedestrian safety. He asked how the school was going to address the stacking of traffic along the roadway. Public Works Director/City Engineer Blomstrom stated these vehicles should not be stopped and were located in a “No Parking Zone”. He stated a right hand turn lane would be added and vehicles would not be allowed to be parked in this area as they would be blocking traffic. He indicated the City would have to work with the Sheriff’s Department on enforcement. Commissioner Vijums recommended “No Stopping” or “No Drop Off Area” signs be posted along this side of the roadway. Public Works Director/City Engineer Blomstrom reported these signs could be posted. Commissioner Vijums supported the City recommending “No Stopping” and “No Drop Off Area” signs be posted to address the parents that are parking along the roadway. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported “No Parking” signs were already in place and stated the school district was aware of this enforcement concern. He indicated additional enforcement would be necessary in order to educate parents. Commissioner Subramanian asked what the timeline was for this project and if there would be delays from the State of Minnesota. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla commented the State of Minnesota does have a backlog of 300 projects and noted conversations had begun between the State and the school district. He reported the State was in the investigative mode at this time. Public Works Director/City Engineer Blomstrom stated if negotiations with the State of Minnesota were not successful the realignment of the west parking lot entrance with the parent drop off could still be done without encroaching onto State property. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 15, 2020 5 Commissioner Jefferys indicated she was pleased to see these plans moving forward. She questioned how the success of this plan would be monitored by the City. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported staff would be working closely with the school district to monitor the new signage. He explained certain signage required approval from the State of Minnesota. Commissioner Zimmerman thanked staff, the City Council and school district representatives for their efforts on this project. He was pleased that all student safety concerns were being taken into consideration. Chair Gehrig agreed stating he recalled reviewing this project previously and understood there were concerns regarding traffic and safety. He was pleased to see these concerns were now being addressed. Chair Gehrig opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Chair Gehrig invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. Elizabeth Garsky, 1795 Lake Valentine Road, explained she sent an email to the Planning Commission. She feared that too much signage would be installed and that it would be ignored. She recommended the parent drop off location be changed. She stated she was very concerned about the backups being caused by parents picking up and dropping off students. She commented further on the difficulties she has getting to her home in the evening hours. She feared that the residents that live in the area had given up on voicing their concerns because all of these changes have come about so quickly. She questioned why this project would move forward if the school district did not receive land from the State of Minnesota. There being no comment Chair Gehrig closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. Commissioner Weber discussed how structured medians assist with properly directing traffic. He questioned what the size of the median would be. He recommended a full-length median be considered for safety purposes. Public Works Director/City Engineer Blomstrom reported the intent of the small raised median was to provide some pedestrian protection and refuge. He explained the challenge of putting in a longer median was that it reduces the capacity of the left turn lane. He stated the City would have to work through the best balance during the project design phase. He indicated he has had some discussions with the school district regarding the parent drop off location but the school has not proposed make a change to the locations at this time. Commissioner Vijums commented the parents parked along Valentine Road for drop off and pickup and questioned how this concern would be addressed going forward. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla suggested the Commission add conditions to address this concern. He stated Condition 13 could read: Additional signage be placed stating “No Parent Drop Off or Pickup”. He reported Condition 14 could read: Pavement marking shall be added to the parent drop off and pick up area or the western access. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 15, 2020 6 Commissioner Vijums supported these additional conditions. Commissioner Lambeth stated he believed the traffic study completed by WSB was very thorough and in depth. He believed the realignment of Valentine Road may be a potential solution for expansion of the roadway without creating additional traffic concerns. Chair Gehrig indicated the high school has grown and would continue to grow. He explained the current property has restraints when addressing the needs for the growing community. He stated he appreciated the efforts that have been put into this traffic and pedestrian safety plan. Chair Gehrig moved and Commissioner Zimmerman seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 18-014 for Amended PUD at 1900 and 1901 Lake Valentine Road, based on the findings of fact and recommendations based on the findings contained within the traffic study, an evaluation of existing site conditions, and the Planned Unit Development Agreement, and as amended by the fourteen (14) conditions in the April 15, 2020, report to the Planning Commission and two recommended by staff. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). B. Planning Case 20-001; 2040 Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Public Hearing Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated Minnesota State law requires that all communities within the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area update their Comprehensive Plans every ten years. The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to establish the policies that guide the future physical and community development of Arden Hills. It is also a reference document for the Planning Commission and City Council when evaluating private development projects, such as Summit Development’s Parkshore proposal (see Planning Case 19-002). The Comprehensive Plan and all its amendments must reflect the adopted regional policies in the Metropolitan Council’s system and policy plans. Local planning efforts are linked to the larger regional infrastructure of parks and trails, road networks, and wastewater infrastructure, and the City’s plan must conform to the regional vision. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan requires a recommendation from the Planning Commission following a public hearing, adoption of a resolution by the City Council, and review and approval by the Metropolitan Council. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reviewed the background, the Plan Review and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. Minnesota state law requires that all communities within the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area update their Comprehensive Plans every ten years. 2. The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to establish the policies that guide the future physical and community development of Arden Hills. 3. The Metropolitan Council has previously denied the Comprehensive Plan Amendment citing that it does not have language supporting increasing the densities above the maximum permitted in a specific land use district. 4. The proposed amendment only affects the High Density Land Uses. 5. The proposed amendment only effects land guided for High Density south of Highways 96 and 10. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 15, 2020 7 6. The proposed amended language has been vetted and is supported by the Metropolitan Council. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reviewed the proposed language change in further detail and recommend the Planning Commission recommend approval of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment base don the findings of fact and the report submitted to the Planning Commission on April 15, 2020. 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 Chair Gehrig opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Lambeth clarified for the record, this was not a TCAAP project. He then commented on the history of the Comprehensive Plan and asked how the Met Council can deny a previously approved request before reviewing the City’s revised Comprehensive Plan. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained the City was unable to submit the Summit Development request until the City received approval of the Comprehensive Plan, which occurred in February of 2020. After that time, the City submitted an amendment and the Met Council found the request to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan given the fact the City does not have a policy to address the proposed density. For this reason, the City has to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the new language. Commissioner Lambeth discussed the history of this project. He believed that because this project was approved last July by the City and the Met Council preliminarily approved the Comp Plan in last November, this was a retroactive enforcement of a rule that didn’t previously exist. He did not believe it was fair to the applicant to delay the project further. He objected to the way the Met Council has handled this matter. Commissioner Subramanian stated the City needs to consider what type of problems and projects the community will be facing in the future when it comes to high density developments. Chair Gehrig opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Chair Gehrig invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comment Chair Gehrig closed the public hearing at 7:51 p.m. Commissioner Lambeth moved and Commissioner Jefferys seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 20-001 for a 2040 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment, based on the findings of fact and the report submitted to the Planning ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 15, 2020 8 Commission on April 15, 2020. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Councilmember Scott provided the Commission with an update from the City Council. He welcomed new Commissioners Marcie Jefferys and Kurtis Weber. He explained the Council has been rather busy these last few weeks. He reported on March 23rd the Mayor declared a Local State of Emergency and the full Council met to continue this emergency until further notice. He stated City Hall has been closed to the public and only key staff was working onsite. He commented on the staffing model that was being followed for Public Works personnel. He reported all essential City services would continue. He stated all City recreational programs have been canceled to keep in line with surrounding communities and playgrounds have recently been closed. He encouraged residents to get outdoors and to take advantage of the City’s trail system. He provided further comment on the actions the Council has taken on Planning Commission cases. He stated the City Council would continue to meet on the second and fourth Monday of the month. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests Chair Gehrig welcomed Commissioner Jefferys and Commission Weber to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Vijums explained he was able to tour the Mounds View High School and stated the improvements were extremely impressive. ADJOURN Commissioner Lambeth moved, seconded by Commissioner Vijums, to adjourn the April 15, 2020, Planning Commission Meeting at 8:01 p.m. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-008 3244 Sandeen Road Variance\Memos Reports Page 1 of 6 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 6th, 2020 PC Agenda Item 3.A TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Joe Hartmann, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #20-008 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Richard Priore Property Location: 3244 Sandeen Road Request: Variance Requested Action Richard Priore (“Applicant”) has requested a variance to increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of their single-family detached dwelling located at 3244 Sandeen (“Subject Property”). Background 1. Overview of Request The Applicants are requesting a variance to increase the FAR of their single-family detached dwelling on the Subject Property from 0.30 to 0.34. The Applicants were previously approved for a front yard setback variance at the January 27th 2020 City Council meeting. The Subject Property is currently a vacant lot, zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential District, and is guided as Low Density Residential on the land use plan. According to the Applicants’ narrative submitted as a part of their application, the home has been designed in such a way that it can capture the additional 396 sq. ft. that the Applicant requests without changing the envelope or appearance of the home from the exterior; which could be built by right. The Applicants are requesting to incorporate more livable space above the garage and in the basement. The proposed spaces would be otherwise used for storage and would meet applicable building codes to not be included within the FAR Calculation. Without the variance the space above the garage would be accessible from the garage via a drop down stair. There will no changes required to the exterior of the property to meet their request for a greater FAR. The Planning Commission is being asked to determine if a variance request for flexibility with the FAR requirement should be approved. The sketches that have been submitted show that the extra livable space would be wholly within the principle structure. The evaluation of the proposal should City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-008 3244 Sandeen Road Variance\Memos Reports Page 2 of 6 be based on the District Provisions in Section 1320 and the Requirements for a Variance in Section 1355.04, Subd. 4. Plan Evaluation Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 1. District Provisions (R-2 Single and Two Family Residential District) – Section 1320.06 Lot Size and Dimensions The Subject Property is 50 feet in width and has a lot area of 9,900 square feet (Attachment D). The R-2 district standards require a minimum lot width of 85 feet and 11,000 square feet. The Subject Property is a legal non-conforming lot with encumbrances; in addition, a bluff is located on the Lake Johanna side of the Subject Property that further restrict the buildable area. Structure Setbacks In the R-2 District, the minimum front and rear setback requirements for a property are forty (40) feet and thirty (30) feet, respectively. As previously stated, the Applicant was granted a variance for a thirty (30) foot front setback. The minimum side yard setback is five (5) feet and the combined side yard setbacks shall total fifteen (15) feet or more. The proposed variance will not impact any setback requirements. According to the Applicant, the proposed dwelling will meet all other district provisions for the R-2 district. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-008 3244 Sandeen Road Variance\Memos Reports Page 3 of 6 Floor Area Ratio – Flexibility Required An informational handout from the Metropolitan Council regarding FAR is included in attachment E. Floor area is defined in City Code Section 1305.04 to mean the sum of the area of all floors of a building measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls (for habitable spaces). According to our Zoning code, this definition excluding decks, garages, covered porches, attics, crawl spaces and basements that do not meet the minimum ceiling height per Minnesota State Building Code requirement. The FAR is obtained by dividing the sum of a building's floor area by the amount of lot area. The maximum permitted FAR in the R-2 District is 0.3. Without Variance With Variance Proposed Building Area 2,970 Sq. Ft. 3,366 Sq. Ft. Lot Area 9,900 Sq. Ft. 9,900 Sq. Ft. Proposed FAR 0.30 0.34 Renovating an attic, garage, crawl space or basement triggers a zoning review of FAR if the proposal expands the floor area that counts towards the FAR, which is an increase in habitable space. The storage space above the garage as previously proposed doesn’t count towards the FAR because it’s not habitable space and it does not meet the minimum requirements for habitable. However, if the storage area were converted to a therapy room to meet the requirements of the state building code as the Applicants are now proposing, then its floor area would count towards the FAR. According to the Applicants, this request for an increased FAR would have no impact on the neighborhood character because the area proposed for renovation is not visible to anyone in the neighborhood. In their application, they cite the challenges of building on a conforming lot as a practical difficulty and argue that the space will be used in a reasonable manner consistent with the purposed and intent of the City Code. 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 May 6th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-008 3244 Sandeen Road Variance\Memos Reports Page 4 of 6 3. Variance Requirements – Section 1355.04, Subd. 4 The Applicant requests a variance to increase the allowable FAR to 0.34. 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 is consistent 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. According to the Applicants’ application, additional living space for a single family home is a reasonable use of the Subject Property in the R-2 Zoning District as the proposed home can be constructed by right and was designed in such a way that it can capture the additional 396 sq. ft. that the Applicant requests without changing the envelope or appearance of the home from the exterior; b. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. According to the Applicants’ application, the nonconforming nature of the lot due to overall area and width as well as the bluff feature which puts the allowable FAR significantly lower than a typical conforming lot; c. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. According to the Applicants’ application, the proposed variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood because the house could be constructed by right and additional floor area is entirely internal to the site and invisible to the neighborhood; 3. Economic Consideration. Economic consideration alone does not constitute a practical difficulty. The proposed variance is not based on economic consideration. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-008 3244 Sandeen Road Variance\Memos Reports Page 5 of 6 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 variance request to increase the allowable FAR on a single family dwelling at the Subject Property 3244 Sandeen Road. 2. A single-family detached dwelling is a permitted use in the R-2 district. 3. The Subject Property is non-conforming with the R-2 districts standards for minimum lot width and area requirements. 4. The proposed additional floor area would be below grade and wholly within the principal structure of the house. 5. The proposed development of the subject parcel would conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-2 district. 6. A variance may be granted if enforcement of a provision in the zoning ordinance would cause the landowner practical difficulties. 7. 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 20-008 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. • Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 20- 008 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 20-008 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. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-008 3244 Sandeen Road Variance\Memos Reports Page 6 of 6 • Table: Motion to table Planning Case 20-008 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 written comments in regards to this proposal as of May 1st, 2020. One (1) resident contacted city staff over-the-phone inquiring about proposed floors plans. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 24th, 2020. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by June 23rd, 2020 (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 B. Location Map C. Variance Request Letter D. Site Survey E. Metropolitan Council Handout on Calculating FAR F. Resident Comments 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 3 April 2020 DESCRIPTION OF FAR VARIANCE REQUEST – 3244 SANDEEN ROAD The applicant is requesting a variance from the FAR 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. The previous house has been torn down. On January 13, 2020, the current homeowners were awarded a 10’ front yard setback variance. This allow ed the homeowners to properly assess the feasibility of the lot prior to asking for this FAR variance. This application requests for an additional .04 percent to the current .3 FAR requirement totaling .34 FAR. That would allow 3,366 total livable square feet for the home. This lot is non-conforming, which puts the allowable FAR significantly lower than a typical conforming lot. The home has been designed in such a way that it can capture the additional 396 sq. ft. that the applicant requests without changing the envelope or appearance of the home from the exterior; which could be built without this request. The additional square footage could be captured above the garage, or in the basement (below grade). This would allow the family to have a more comfortable layout for their family of six, and more importantly allow their son with down syndrome to have an essential indoor therapy space. LAKE JOHANNASANDEEN ROADN:\Projects Current\17-0310.00 Toffoli\dwg\17-0310COS 12-14-18 final.dwg, 12/14/2018 9:47:15 AM WHAT IS FAR? Floor area ratio (FAR) is the measurement of a building’s floor area in relation to the size of the lot/parcel that the building is located on. FAR is expressed as a decimal number, and is derived by dividing the total area of the building by the total area of the parcel (building area ÷ lot area). FAR is an effective way to calculate the bulk or mass of building volume on a development site, and is often used in conjunction with other development standards such as building heights, lot coverage and lot area to encourage a community’s desired arrangement and form of development. In this context, higher FARs indicate greater building volume. PURPOSE AND ROLE IN PLANNING FAR is most often used to express development intensity of non-residential land uses, and integrated into a community’s zoning and other land development controls. FAR can be used to either limit the intensity of land use to lessen the environmental impacts of development or to control the mass and scale of development. In addition, by referencing characteristics for a given land use such as number of employees and number of vehicle or transit trips per square foot of building space, FARs can estimate the potential impact of a proposed development scenario. FAR is sometimes used as an analytical tool for projecting the impact of different land use and development intensity scenarios. HOW TO CALCULATE FAR Typically, FAR is calculated by dividing the gross floor area of a building(s) by the total buildable area of the piece of land upon which it is built. Your community may choose to measure floor area and land area differently based upon local standards, policies, and other conditions. However, to calculate FAR using gross floor area and buildable land area, take the following steps: STEP 1.Determine the total BUILDABLE LAND AREA, in terms of square feet, for the site. Buildable land area is that portion of a development site where construction can legally and reasonably occur – so public streets and rights-of way, wetlands and watercourses, and other constraints would not be included. Buildable Land Area (B) = (Parcel Width x Parcel Depth) – Square feet of undevelopable land (if applicable) STEP 2.Determine the FLOOR AREA of each story of the building. Calculate the area of each story (floor) of the building, typically measured between the exterior walls. Those portions of each story above the ground surface prior to any manipulation or grading are usually included in the calculation. STEP 3.Determine the GROSS FLOOR AREA of the Building. Gross floor area is the sum of the floor area of each story. Gross Floor Area (G) = Floor Area of 1st Story + Floor Area of 2nd Story… for all floors above the ground STEP 4.Calculate the FLOOR AREA RATIO. Divide the GROSS FLOOR AREA by the BUILDABLE LAND AREA. The result is the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Floor Area Ratio (FAR) = (G)/(B) CALCULATING FLOOR AREA RATIO LOCAL PLANNING HANDBOOK Continue to next page June 2015 Metropolitan Council 390 Robert Street North Saint Paul, MN 55101 metrocouncil.org Main: 651.602.1000 TTY: 651.291.0904 Public Information: 651.602.1500 public.info@metc.state.mn.us LOCAL PLANNING HANDBOOK FAR ILLUSTRATED EXAMPLE: Calculating FAR A development company is planning to build a two-story building on a rectangular parcel that has 100 feet of street frontage and 200 feet of depth. The first story measures 50 feet by 200 feet, and the second story measures 50 feet by 200 feet. There are no public rights-of-way, or other exceptional development limitations on the parcel. Step 1. Determine the total BUILDABLE LAND AREA for the site. (B) = (Parcel Width x Parcel Depth) (B) = 100 ft. x 200 ft. (B) = 20,000 ft2 Step 2. Determine the FLOOR AREA of each story of the building. Story 1 Floor Area = 50 ft. x 200 ft. = 10,000 ft2 Story 2 Floor Area = 50 ft. x 200 ft. = 10,000 ft2 Step 3. Determine the GROSS FLOOR AREA of the Building. (G) = 10,000 ft2+ 10,000 ft2 = 20,000 ft2 Step 4. Calculate the FLOOR AREA RATIO. FAR = G/B FAR = 20,000 ft2 / 20,000 ft2 = 1.0 Figure 1. FAR Illustration (Image Credit: Julie Campoli, Visualizing Density) ATTACHMENT A - Emailed to Jim Day April 28, 2020 3 April 2020 DESCRIPTION OF FAR VARIANCE REQUEST – 3244 SANDEEN ROAD The applicant is requesting a variance from the FAR requirement for the property located at 3244 Sandeen Road. 3244 Sandeen Road is located in the R2 Single and Two Family Residential District (with Shoreland Overlay) on the southwest corner of Lake Johanna. The previous house has been torn down. On January 13, 2020, the current homeowners were awarded a 10’ front yard setback variance. This allowed the homeowners to properly assess the feasibility of the lot prior to asking for this FAR variance. This application requests for an additional .04 percent to the current .3 FAR requirement totaling .34 FAR. That would allow 3,366 total livable square feet for the home. This lot is non- conforming, which puts the allowable FAR significantly lower than a typical conforming lot. The home has been designed in such a way that it can capture the additional 396 sq. ft. that the applicant requests without changing the envelope or appearance of the home from the exterior; which could be built without this request. The additional square footage could be captured above the garage, or in the basement (below grade). This would allow the family to have a more comfortable layout for their family of six, and more importantly allow their son with down syndrome to have an essential indoor therapy space. Date: April 30, 2020 To: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners of the City of Arden Hills, MN Subject: Concerns Regarding Planning Case #20-008: 3244 Sandeen Road Variance Request From: Stephen and Susan Campbell, 3248 Sandeen Road, Arden Hills, MN (adjacent to the North) Jim and Faye Day, 3242 Sandeen Road, Arden Hills, MN (adjacent to the South) Paul and Amy Wallin, 3254 Sandeen Road, Arden Hills, MN Mark Montillon, 3249 Sandeen Road, Arden Hills, MN Paul and Eugenie Rolvaag, 3260 Sandeen Road, Arden Hills, MN Kim and Kathy Klawiter, 3262 Sandeen Road, Arden Hills, MN We have serious concerns about the proposed variance. Here we briefly summarize some of these: 1) We are concerned about how the space is being measured for the FAR calculation. The property owners are looking for a variance of 396 sf above the FAR limit of 0.30. At the December 2019 planning meeting, the last time the proposed construction was reviewed, Joe Hartman emphasized that the house would not be larger than some others in the neighborhood and that the house could be built if the lot were larger. While true, the argument sidesteps the point that this is a nonconforming lot and there is a code for this size lot which is a .30 FAR equaling 2970 sf. (.30 x 9900 sf lot = 2970 sf). Furthermore, it seemed from the discussion at the November 6th, 2019 meeting they were not including all of the basement level in the FAR calculation. We are concerned that this miscalculation continues and this is why they are making this variance request for basement space. DETERMINING FAR Perhaps we could say: The manner in which the FAR is calculated varies. The Metropolitan Council FAR information, which exempts basements in the calculation, seems to speak mostly to commercial development projects. Indeed, they go on to say that “Your community may choose to measure floor area and land area differently based upon local standards, policies, and other considerations. The Arden Hills website explains Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as “The sum of the gross horizontal area of all floors of a building as measured in square feet from the exterior sides of the exterior walls. The ratio is obtained by dividing the sum of a building's floor area by the amount of lot area. Not including covered porches that meet the requirements in Section 1325.03 Subd 2.D; decks; any space where the average floor-to-ceiling height is less than six feet; attached or detached garages; and other detached accessory structures.” Note that basements are not excluded. ATTACHMENT A: a document titled “3 April 2020 DESCRIPTION OF FAR VARIANCE REQUEST -- 3244 SANDEEN ROAD”. This was emailed to Jim Day April 28, 2020 from Joe Hartman. Referring to the 396 sf in part it states, “The additional square footage could be captured above the garage or in the basement”. “In the basement” is confusing because that area of the structure should already be included in the calculation for the FAR of this structure. So, why is a variance being requested? For this structure, to be .30 FAR code compliant, the total square footage of the three floors would need to be 2970sf. (.30 x 9900sf lot = 2970 sf.) We have asked the property owner and Mr. Hartman for more information, specifically the square footage on each floor to provide a verification of their calculation. In spite of repeated assurances from the property owner that he would be open with us and show us the plans, all we have been given is an elevation diagram. This makes us very concerned that the calculation is omitting livable areas that may be converted into occupied space once the planning commission is no longer involved in the process and only sympathetic city officials are involved. 2) The requested square footage above code is simply excessive. The FAR increase from .30 to .34 seems small looking at the numbers, but that equates to an increase in square footage of 13% above code. a. The Code- allowed house square footage is 2970. (.30 x 9900 sf. Lot = 2970) b. The requested variance is 396 square feet. (396/2970 = 13%) 3) Question: If the square footage exceeding code is not visible from the exterior, is that a justification for a variance? We raise this question after getting Joe Hartmann’s statement in a letter sent to affected property owners ( dated April 24, 2020) announcing the May 6th Planning Commission meeting. In part it says “…the proposed home has been designed in such a way that it can capture the additional 396 sq. ft. that the applicant requests without changing the envelope or appearance of the home from the exterior…” Where does a “can’t see it” approval end? At … 1,000, 1500 sf.? How can the planning commission deny future requests after this precedent is established? 4) Are all parties acting in good faith? We remain very concerned about this planned construction. The owner does not seem to be negotiating in good faith. At the December meeting of the Planning Commission, the new architect said that detailed drawings could not be made until the constraints on the design were understood. At that meeting the Planning Commission stated that the design must be in substantial compliance with the FAR. Yet, even after replacing the architect, the proposed FAR variation remains what is was when the house was first proposed six months ago. Finally, we are extremely concerned with a process that would approve a variance when the design remains so vague, or is being concealed. At this point why is there no more detail available on the design? 5.) The height of the house is not compatible with the neighborhood. The proposed dwelling will alter the character of the neighborhood and is not consistent with the other dwellings on Sandeen road. Please refer to the Planning Commission packet of November 6th 2019 where you will see street view pictures of every house fronting Sandeen Road. None of them are three stories above the street. In fact for some, the main floor is below street level. •Planning Case #20-008 –No Public Hearing Required •Applicant: Richard and Kristen Priore •Property Location: 3244 Sandeen Road •Request: Variance Background •R-2 Single and Two Family Residential District •Currently Vacant Lot •Nonconforming Parcel •30 foot front yard setback from the property line Subject Lot R2 District Minimum Standards Lot area 9,900 Sq. Ft.11,000 Sq. Ft. Lot width 50 Ft. 85 Ft. Overview Request: •Applicant requests flexibility for FAR requirement •The sum of a building's floor area by the lot area •Excludes decks, garages, covered porches, attics, crawl spaces and basements that do not meet the minimum ceiling height •FAR limit is 0.30 •Applicant requests a FAR 0.34 •Additional 396 square feet is entirely within the envelope the house Variance Requirements –Section 1355.04, Subd. 4 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. Variance Requirements –Section 1355.04, Subd. 4 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: •Reasonable Use. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. •Unique Circumstances. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. •Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Variance Requirements –Section 1355.04, Subd. 4 3.Economic Consideration. Economic consideration alone does not constitute a practical difficulty. •The proposed variance is not based on economic consideration. Public Notice A public notice was mailed to nearby property owners as per the Land use Application Public Notification Policy on April 24th. As of May 4th, city staff have received two (2) comments about the variance request as it is proposed. Conditions of Approval 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. Proposed Motion Language: •Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 20-008 for a Variance at 3244 Sandeen Road, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the two (2) conditions in the May 6th, 2020 Report to the Planning Commission •Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 20-008 for a Variance at 3244 Sandeen Road, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the May 6th, 2020 Report to the Planning Commission. Proposed Motion Language: •Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial Planning Case Planning Case 20-008 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 Planning Case 20-008 for a Variance at 3244 Sandeen Road: a specific reason and information request should be included with a motion to table. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-004 1741 Venus Avenue Tourdot Variance\Memos Reports Page 1 of 8 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 6th, 2020 PC Agenda Item 3.B TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Joe Hartmann, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #20-004 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: William Tourdot and Jennifer Granick Property Location: 1741 Venus Avenue Request: Variance Requested Action William Tourdot and Jennifer Granick (“Applicants”) have requested a variance in order to construct a replacement deck in the front yard of their single-family detached dwelling located at 1741 Venus Avenue (“Subject Property”). Background 1. Overview of Request The Applicants are requesting a variance to replace a deck in the front yard of their single-family detached dwelling on the Subject Property that also serves as the front door entrance to the house given the unique topography of the parcel. The front yard property line is 40 feet from the house and thus the proposed deck is 28 feet from the property line. The Subject Property is zoned R-1, Single Residential District and is guided as Low Density Residential on the land use plan. The Applicants are proposing to replace the design instead of repairing the current structure. According to the Applicants’ narrative submitted as a part of their application, the proposed plan is to replace the deck and walkway which is original to the house. The decking is failing due to rotting wood after over 50 years in service and some of the current two-by-four support structure is not up to current state building code standards for decks. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-004 1741 Venus Avenue Tourdot Variance\Memos Reports Page 2 of 8 The Applicants argue that the deck is an essential feature of the house, as it provides the only access to the front door and the plan they propose does not extend any farther toward the front lot line than the current deck and adjoining stone stairs, nor is the proposed deck any higher than the current deck, which would preserve neighborhood character. The proposal also removes a section of the deck to the west of the front door which partially blocks of the egress window on the ground level. The Applicants’ plan increases the area in front of the front door to make the front door more accessible and to create a space in the front of the house they argue will support neighborly engagement. The Planning Commission is being asked to determine if a variance request for flexibility with the front setback requirement should be approved for the deck and “bridge” walkway. The sketches that have been submitted show that the replacement walkway would be the same size and length as the current walkway, but the replacement deck would exceed the area of the deck currently in place. The Applicant could replace the deck with a new deck of the same size without a variance, but they are asking for a variance to build a larger deck than would be allowed by code. The evaluation of the proposal should be based on the District Provisions in Section 1320 and the Requirements for a Variance in Section 1355.04, Subd. 4. Plan Evaluation Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 1. District Provisions (R-1 Single Family Residential District) – Section 1320.06 Lot Size and Dimensions The Subject Property does not meet the minimum lot size and length requirements for the R-1 District's 14,000 square foot minimum lot size or the 130 foot long dimension requirements. Overall, the Subject Property is 12,500 square feet or 0.29 acres in size and only 120 feet long, which makes it a nonconforming parcel. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-004 1741 Venus Avenue Tourdot Variance\Memos Reports Page 3 of 8 Structure Setbacks - Flexibility Requested In the R-1 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 ten (10) feet and the combined side yard setbacks should total twenty-five (25) feet or more. As previously stated, the Applicant is requesting flexibility to encroach into the front yard setback for the deck walkway. Otherwise, the proposed development would meet setback requirements for the R-1 district. If granted a variance for flexibility with the front setback, the Applicant’s proposal would meet all other district provisions for building structures. City Code Section 1325.03 Subd. 2 establishes that certain parts of the principle structure are permitted to encroachment on setbacks as long as they meet certain criteria. This code section reads that: “Decks, uncovered porches, ramps, and steps may extend six (6) feet into the required front, side, and rear setbacks but in no case shall these encroachments be less than six (6) feet from any lot line.” The replacement deck that the Applicants are requesting is larger than the previous deck.. The previous deck was a landing approximately 4 feet wide that ran along the front façade of the house, which would be permitted by City Code Section 1325.03 Subd. 2 without the need for a variance. The proposed replacement would extend twelve (12) feet out from the front façade of the house, but would not extend as far west as the current deck does. The Applicants have cited in their narrative provided as a part of their application that the height of the proposed structure will be the same as the current structure. The height of the deck above the grade of the adjacent driveway near the house would only be about 10 inches above the due to the recessed “courtyard”, which matches the height of the existing deck. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-004 1741 Venus Avenue Tourdot Variance\Memos Reports Page 4 of 8 The walkway that the Applicants are proposing would extend from the front of the deck towards the front property line by 16 feet. As a part of their request, the Applicants are requesting a combined 28 foot encroachment into the front yard for the proposed deck and walkway. The proposed walkway is a replacement of an existing walkway that pre-dates the zoning code. However this walkway is necessary because it serves as the primary means of egress for the front door of the house. Lot Characteristics - Topography The Subject Property has a unique topography with the elevation of the front yard sloping downward at a steep angle. The front courtyard is essentially a basin with the walkway of the deck serving as the primary means of egress for the property as shown in the pictures above. This basin was dug out by the previous owner when the property was built. In addition, the previous property owner added windows that look out into the courtyard that provides natural lighting into the basement as shown below. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-004 1741 Venus Avenue Tourdot Variance\Memos Reports Page 5 of 8 The Applicants cite the sunken courtyard in the front of their property fits into the character of the neighborhood because it has been a longstanding feature of the neighborhood and predates their purchase of the house. Landscaping The Applicants are not proposing to remove any significant trees from the site, but have provided an outline of additional plantings and landscaping that they feel would accent the proposed deck and walkway and make the property better blend into the character of the neighborhood. There are no tree replacements required for this property under the Tree Preservation Ordinance 1325.055 and the proposed hardscape would not exceed the maximum impervious surface coverage allowed under City Code Section 1330.03. 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. 3. Variance Requirements – Section 1355.04, Subd. 4 The Applicant requests a variance to construct a replacement deck on the front of their residential dwelling unit that would encroach into the front yard setback by 12 feet and a walkway that bridges the span of the sunken front yard by an additional 16 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 1741 Venus Avenue is consistent 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: City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-004 1741 Venus Avenue Tourdot Variance\Memos Reports Page 6 of 8 a. Reasonable Use. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. A deck for a single family home is a reasonable use of the Subject Property in the R-1 Zoning District. The walkway is necessary as the means of egress out the front door. b. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. According to the Applicants’ application, the sunken topography of the front yard is unique to the property 1741 Venus Avenue as well as the nonconforming nature of the lot’s size and length. The previous owner designed and landscaped the front yard for aesthetic reasons prior to the adoption of the zoning code. c. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. According to the Applicants’ application, the existing neighborhood has homes with a variety of different front yard decks, porches, and patios and the proposed variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The sunken courtyard has been a neighborhood feature for many years. 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 replacement deck for a single family dwelling at the Subject Property 1741 Venus Avenue. 2. A deck on a single-family detached dwelling is a permitted use in the R-1 district. 3. The proposed walkway is necessary as the means of egress out the front door of the house. 4. The Subject Property is non-conforming with the R-1 districts standards for minimum lot length and area requirements. 5. The Subject Property is also nonconforming for topography due to the sunken elevation of the front yard. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-004 1741 Venus Avenue Tourdot Variance\Memos Reports Page 7 of 8 6. The proposed deck and walkway would encroach into the front yard setback a combined 28 feet. 7. The proposed development of the subject parcel would conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-1district. 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. Additional Review Residential Building Inspector The Residential Building Inspector has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments at this time. A Building Permit will be required prior to construction. Engineering Staff Engineering Staff reviewed the proposal and asked that the Applicants consider amending the landscaping proposed in the right-of-way. In the event Public Works staff needs to do necessary maintenance within the right-of-way, the proposed landscaping could be removed. 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 20-004 for a Variance at 1741 Venus Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions below: 1. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, engineering department staff shall review a revised landscaping plan to ensure no impacts to the right-of-way. 2. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. 3. The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. • Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 20- 004 for a Variance at 1741 Venus Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted materials. • Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial Planning Case 20-004 for a Variance at 1741 Venus Avenue, 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 20-004 for a Variance at 1741 Venus Avenue: a specific reason and information request should be included with a motion to table. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-004 1741 Venus Avenue Tourdot Variance\Memos Reports Page 8 of 8 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 As of May 1, 2020 staff has received three (3) written comments in regards to this proposal (Attachment D). The written comments were in support of the proposed variance. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 24th, 2020. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by June 23rd, 2020 (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 B. Location Map C. Variance Request Letter D. Comments Received Page 1 of 3 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 Telephone (651) 792-7800 Fax (651) 634-5137 www.cityofardenhills.org For Office Use Only Planning Case No. 20- Submittal Date Application Completed Date Accepted by Receipt Number Council Decision Council Decision Date 2020 LAND USE APPLICATION Applicant Information Applicant: Address: Telephone No.: Other: Fax No.: Email Address: Property Information Property Owner: Owner Address: Owner Telephone No. Other: Address of Property Involved: Legal Description: Property ID No.: Type of Use: Zone: Property Acreage: Type of Request  Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $2,500)  Conditional Use or Interim Use Permit/CUP or IUP Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500)  Preliminary Plat (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $2,500)  Final Plat (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $1,500)  Concept Plan Review (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000)  Master Planned Unit Development or Master Special Development Plan (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $2,500)  Final Planned Unit Development or Final Special Development Plan (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,500)  Planned Unit Development Amendment or Special Development Plan Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500)  Site Plan Review (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500)  Rezoning or TCAAP Regulating Plan Amendment (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $1,500)  Zoning Code or TCAAP Redevelopment Code Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500)  City Code Amendment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,500)  Lot Split/Minor Subdivision (R-1 and R-2 Districts Only) (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,000)  Variance or Permitted Adjustment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,000)  Vacation of Easement or Right-of-Way (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000)  Appeal of Administrative Decision (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000)  Land Use Requests – Not Already Specified (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000 Page 2 of 3 Brief Description of Request (please also include a typed, detailed letter explaining the project): Filing & Information Requirements The City requests that you make a pre-application meeting with the City Planner to discuss the application process, requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the City Planner or Planning Commission, a certified survey of the property is required for all applications. A checklist with additional application requirements can be found at www.cityofardenhills.org/landuseapplications. Complete/Incomplete Applications Under Minnesota Statute, Chapter 15.99, cities have 15 business days to review all plans and application materials to ensure they satisfy City requirements. During the 15 day review period, planning staff will provide written comments on the application and may request plan revisions. If the application is determined to be complete, Minnesota State Statute then requires the City to approve or deny the application within 60 days, up to 120 days. If not complete, the City may require plan revisions and/or additional information before the application is scheduled for Planning Commission review and/or City Council action. Project will not be scheduled for any meeting until the application submittal is found to be complete by the City Planner. Payment of Fees and Escrows The undersigned acknowledges that she/he understands that before a land use application can be deemed complete, all required fees and escrows must be paid to the City. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. Each separate land use request shall be charged a separate administrative fee and escrow even if submitted on the same application. Costs expended in reviewing and processing an application will be charged against the cash escrow and credited to the City. Charges to the escrow may include planning and engineering staff time, City Attorney and consulting fees, and mailing costs. If, at any time, a required cash escrow is depleted to less than 20 percent of its original amount, the applicant shall deposit additional funds in the cash escrow account as determined by the City. The City may withhold final action on a land use application, withhold building permits, and/or rescind prior action until all fees have been paid. Unused portions of an escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. The escrow may be reduced or increased by the City Planner on a project by project basis. Notice of Meeting Attendance In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a designated representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the next available agenda. *IMPORTANT* • Certain applications are subject to review and approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Contact RCWD directly at 763-398-3070 for additional information. • The land use application fees do not cover building, sign, or other permit fees that may be required upon approval of a land use application. • All applications will be subject to additional fees for reimbursement of consultant costs associated with filing, reviewing, and processing of application in the form of an escrow to the City. Page 3 of 3 Meeting Schedule Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the first Wednesday after the first Monday of each month at 6:30 PM, though please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. City Council meetings are held typically the last Monday of the same month at 7:00 PM. Meetings are held in the Council Chambers at the City of Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112, unless otherwise stated. The schedules below are for reference purposes only. Project will not be scheduled for any meeting until the application submittal is found to be complete by the City Planner. 2019 Planning Commission and City Council Schedule (*subject to change) TENTATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE* (Generally held on the first Wednesday after the first Monday at 6:30 p.m.) TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE* (Generally held on the fourth Monday at 7:00 p.m.) January 8 January 27 February 5 February 24 March 4 March 23 April 8 April 27 May 6 May 25 June 3 June 22 July 8 July 27 August 5 August 24 September 9 September 28 October 7 October 26 November 11 November 23 December 9 January 11 (2021) January 6 (2021) January 25 (2021) Acknowledgement and Signature I hereby apply for the above consideration and declare that the information and materials submitted with this application are complete and accurate per city code and ordinance requirements. I fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. __________________________________________________ ________________ Property Owner Signature (Required) Date ________________________________________________ ________________ Applicant Signature (If different than the property owner) Date Please contact the City Planner at 651-792-7800 if you have any questions regarding this application. Additional copies of this application form are available on the City’s website: www.cityofardenhills.org/landuseapplications 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 Glenview Avenue Venus Avenue C o u n ty R o a d E 2 W e s tDellview AvenueLakevi ew CourtFairview Avenue North± City of Sho review Subject Parcel Dear Mr. Mrosla, Community Development Manager/City Planner, Please consider this attachment to our Land Use Application containing a detailed explanation of our plan to replace the deck in the front of our house. Our proposed plan largely follows the current structure, which is original to the house. This deck is an essential feature of the house, as it provides the only access to our front door. The plan does not extend any farther toward the lot boundary than the current deck and adjoining stone stairs, nor is it any higher than the current deck. Our plan has increased the area in front of our front door to make the front door more accessible and to create a space in the front or our house for neighborly engagement. It has also removed a section to the west of the front door. Our house was designed and built by the previous owner, who is an architect. The home has architectural details that are part of what drew us to the home (along with the neighborhood and city). One of these details is the deck (and “bridge”) in the front over the sunken courtyard. We would like to maintain this original design intent of the deck while making it more structurally sound and more functional. The reasons the deck needs to be replaced are as follows: • The current structure is original to the house and some of the decking is failing due to rotting wood after over 50 years in service. • Some of the current support structure is not up to current standards for newly built decks. • The current decking is 2X4 lumber which is not commonly used for decking anymore. Modern decking material are thinner and require closer joist spacing. • The small area around the front door makes it difficult to maneuver in around the out-swung door. The reasons for the proposed design are as follows: • We want to maintain the design intent and feel of the original house plan. • Maintain the recessed “courtyard” that is original to the lot and house design. • Promote neighborhood engagement by creating an inviting front-porch atmosphere. • Improve functionality of the deck without substantially altering the original intent of the house plan. • No part of the proposed design of the deck, including the “Bridge” section and adjoining steps will extend beyond the current location of the end of the bridge and adjoining wooden and stone steps. • The new design would improve sight lines through the area by reducing visual size of deck because of the more open railing system. • The new design would use sustainable recycled decking material. (Current decking is 2X4 which is no longer standard and is not available in recycled material). • Incorporate into an updated landscape design that also replaces the failing flag stone wall. • Overall landscape design will replace some sections of grass with mulch and native, pollinator- friendly plantings and new trees. The Impacts of the design change are as follows: • The proposed design does not extend any further toward the properly line than the current structure of the “bridge” and the adjoining wooden and stone stairs. • The height of the proposed structure will be the same as the current structure. The height of the deck above the grade of the adjacent driveway near the house is only about 10 inches. The height of the deck above the grade immediately below it is due to the recessed “courtyard”. • The change in railing should improve sight lines, as the existing railing system is very "opaque" and boxy feeling. The proposed design satisfies the three requirements of the variance procedure that we were told apply to our situation: • The proposed deck is a reasonable use of the land, as it is required to access our front door (which is 52” above grade), and it is replacing a substantially similar structure that is original to the house. Expanding the deck around the door and maintaining the “bridge” that extends from the front door towards the street will also improve access for emergency responders, creating more room to maneuver around the front entry and preserving straight line entry to that area. • The front door elevation 52” above grade creates a unique circumstance that was not of our creation and requires some sort of structure to reach the front door. The grade and existing deck are original to the house. Therefore, this unique condition existed well before we owned the house. While the front door is slightly above street grade, the general slope of the yard is downward away from the street, with the rear property line approximately 7 feet below street grade. Additionally, there are two large trees that are much older than the house, whose bases are at a similar level to the grade below the front door, indicating that this grade likely existed prior to the house being built. • The proposed deck will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. It is substantially similar the current deck that is original to the house. Our house was built in 1963, in the same time period as others on our street, so its original design is inherently part of the character of the neighborhood. Currently, 7 of 16 houses on our block of Venus avenue have front yard seating areas, 4 of which are decks. There are many more on the remainder of Venus Avenue and throughout the rest of larger neighborhood. Additionally, when we moved into the house, we learned that many neighbors referred to our house fondly as “the bridge house”. I have added three renderings of the proposed design below for your reference. I have also added two photos of our house illustrating the “bridge”, “courtyard”, and the height of the deck relative to the street level (Note: In the photos, most of our previously existing plantings have been removed.). The post for the bird feeder indicates approximately where the corner of the proposed deck would be. Finally, I have attached the plan that we had discussed earlier to the email as well, for your reference. We thank you for your consideration of this variance proposal and look forward to hearing from you. Please let us know if you have any questions. We can be contacted via email or by phone at 608-770-9455. Sincerely, Will Tourdot and Jennifer Granick. From: To:AH Planning Subject:William Tourdot and Jennifer Granick variance Date:Friday, April 24, 2020 4:09:08 PM Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. Hello, I live on the same block. We have some other neighbors that have patios and small decks on the front of their houses. I think the variance to their existing deck would look nice. To have decks and patios on the front of the houses creates a neighborly feeling like older houses with porches on the front. Sincerely, Karrie and Matt Holz From:Margaret To:Joseph Hartmann Subject:Re: PC# 20-004: 1471 Venus Ave Variance Request Date:Friday, April 24, 2020 1:37:55 PM Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. Thanks Joe - I walk by the house frequently so I know what address you are referring to. Margaret Thor 651-631-8308 (hm) 651-324-1086 (cell) Sent from my iPad > On Apr 24, 2020, at 1:22 PM, Joseph Hartmann <JHartmann@cityofardenhills.org> wrote: > > Thank you for your comment. We will add your comment to the report submitted to the Planning Commission. And just to be clear, the address where the variance is being requested is 1741 Venus Avenue, which is the Tourdot residence. I apologize for the error. It was printed incorrectly on your letter. > > Joe Hartmann > Associate Planner > 1245 West Highway 96 | Arden Hills, MN 55112 > 651-792-7810 direct |651-792-7800 main | > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Margaret <margaretcthor@gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 1:11 PM > To: Joseph Hartmann <JHartmann@cityofardenhills.org> > Subject: PC# 20-004: 1471 Venus Ave Variance Request > > Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. > > > >> Joe and Fran - thanks for the notification. The variance request is very reasonable and carefully thought out. It will add beauty and neighborliness to our neighborhood. I vote that the variance be approved. >> >> Margaret Thor >> 1707 Glenview Ave >> 651-631-8308 (hm) >> 651-324-1086 (cell) >> Sent from my iPad From: To:AH Planning Subject:PC# 20-004: 1741 Venus Ave Variance Request Date:Tuesday, April 28, 2020 3:53:34 PM Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. Hi Joe, We live near Will and Jen and fully support their request to replace their existing from decking system. I would ask the Planning Commission please grant them the variance. Best Regard, Rob Merrill From:Yonke, Scott To:Joseph Hartmann Subject:PC#20-004: City of Arden Hills Variance Req Date:Wednesday, April 29, 2020 2:09:31 PM Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. Hi Joe, Ramsey County Parks and Recreation does not have any objections to the variance request. Scott Yonke, PLA | Director of Planning and Development Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department 2015 Van Dyke Street Maplewood, MN 55109-3796 DD: 651-363-3786 www.co.ramsey.mn.us •Planning Case #20-004 –No Public Hearing Required •Applicant: William Tourdot and Jennifer Granick •Property Location: 1741 Venus Avenue •Request: Variance Background •R-1 Single Family Residential •Nonconforming Parcel •Sunken courtyard in front yard requires deck and walkway is original to the property Subject Lot R1 District Minimum Standards Lot area 12,500 Sq. Ft.14,000 Sq. Ft. Lot length 120 Ft. 130 Ft. Overview Request: •The Applicant plans to replace the deck/walkway in the front of the property •Applicant requests flexibility for front setback requirement for the replacement deck and walkway Background •City Code Section 1325.03 Subd. 2 permits a six (6) foot encroachment into the required front yard setback •The Applicants are requesting flexibility for a 12 foot deck and for a 16 foot walkway to extend a combined 28 feet over the sunken courtyard and connect to the other side at grade •Because the deck proposed is larger than the original, a variance is required for the expanded structure Landscaping •City Code Section 1325.05 Subd. 1 outlines design standards for landscaping •Overall landscape design will replace some sections of grass with mulch and native, pollinator-friendly plantings and new trees. •Incorporates an updated landscape design that also replaces the failing flag stone wall. Variance Requirements –Section 1355.04, Subd. 4 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 1741 Venus Avenue would comply with the purpose and intent of the R-1 Zoning District and with the policies within the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Variance Requirements –Section 1355.04, Subd. 4 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: •Reasonable Use. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. •Unique Circumstances. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. •Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Variance Requirements –Section 1355.04, Subd. 4 3.Economic Consideration. Economic consideration alone does not constitute a practical difficulty. •The proposed variance is not based on economic consideration. Public Notice A public notice was mailed to nearby property owners as per the Land use Application Public Notification Policy on April 24th. As of May 4th, city staff have received three (3) comments about the variance request. Conditions of Approval 1.A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. 2.The proposed structure shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. Proposed Motion Language: •Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 20-004 for a Variance at 1741 Venus Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the two (2) conditions in the May 6th, 2020 Report to the Planning Commission •Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 20-004 for a Variance at 1741 Venus Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the May 6th, 2020 Report to the Planning Commission. Proposed Motion Language: •Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial Planning Case Planning Case 20-004 for a Variance at 1741 Venus Avenue, 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 Planning Case 20-004 for a Variance at 1741 Venus Avenue : a specific reason and information request should be included with a motion to table.