The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-07-2020-PCAPPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 9th, 2020 Planning Commission Regular Meeting 09 -09 -20 PC MINUTES.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 20 -017 –3493 Siems Court Variance Request (No Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.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 Marcie Jefferys Kurt Weber Council Liaison: Steve Scott Planning Commission October 7, 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/89865786804 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: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. 6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDAAPPROVAL OF MINUTESSeptember 9th, 2020 Planning Commission Regular Meeting09-09 -20 PC MINUTES.PDFPLANNING CASESPlanning Case 20 -017 –3493 Siems Court Variance Request (No Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.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 Marcie JefferysKurt WeberCouncil Liaison:Steve Scott Planning Commission October 7, 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/89865786804This 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: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. 6. Approved: October 7, 2020 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 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 pandemic this meeting was held virtually. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Nick Gehrig, Commissioners Marcie Jefferys, Steven Jones, Subbaya Subramanian, Paul Vijums, Kurtis Weber, and Jonathan Wicklund. Absent: Commissioners James Lambeth and Clayton Zimmerman. Also present were: Community Development Manager/City Planner Mike Mrosla, Associate Planner Joe Hartmann, and Councilmember Steve Scott. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – SEPTEMBER 9, 2020 Chair Gehrig stated the agenda will stand as published. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 5, 2020 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Chair Gehrig requested all references to himself be changed to Vice Chair Jones within the minutes. Commissioner Jones moved, seconded by Commissioner Jefferys, to approve the August 5, 2020, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as amended. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). PLANNING CASES A.Planning Case 20-014; 1434 County Road E – Variance Request – No Public Hearing Required ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 9, 2020 2 Associate Planner Hartmann stated the Applicant is requesting a Variance to expand the current 528 square foot garage on the Subject Property into a 1,100 square foot garage. The maximum size of a garage allowed by right is 728 square feet. The existing garage meets the front and rear yard setbacks which are forty (40) and thirty (30) feet from the front and rear property lines, respectively, but the garage is only three (3) feet from the side yard setback where a ten (10) foot side yard setback is required for an accessory structure in the R-1 district. Due to the size of the request and the current garage’s legal nonconforming side yard setback (refer to Planning Case 00-004 for the previously approved three (3) foot setback variance), the Applicant requires a variance approval for the expansion of the garage. Associate Planner Hartmann reported the Applicant is proposing to expand the accessory structure in order to gain more storage space for their vehicles. According to the Applicant’s narrative submitted as a part of their application, when the sidewalk was installed within the easement facing County Road E, they lost driveway space that they had been using for the storage of vehicles. Expanding the garage will allow them to store their vehicles on the property safely. The Applicant has also indicated to staff that they intend to widen the driveway with permeable pavers and seek a future expansion of the house so that the increased size of the garage will not appear out of character with the property or the neighborhood. No permits have been pulled for these projects yet, and while they would require separate building plan review, these projects would not require a variance. Associate Planner Hartmann reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a request to build a bigger garage for a single family dwelling at the Subject Property 1434 County Road E. 2. A garage for a single-family detached dwelling is a permitted use in the R-1 Single Family Residential District. 3. The Subject Property is a legal nonconforming lot due to the lot not meeting the minimum width requirement for the R-1 District. 4. The Subject Property is non-conforming with the R-1 District’s standards for minimum lot length requirements. 5. The proposed development of the Subject Property would conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-1 district. 6. The Subject Property was previously granted a side yard setback variance of three (3) feet for a garage under Planning Case 00- 004. 7. The proposed structure would not exceed the three (3) foot variance distance previously approved. 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. Associate Planner Hartmann stated staff recommends approval of Planning Case 20-014 for a Variance at 1434 County Road E, 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. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 9, 2020 3 2. The exterior materials of the proposed addition shall be consistent or complementary in color, texture and quality with those visible on the existing structure. 3. The roof of the proposed addition shall be integrated into, and consistent with, the existing roof of the structure and materials. 4. The Subject Property shall be limited to one (1) accessory structure. 5. The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. 6. The proposed garage shall not exceed 1,100 square feet total. Associate Planner Hartmann 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 Jefferys stated she appreciated the explanation from the applicant for the detached garage. She asked if the garage would more than double in size. Associate Planner Hartmann reported the garage would go from 528 square feet to 1100 square feet. Commissioner Jefferys indicated this would be a large garage for the neighborhood. She questioned if the neighborhood had any other four-car garages. Associate Planner Hartmann commented the neighboring property at 1426 County Road E had received a variance for a 3” side yard setback. He explained a site plan review was completed in 2019 at 4101 Gail Circle where an additional 703 square feet of garage space was requested. Commissioner Subramanian asked if the applicant would be installing another driveway for this garage. Associate Planner Hartmann stated staff had spoken with Ramsey County regarding this matter and noted a second driveway would not be allowed. He noted the applicant could expand the existing driveway but noted this would require a separate permit. Keith Sandahl 1434 County Road E, explained the purpose of the garage expansion was to allow him to store all four of his vehicles indoors, especially during the winter months. Commissioner Jones questioned if the roofline of the old garage would be perpendicular to the new garage. Associate Planner Hartmann stated this was correct. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 9, 2020 4 Commissioner Jones inquired if the proposed garage was a mirror image to the neighbor’s garage. Mr. Sandahl commented he was asking for a garage that would mirror his neighbor’s garage. Commissioner Jones asked if there would be a problem with water runoff from the garage. Mr. Sandahl discussed how the water ran off from his property to the rear into a creek. Commissioner Jones inquired if the permeable/non-permeable surface requirements were being met for this lot. Associate Planner Hartmann reported these requirements were being met for this zoning district given the fact this was a large R-1 lot. Commissioner Vijums questioned how many cars could be parked on the driveway. Mr. Sandahl stated he could currently park four cars in the driveway. He noted he used to be able to park six cars in his driveway. Further discussion ensued regarding the visibility of the garage on the property. Commissioner Vijums commented what the applicant lost in sidewalk space doesn’t equal what the applicant was asking for. He indicated the Commission would have to consider if the garage size was excessive even though it mimics the neighbor’s garage. Commissioner Weber stated there was a bit of conflicting information in the packet. He noted applicant had hoped to widen the driveway, which wasn’t going to happen anymore. He asked if the applicant planned to install a rear garage door. Associate Planner Hartmann commented according to the applicant’s plans there would be no rear garage door. Commissioner Weber questioned if the applicant would be allowed to complete mechanical work from the garage. Associate Planner Hartmann stated this would not be allowed. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained this was a prohibited home occupation. Commissioner Wicklund asked what the dimensions were for the current garage. Associate Planner Hartmann reported the garage was 22 feet by 24 feet in size. Commissioner Wicklund inquired if the existing garage would be demolished. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 9, 2020 5 Mr. Sandahl stated the existing garage would remain in place and the additional square feet would be added (22 feet by 50 feet). Commissioner Wicklund questioned if City Code allowed for two accessory structures totaling 1,456 square feet. Associate Planner Hartmann reported this was the case. Commissioner Wicklund explained the applicant currently has 528 square feet of garage space and the applicant is asking for 1,100 additional square feet or 1,628 total square feet. He noted current City Code only allows for 1,456 square feet. Chair Gehrig thanked Commissioner Wicklund for the clarification. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated this information was news to staff. He reported staff had the understanding the existing garage would be demolished. He noted the overall size that was allowed per City Code was 1,456 square feet. He explained the proposal before the Commission does not meet this requirement. Chair Gehrig suggested the Commission table action on this item to allow staff and the applicant to clarify some of the project details and that this matter be reviewed by the Commission in October. Commissioner Jones supported the matter being tabled. He stated he would like to see calculations regarding permeable surfaces with the garage addition and how much was taken by the City for the sidewalk. He commented he would also like to understand more about the neighbor’s garage and variance. He indicated he could support a garage the same size as the neighbor’s, but not exceeding this garage size. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported the neighboring garage was roughly 1,000 square feet. He clarified that there was no “taking” of property for the sidewalk as the sidewalk was located within Ramsey County right-of-way. Commissioner Jefferys stated she supported this matter being tabled and she would like to understand how the applicant would be using a six car garage. Commissioner Vijums also supported this Planning Case being tabled. He encouraged the applicant to stick within the City’s zoning requirements for the garage. Chair Gehrig moved and Commissioner Jones seconded a motion to table action on Planning Case 20-014 a Variance for the property at 1434 County Road E to allow staff to clarify the structure size, to better understand the permeable surface area on the lot, as well as investigating other structures in the City that have exceeded the maximum allowable square footage of 1,456 square feet. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). B. Planning Case 20-018; 3246 New Brighton Road (Ecko Estates) Final Plat Request – No Public Hearing Required ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 9, 2020 6 Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated the Subject Property at 3246 New Brighton Road is approximately 3.12 acres in size and is comprised of the decommissioned Lake Johanna Fire Station No. 1 building, a detached garage, and parking areas. The two (2) existing structures are located along New Brighton Road but the topography slopes down significantly to a pond located on the easterly half of the property. It’s located in the R-2 Single and Two Family Residential District and is guided Very Low Density Residential in the Land Use Plan. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained at their June 22, 2020 Regular Meeting, the City Council reviewed a Variance and Preliminary Plat request for the Subject Property. The Applicant submitted a Land Use application to subdivide the Subject Property into four single family lots with a reduced minimum lot width of 81.75 feet. However, the zoning ordinance requires a minimum of 85 feet in the R-2 district. The Council voted in the affirmative to approve the Variance and Preliminary Plat request during its June 22, 2020 meeting. During the previous approval process the Applicant elected not to apply for a Final Plat request simultaneously in case the project did not get approval from the City Council. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla further discussed the Overview of the Request and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a request for Final Plat at the Subject Property 3246 New Brighton Road. 2. The Subject Property at 3246 New Brighton Road is located in the R-2 – Single and Two Family Residential Zoning District and is guided as very low density on the Land Use plan. 3. The Subject Property is currently comprised of the former Lake Johanna Fire Station 1 building, a detached garage, and parking areas. 4. The City Council approved the Preliminary Plat and Variance for the Subject Property at their June 22, 2020 meeting. 5. The Applicant has requested a Final Plat to finalize the subdivision of the Subject Property into four (4) single-family residential lots. 6. The adjacent properties to the north, east, west and south are zoned R-2 District and are guided for Low Density Residential uses in the Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan 7. A single-family detached dwelling is a permitted use for the lots in the R-2 district where the Subject Property is located. 8. The proposed Final Plat meets the Subdivision Design requirements included in Section 1130 of the City Code. 9. The proposed development requires public use dedication, as required in Section 1130.08 of the City Code. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated staff recommends approval of Planning Case 20-018 for a Final Plat at 3246 New Brighton Road, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions below: 1. All conditions of the Preliminary Plat approval shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Prior to the release of the Final Plat for recording, the Applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 9, 2020 7 3. All permanent easements and rights-of-way (ROW) necessary for existing street and utility improvements shall be granted to the City at no cost and paid for by the Developer. 4. The Developer shall be financially responsible for 100 percent of all storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water main area and connection charges applicable to the property. These charges are identified in a preliminary report prepared for the project and shall be in the Development Agreement. 5. Final Plat approval shall expire six months from the date of the City Council approval unless the Final Plat has recorded with Ramsey County or a time extension granted by the City Council. 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 Jones stated he was heartbroken to see the fire station going away, but noted he supported the proposed project. Commissioner Wicklund asked if Condition 3 was standard practice for the City. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla recommended the “or” be changed to “and” in Condition 3. Commissioner Jones moved and Commissioner Subramanian seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 20-018 for a Final Plat at 3246 New Brighton Road based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the five (5) conditions as amended in the September 9, 2020, report to the Planning Commission. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). C. Planning Case 20-010; 4200 Round Lake Road – Planned Unit Development Request, Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary and Final Plat – Public Hearing Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated the Subject Property is currently owned by North American Land Company, LLC, a holding company related to Roberts Management Group. The Subject Property comprises two (2) parcels totaling approximately 26.08 acres located south of the cul-de-sac on Gateway Boulevard and north of Interstate 694 and east of 35W. There was a previously existing building located onsite that was removed in 2006. The Subject Property has had a few development proposals in the past. However, none of the projects have come to fruition. The Subject Property has since been vacant with wetlands located adjacent to Interstates (“35W and 694”). ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 9, 2020 8 Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla indicated the Applicant is proposing to construct a 250,000 square foot office and warehouse facility on the site. The site is highly visible from 694 and 35W. Separate access points to the site will be provided via Gateway Boulevard for employee parking and deliveries. The Applicant’s proposal includes office space, warehousing, and ground level unloading access with 38 dock doors located on the north side of the building. The site proposal includes at-grade office parking lots located on the south side of the building. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The Applicant has submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary/Final Plat at the Subject Property 4200 Round Lake Road. 2. The Applicant is proposing a 250,000 square foot office and warehouse facility on the Subject Property. 3. The Applicant has submitted a preliminary and final plat to plat two (2) properties. 4. Flexibility through the PUD process has been requested in the following areas: district provisions, lot area, lot dimensions, parking setbacks, building height, minimum caliper inches, aesthetics, perennials and shrubberies. 5. The proposed development plan meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the City Code in the following areas: building setbacks, landscape coverage, parking, planting islands, street trees, tree selection, floor area ratio, drainage wetlands and flood plain tree selection, lighting, screening. 6. Where the plan is not in conformance with the City Code, flexibility has been requested by the Applicant and/or conditions have been placed on an approval that would mitigate the nonconformity. 7. A traffic study has been completed for the proposed use and suggests that Ramsey County to add five (5) seconds to the signal timing for Round Lake Road and Hwy 96 to allow for more northbound left turns during the PM peak hour. 8. Existing public facilities and shall be able to absorb the additional demand for public services needed for the proposed use. 9. The Subject Property is located with the Gateway Business (“GB”) District and is guided as Light Industrial & Office on the 2040 Land Use Plan. 10. The proposed Preliminary Plat and Final Plat are consistent with the Arden Hills Zoning Map and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 11. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated staff recommends approval of Planning Case 20- 010 for a Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat/Final Plat at 4200 Round Lake Road, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, subject to the following conditions: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted and as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to the plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the City Council. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 9, 2020 9 2. The Preliminary Plat approval shall expire six months from the date of the City Council approval unless the Final Plat has recorded with Ramsey County or a time extension granted by the City Council. 3. The Applicant shall record the Final Plat with Ramsey County and a copy shall be provided to the City within sixty (60) days of the City’s approval. 4. The Applicant shall be financially responsible for all applicable water and sanitary charges. Rates applied shall be those in effect at the time of Final Plat approval and shall be memorialized in the Development Agreement. 5. A Development Agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. The Development Agreement shall be fully executed prior to release of a building permit. 6. The Applicant shall submit a park dedication fee that shall be seven and a half (7.5) percent of the fair market value of the unimproved land and subject to the approval of the City Council. The park dedication fee shall be submitted prior to the release of the Final Plat. 7. Survey monuments shall be placed and installed at all block corners, angle points, points of curves in streets, and at intermediate points as shown on the Final Plat. Pipes or steel rods shall be placed at the corners of each lot. 8. The final plat shall provide dedication of a 60-ft wide right of way for Gateway Boulevard on Lot 2, Block 1 overlying the area currently encumbered by existing drainage and utility easement. 9. Prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion permit, planning staff shall approve in writing the final landscaping plan. 10. Prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion permit, engineering staff shall approve in writing the final location of the loading driveway access to align with adjacent commercial driveway or provide adequate offset distance. 11. A cross easement access and maintenance agreement for the proposed share access on Lot 2 shall be submitted and memorialized in the Development Agreement. 12. Site Plan approval shall be required for the construction of the proof of parking area. 13. All light poles, including base, shall be a maximum of 25 feet in height and shall be shoebox style, downward directed, with high-pressure sodium lamps or LED and flush lenses. Other than wash or architectural lighting, attached security lighting shall be shoebox style, downward directed with flush lenses. If complaints are received the lighting adjacent to residential uses shall utilize house shields as directed by the City. In addition, any lighting under canopies (building entries) shall be recessed and use a flush lens. 14. A right of way permit shall be required for work performed within the City right of way. 15. A grading as-built and utility as-built plan shall be provided to the City upon completion of grading and utility work. 16. No exterior storage shall be permitted. 17. This approval does not include signs. A separate sign permit is required for all proposed signage. All signage shall meet the requirements of Sign District 6. 18. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape financial security of $50,000.00 dollars shall be submitted. Landscape financial security is held for two full growing seasons. 19. All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be hidden from view with the same materials used on the building in accordance with City Code requirements. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 9, 2020 10 20. All fencing and retaining wall materials shall be complementary to the building materials and shall be approved in writing by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. Retaining walls greater than four (4) feet in height shall be engineered and detailed calculations shall be submitted to the City. 21. Prior to City Council consideration, the Applicant shall submit a materials board to be approved in writing by staff. 22. A Grading and Erosion permit shall be obtained from the City’s Engineering Department prior to commencing any grading, land disturbance or utility activities. The Developer shall be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary from other agencies, including but not limited to, MPCA, Rice Creek Watershed District, and Ramsey County, MNDOT prior to the start of any site activities. 23. The Applicant shall be responsible for protecting the proposed on-site storm sewer infrastructure and components and any existing storm sewer from exposure to any and all stormwater runoff, sediments and debris during all construction activities. Temporary stormwater facilities shall be installed to protect the quality aspect of the proposed and existing stormwater facilities prior to and during construction activities. Maintenance of any and all temporary stormwater facilities shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. 24. Prior to the issuance of the Grading and Erosion permit, the Engineering Department shall review and approve final grading and utility plans in writing. Plans shall be amended to include detail drawings for connection to the sanitary sewer system in Gateway Boulevard, restoration of utility cuts within public streets, and inclusion of City details 3401, 3402, 3408, and 4000. 25. Any future trash enclosures shall utilize wooden gates and be constructed on three sides using the same materials and patterns used on the building. Locations shall be approved by the Planning Department. 26. The Applicant shall provide an executed copy of the City’s standard stormwater maintenance and easement agreement prior to approval of the Development Agreement. 27. All disturbed boulevards shall be restored with sod. 28. All areas of the site, where practical, shall be sodded or seeded and maintained. The property owner shall mow and maintain all site boulevards to the curb line of the public streets. 29. Overnight trailer parking is prohibited onsite other than along the dock wall within the concrete dock apron. 30. The Applicant shall work with Ramsey County to add five (5) seconds to the signal timing for Round Lake Road and Hwy 96 to allow for more northbound left turns during the PM peak hour prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 31. Warehousing and wholesaling shall not exceed 85 percent of the floor area tenant. The remaining 15 percent of floor area shall be non-warehouse uses such as a combination of uses including-but-not-limited-to office, manufacturing, production, research and development, lab and/or showroom per tenant. 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 ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 9, 2020 11 Chair Gehrig opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Jefferys stated this was a complex and detailed proposal. She requested staff provide the Commission with a brief history on this property. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla commented he was unaware of the history this property due to his short time with the City. He understood an office building was previously approved for this site in 2006 when the lot was subdivided into two lots. Commissioner Jones questioned if the size of Lot 2 was going to be a concern. He stated he was surprised the site did not have two driveways to assist with maneuvering semi-trucks through the property. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported the applicant had looked at a number of lot designs for Lot 2. He commented under the current standards the parcel could be developed and meet current requirements. He stated some flexibility may be needed for use. He provided further comment on how access was needed to the adjacent property. Ben Johnson, Kimley Horn, discussed the proposed access to the site. He noted two access points were not proposed due to the elevation and grade changes on the property. Dan Salzer explained the site would have a one-way loop through the property. He stated he had investigated two access points, but given the challenging grades, this was not possible. He believed the proposed access was a creative way to address the sites needs. Commissioner Subramanian asked if the size of the building would impact the wetland area. Mr. Johnson discussed the buildable area on the site and noted the building would be 250,000 square feet. Mr. Salzer reported the building would cover 26% of the lot area and the impervious area would an additional percentage of the lot. Mr. Johnson commented further on how he would be addressing the stormwater management for the site. He noted the existing pond would be expanded to hold the site’s water runoff per the Rice Creek Watersheds calculations. Commissioner Vijums questioned why the City was allowing for 10% more warehousing. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla deferred this question to the applicant. Mr. Johnson explained the zoning requires 25% to 50% office, which was more office driven than in other communities. He reported he was asking for 85% warehousing and 15% other uses, which could include office space, lab space or manufacturing. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 9, 2020 12 Commissioner Vijums stated this seemed reasonable and perhaps City Code needed to be amended to reflect how business was being done today. He then asked why the applicant was requesting an additional five feet of building height. Mr. Johnson commented historically buildings of this nature were built to an 18 or 24 foot clear height but over time this clear height has morphed into an increased height. He stated he was trying to plan for the long-term future of this building which led him to request a 40 foot building height. He indicated this building height would allow him greater flexibility to meet the needs of his future tenants. Commissioner Vijums thanked the applicant for answering his questions. He stated he could support the increased building height. Chair Gehrig requested comment from staff or the applicant regarding the building materials selection. Mr. Johnson reported he worked closely with staff on the building exterior. He then described the building materials that were being proposed for the development. Commissioner Vijums commented it appears the applicant is looking for flexibility on building height and percentage of warehousing space. He suggested the City look at changing the overall code versus granting variances/flexibilities for similar requests in the future. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated this was a great point. He commented on the recently approved Comprehensive Plan and noted staff could address these concerns as part of the updates being made to the Gateway Business District. Commissioner Jefferys supported Commissioner Vijums recommendation that City Code be addressed. She asked if the applicant had experience with the proposed natural plantings or seed and how well this has worked. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla commented he has had several projects that has used this seed and so long as invasive weeds are addressed, this seed can work really well once it takes. Mr. Johnson explained the proposed seed would be consistent with the native wetlands. He indicated he has had success with a variety of native plantings/seedings in other projects. Commissioner Jones stated he supported a code change as well. He indicated he supported the placement of this warehouse/distribution development. He encouraged staff to consider how signage would be impacted if the building height was raised to 40 feet. He commented overall he supported this project. Chair Gehrig opened the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. Chair Gehrig invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. Mr. Johnson questioned how quickly the plat had to be filed with the County. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 9, 2020 13 Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla commented the applicant would have 60 days to file the plat with the County. Commissioner Jones recommended Condition 3 be amended to read sixty (60) days. There being no additional comment Chair Gehrig closed the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Commissioner Vijums moved and Commissioner Wicklund seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 20-010 for a Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat/Final Plat at 4200 Round Lake Road based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the thirty-one (31) conditions as amended in the September 9, 2020, report to the Planning Commission. 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 reported City Hall remains closed, but all City activities were operational. He noted all City meetings were being held virtually. He explained a Special JDA meeting was held on September 8th but the County representatives were not in attendance. He indicated the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department would not be participating in Night to Unite. He discussed the staff changes that have occurred at City Hall. He stated he supported Commissioner Vijums recommendation that City Code be addressed to reduce the number of variance requests. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests Commissioner Jefferys thanked staff for providing the Commission with detailed staff reports for each Planning Case. She stated she looked forward to being able to meet in person someday. Commissioner Weber requested the meeting packets be mailed out sooner in order to provide Commissioner’s with more time to review the material. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained the Commission members could pick up their packets at City Hall the Thursday prior to each meeting. He noted staff has discussed the possibility of delivering packets. Councilmember Scott stated he would bring this concern to the City Council and explained all Council packets were hand delivered. ADJOURN ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 9, 2020 14 Commissioner Vijums moved, seconded by Commissioner Jefferys, to adjourn the September 9, 2020, Planning Commission Meeting at 8:28 p.m. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for October 7th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-017 3493 Siems Court - Var\PC Packets Page 1 of 10 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 7th, 2020 PC Agenda Item 3.A TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Joe Hartmann, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #20-017 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Kye Samuelson Property Location: 3493 Siems Court Request: Variance Requested Action Kye Samuelson (“Applicant”) has requested a Variance in order to construct an accessory structure near the shoreline of 3493 Siems Court (“Subject Property”) within the Shore Impact Zone of Lake Johanna. The Applicant is requesting a variance for proposed structure to be located in the Shore Impact Zone. In addition, the Applicant is requesting flexibility for the accessory structure’s height and size. The Subject Property is zoned R-1, Single Residential District, is located in the Shoreland Management District, and is guided as Low Density Residential on the Land Use Plan. Background 1. Overview of Request The Applicant is requesting a Variance to build a 120 square foot storage space within the Shore Impact Zone of Lake Johanna on the Subject Property. Previously, the Applicant removed an accessory structure and reconstructed the associated deck located within the Shore Impact Zone (Attachment C) with the intent to build a new structure. The previous structure was built prior to the adoption of the current City Code that restricts what structures can be built within the Shore Impact Zone, and was a legal nonconforming structure. Because the nonconformity was discontinued for a period of more than one year, and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the structure was removed, the previous structure cannot be rebuilt. The Applicant requires a Variance approval for this new structure because it is larger than the previous legal nonconforming structure and is proposed too close to the shore. The Applicant is proposing to build the accessory structure to gain more storage space for their belongings. According to the Applicant’s narrative submitted as a part of their application (Attachment D), the accessory structure is being proposed near the shore because it is the only area suitable for building given the steep topography in the rear yard. An accessory structure of this City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for October 7th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-017 3493 Siems Court - Var\PC Packets Page 2 of 10 size is necessary because the paddleboards that his family owns are a minimum ten (10) to twelve (12) feet long and six (6) feet wide, hence the proposal is to request a storage structure with a length of 12 feet and a width of 10 feet. The sketches submitted by the Applicant show that the structure would have a greater height, length, and width than what was allowed for the pre-existing structure, but would maintain the same setback distance from the shoreline as the previous structure (Attachment E). The Planning Commission is being asked to determine if a variance request for flexibility with the Shoreland Management District setback requirements should be approved for the proposed accessory structure. This structure requires flexibility from the restrictions for City Code within Shoreland Management Districts. The evaluation of the proposal should be based on the provisions within the Zoning Code and the Requirements for a Variance in Section 1355.04, Subd. 4 and the Continuation of Nonconforming Uses in Section 1350.02. Plan Evaluation Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 1. District Provisions (R-1 Single Family Residential District) – Section 1320.06 Lot Size and Dimensions The minimum lot width required for the Subject Property is ninety-five (95) feet and the minimum lot length is 130 feet. The minimum lot size is 14,000 square feet. The Subject Property meets the minimum lot width and length requirements for the R-1 District as well as the minimum lot area requirement. If approved for this variance, the property would be beneath the maximum structure coverage, FAR, and impervious coverage allowed under City Code. Aerial Photo of the Subject Property and accessory structure location. Structure Setbacks - Flexibility Requested The Subject Property is located within a Shoreland Management District, which impacts the rear setback of the property. Shoreland Management Districts overlay existing zoning districts of the City s hown on the official zoning map. The Shoreland Management District classifies Lake Johanna as a General Development Lak e, which determines certain setback requirements from the lakeshore. The rear of the Subject Property faces Lake Johanna, which has a setback of fifty (50) City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for October 7th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-017 3493 Siems Court - Var\PC Packets Page 3 of 10 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). Minnesota Statutes 103G.005 Subd. 14 defines the OHWL as: “…the elevation delineating the highest water level that has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly the point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial…” The OHWL of Lake Johanna is 878 feet according to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The Shore Impact Zone is the land located between the OHWL and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the structure setback. In other words, the Shore Impact Zone is the twenty-five (25) feet nearest to the shore within the 50 foot rear yard setback of the OHWL. The proposed structure would be located 23.6 feet from the OHWL setback within the Shore Impact Zone on top of where an existing landing structure is located. Shoreline Impact Zone and 50’ structure setback. 2. General Regulations – Section 1325.01 Accessory Structures According to City Code Section 1325.01 Subd. 5, B, the exterior finish of accessory structures shall be compatible in appearance and material used with the principal structure served by the accessory structure. The Applicant is requesting a green roof design that does not match the exterior finish of the principal structure of the house, but the Applicant notes the construction methods are the same as any standard accessory structure. The contractor who will build the proposed structure, Scherer Brothers, has confirmed the wall load calculation needs and the truss load on the structure, confirming that there no additional structural needs for wall and roof framing that would affect the outward appearance of the structure. Staff is recommending as a condition of City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for October 7th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-017 3493 Siems Court - Var\PC Packets Page 4 of 10 approval that to the extent practical, the exterior materials of the proposed accessory structure shall be consistent or complementary in color, texture and quality with those on the principal structure. Floor plans and elevations for the proposed storage structure 3. Shoreland Regulations – Section 1330 City Code Section 1330.03 Subd. 5 highlights exceptions to OHWL setback requirements within a Shoreland Management District. Generally, no structure shall be placed within the structure setback requirements of the Shoreland Management District. However, boatlifts, docks, fences, landings, lifts, stairways, and uncovered porches are not classified as structures for the purposes of this section. Under City Code Section 1330.03 Subd. 5, lakeshore lots may be permitted up to one (1) accessory storage shed within the required structure setback from the OHWL, provided that it is not located within the Shore Impact Zone; does not exceed 64 square feet in size and eight (8) feet in height measured to the highest point of the structure; and is not designed or used for human habitation and does not contain a water supply or sewage treatment facilities. Measured from the base of the landing to the highest point of the structure, the proposed structure would exceed the 8 foot height limitation at ten (10) feet, six (6) inches tall. The structure proposed would measure 10 feet by 12 feet, or 120 square feet, which exceeds the 64 square foot maximum allowed within code and the proposed structure would be located within the Shore Impact Zone. City Code Section 1330.03 Subd. 6 states that the shoreland shall be protected from adverse conditions affecting the public. Keeping the shoreland in a natural state and the use of native vegetation is encouraged. The Applicant argues that the natural vegetation on the east-facing rooftop and wall would become part of the natural setting, making it inconspicuous and blended into the landscape. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for October 7th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-017 3493 Siems Court - Var\PC Packets Page 5 of 10 City Code Section 1330.03 Subd. 7 states that in Shore Impact Zones and on steep slopes, limited clearing of trees and shrubs for access to the shoreline, and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed provided that a minimum of seventy-five (75) percent of the Shore Impact Zone be left in its natural state. There is a 30 foot grade difference in 100 feet, which creates a steep slope to transport lake items up to store in the garage. The Applicant states in their narrative that the grade in the rear of the property is difficult enough to have warranted the construction of a switchback grass trail for a golf cart to bring elderly family members and those less physically-able from the driveway down to the lake. This would also make it difficult to locate an accessory structure for storage elsewhere on the property. The proposal to locate the storage shed within the Shore Impact Zone that would prevent clearing of trees and shrubs for access elsewhere on the slope of the back yard and maintain that minimum of seventy-five (75) percent of the Shore Impact Zone. Topographic Overlay of 3493 Siems Court, depicting the change in elevation on the Subject Property. City Code Section 1330.03 Subd. 7 continues that, “the minimal amount of vegetation shall be altered and sufficient vegetative cover shall remain to screen cars, dwellings and other structures when viewed from public waters. Except for the removal of invasive species, clear cutting of vegetation shall be prohibited. Native vegetation shall be restored insofar as feasible after any construction project is completed to retard surface runoff and soil erosion.” The Applicant mentions within the narrative provided to staff that the existing deck would be made more unobtrusive by adding natural, deep-rooting vegetation around specific areas near the proposed storage structure, creating more coverage and reducing phosphorous runoff. The Applicant argues that this would protect the shoreland after development by reducing the runoff that would otherwise cause water pollution and decreasing the need for additional stormwater treatment infrastructure. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for October 7th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-017 3493 Siems Court - Var\PC Packets Page 6 of 10 4. Nonconforming Uses, Buildings, and Lots – Section 1350 A nonconforming use of land or buildings may be continued, subject to the provisions of City Code Section 1350, but it is the intent of this Code not to encourage its survival because of its incompatibility with permitted uses in the zoning district in which it is located. A building found to be non-conforming because of height, setbacks or lot area, may continue to exist so long as it is used for purposes permitted in the zoning district in which it is located and is in conformance with City Code Section 1350.02. If a nonconforming use is discontinued for any reason after a one-year period, it ceases to exist. A building or structure constituting a nonconforming use, or the land upon which the nonconforming use is being conducted, shall thereafter be used in conformance with City Code applicable to the zoning district in which it is located. City Code Section 1350.02 regarding the continuation of nonconforming uses and buildings reads, “When a nonconforming structure in a Shoreland district within less than 50 percent of the required setback from the water is destroyed, the structure setback may be increased if practicable and reasonable conditions are placed upon a zoning or building permit to mitigate created impacts on the adjacent property or water body.” Under City Code Section 1350.04, nonconforming buildings shall not be increased, enlarged, altered, intensified, or extended to occupy a greater area or height on the lot on which the building is located, or moved to any other part of the lot on which the building is located in a way that augments its nonconformity. 5. Variance Review Requirements – Section 1355.04 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 minimum OHWL setback requirement within the Shore Impact Zone, any conditions attached should presumably relate to mitigating the effect of the encroachment. Deviations from the requirements for accessory structures in exceptional and unusual circumstances may be permitted after Planning Commission review and City Council approval in accordance with Section 1355.04 Subd 5 and with documentation showing the unusual circumstances justifying the proposed deviation and plans for the proposed accessory structure. 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 City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for October 7th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-017 3493 Siems Court - Var\PC Packets Page 7 of 10 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. Below are the Applicant’s findings of fact. 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 Subject Property is zoned R-1, Single Residential District, is located in the Shoreland Management District and is guided as Low Density Residential on the Land Use 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 Applicant, storage of personal items for a single family home is a reasonable use of an accessory structure in the Shoreland Management District and shoreline impact zone. 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 Applicant, there is a thirty (30) foot grade difference in 100 feet, which creates a very steep slope to transport lake items up to store in the garage and is unique to the property, making it difficult to place the storage structure elsewhere. c. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. According to the Applicant the storage shed would be 30 feet below the adjoining neighbors, the natural vegetation on the east-facing rooftop and wall would become part of the natural setting intentionally restored by the current homeowner, making it inconspicuous and blended to the landscape. 3. Economic Consideration. Economic consideration alone does not constitute a practical difficulty. According to the Applicant 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: City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for October 7th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-017 3493 Siems Court - Var\PC Packets Page 8 of 10 General Findings: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a request to build an accessory structure for storage at the Subject Property 3493 Siems Court. 2. Storage of personal items is a permitted use for an accessory structure in the R-1 Single Family Residential District. 3. The Subject Property has a steep downward slope in the rear yard that prevents the Applicant from building on much of the site. 4. The Subject Property meets the minimum lot size, width, and length requirements for the R-1 District. 5. The Applicant is requesting flexibility with the maximum height and size restrictions for a storage shed located within the setback requirement for Lake Johanna. 6. The rear yard setback requirement for a proposed accessory structure is determined by the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of Lake Johanna. 7. The OHWL setback from Lake Johanna is 50 feet. 8. A previous legal-nonconforming accessory structure was located at the Subject Property within the Shore Impact Zone where the Applicant is now proposing to build, but that previous structure was removed by the Applicant. 9. Because the nonconformity was discontinued for a period of more than one year, and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property was removed, the previous structure cannot be rebuilt. 10. The previous structure was built prior to the adoption of the current code that prohibits structures with the Shore Impact Zone. 11. The Shore Impact Zone is the land located between the OHWL and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the structure setback. 12. The proposed storage structure would be located within the Shore Impact Zone of Lake Johanna. 13. Current City Code does not permit structures within the Shore Impact Zone, except under certain conditions. 14. One (1) storage shed is permitted with the OHWL setback requirement of Lake Johanna as long as it does not exceed 64 square feet in size and eight (8) feet in height and is not within the Shore Impact Zone. 15. The proposed structure exceeds the height and dimension limits for an accessory structure within the OHWL. 16. The proposed structure would otherwise conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-1 district. 17. A variance may be granted if enforcement of a provision in the zoning ordinance would cause the landowner practical difficulties. Additional Review Residential Building Inspector The Residential Building Inspector has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments at this time. A Zoning Permit will be required prior to construction. Engineering Staff Engineering Staff reviewed the proposal and has no additional comments at this time. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for October 7th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-017 3493 Siems Court - Var\PC Packets Page 9 of 10 Rice Creek Watershed District The Rice Creek Watershed District has reviewed the proposed project and determined that no permit will be required. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources The DNR has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments on this time as the City of Arden Hills is the permitting agency. 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. 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 20-017 for a Variance at 3493 Siems Court, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions below: 1. A Zoning Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. 2. The exterior materials of the proposed addition shall be consistent or complementary in color, texture and quality with those visible on the existing structure. 3. The proposed accessory structure shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 20- 017 for a Variance at 3493 Siems Court, based on the findings of fact and the submitted materials. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 20-017 for a Variance at 3493 Siems Court, based on the following findings: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 20-017 for a Variance at 3493 Siems Court: 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 a 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 any comments regarding this variance request. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for October 7th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-017 3493 Siems Court - Var\PC Packets Page 10 of 10 Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on September 25th, 2020. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by November 24th, 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. Setback Illustration D. Variance Request Letter E. Submitted Plans 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 Kye Samuelson 3493 Siems Court - Arden Hills 651 336 1830 none none kyesamuelson@gmail.com Kye and Julia Samuelson 3493 Siems Court - Adren Hills 651 336 1830 3493 Siems Court - Arden Hills Lot 10 Block 2 of ARDEN HILLS,RAMSEY COUNTY, MIN 343023220010 Residential 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* x Certain applications are subject to review and approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Contact RCWD directly at 763-398-3070 for additional information. x 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. x 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. Requesting the consideration of utilization of the Innovative Structures Ordinance to reconstruct a lakeside storage shed with usable proportions to store paddleboards and other water items for purposes of security. We feel that the use of natural materials and a sod roof system would be beneficial, considering the grade difference of approximately 30’ of hillside to traverse, yielding an environmentally-friendly approach and a natural visual setting for homeowner and neighbors looking downward on the lakeside/hillside 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 Kye Samuelson 7-27-20 same as above same as above Disclaimer: This map 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 information herein pursuant to MN Statute 466.03 Subd 21. Location Map Siems CourtArden Pl a c e Ridgewood RoadRidgewood CourtLake Johanna Bou levard± §¨¦35W §¨¦694 £¤10 Park and Open Space Subject Parcel Proposed accessory structureSpring of 2018 Air PhotoOHWL 878’ GREEN ROOF - AN INSPIRATION FOR THE COMMUNITY and ARDEN HILLS: Terry Pernsteiner - Contractor Kye Samuelson - homeowner Julia Samuelson - homeowner Thank you, all, for consideration of this unique and intentional approach to a critical project. We titled the note to intentionally align with the many communities across Minnesota that have already pursued green roof alternative programs for variances of code written into their current ordinances. The phrasing in other city ordinances is as follows: Green Roof – Installation of an extensive, intensive, semi intensive, or modular integrated green roof system, as part of point systems or alternatives to standard zoning ordinances – offering point systems or consideration. The other variances are offered for a green “wall” system in many localities on MN. The request: The inspiration for the green roof and wall systems is the replacement of the storage unit that was in this location for many years, but while in disrepair and thus needing replacement. This request is to allow a slightly larger than the 8’ by 8’ structure permitted in zoning. Again, the fact that other municipalities offer variances for green roof systems in their zoning and the hardship described below has us making this request. The variance request is to utilize MN building codes that call for Innovative Structure or design by using the green roof and wall systems to permit a variance. We have submitted the request based on the rationale below. Below is the description of the hardship of the property: There is a 30’ grade difference in 100 feet, which creates a very steep slope to transport lake items up to store in the garage. The grade is difficult enough to have warranted the construction of a switchback grass trail for a golf cart to bring elderly family members and those less physically-able from the driveway down to the lake. Please refer to the images with measurements submitted in the application for a visual of the topo and distances to see the dramatic drop. The reasonable nature of the request: The items used at lakeside are typical for a young family with efforts to share the lakeshore with their family, neighbors and community – paddleboards, tubes, waterskis, ropes, chairs and other play items for daily use. The paddleboards are minimum 10’ 6” to 12’, hence the proposal is to request a storage with the length of twelve feet and a width of eight to ten feet. Helping (not hurting) the character of the neighborhood: Aesthetics - The consideration is to build using a green/grass roof system and green wall system on at least one side of the structure. A core benefit of green on the roof and wall at this site is the aesthetic and pleasing view for neighbors and homeowners from any vantage point, with critical emphasis on the downward view for immediate neighbors and homeowner. Considering that storage shed would be thirty feet below the adjoining neighbors, the natural vegetation on the east-facing rooftop and wall would become part of the natural setting intentionally restored by the current homeowner, making it quite inconspicuous and blended to the landscape. I will mention other benefits of the green systems later in this narative. Additionally, the existing deck would be made more unobtrusive by adding natural, deep- rooting vegitation around specific areas near the proposed storage structure, creating more coverage and reducing phosphorous runoff. On the topic of security, there is a history of theft and trespassing on the property that is driving the desire to secure the items of value. The easment along the lakeshore and increased online shipping/logistics delivery traffic due to Covid makes it a reality and a risk. The proposed green roof and wall, with its natural aesthetics and environmental benefits, is an example of how Arden Hills could, as a result of this project, have a nice example of the improvements offered by the aesthetics, heat absorbtion and controlled runoff these systems offer. It appears to be the direction of cities (per much written code) not only here in MN but nationwide. (Personal Context from Terry Pernsteiner) - Discussing the benefits of a green roof system and the importance to the ecology makes me think of a development that I proposed in Minnetonka nearly twenty years agoIt included the inclusion of rain gardens; at the time, Oakdale had succesfully proved their benefits. Today, rain gardens are now an expectation for certain projects within Minnetonka. I mention this because main uses are largely commercial in the metro area, although many cities including Minnepolis and suburbs have written in code language of the value and added banefits to residential applicants. Large applications (Target Center, Minneapolis Library) are benefitting from the applications, along with numerous other large buildings and a few residential sites across the metro. This opportunty feels like a low-risk and beneficial exploration of the grass roof application within Arden Hills. A few data-proven benfits are: CLEAN WATER Our state is rich in beautiful bodies of water. Ordinarily, rainwater picks up contaminants and heat as it rushes across roofing and other hard surfaces on its way to our lakes and rivers. Green roofs hold onto much of the rain, reducing the runoff that would otherwise cause water pollution and decreasing the need for additional (and expensive) stormwater treatment infrastructure. LONGER-LASTING ROOFS Because the waterproofing membrane is underneath the other layers of the green roof, it is protected from factors that can cause roofs to fail: extreme heat, UV radiation, and thermal swings. In general, green roofs last longer than conventional roofs, reducing both consumption and waste. COOLER BUILDINGS The plants on a green roof shade the building, and further cool it through the natural process of evapotranspiration. If enough roofs in a city are greened, they can combat the urban heat island and help mitigate the effects of global warming. HABITAT CREATION Green roofs create green spaces in the built environment that birds and beneficial insects can use as habitat. Green roofs also beautify our cities, creating better habitat for humans as well. CLEAN AIR Green roofs improve air quality by taking up carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen, and by filtering airborne particulates. (Personal Context from Terry Pernsteiner, continued) The construction methods are the same as any standard accessory structure. Scherer Brothers engineering/design has confirmed the wall load calcuation needs and the truss load on the structure, confmriming that we are uniquely covered within our snow load zone, resulting in no additional structural needs for wall and roof framing. All proposed engineering would be provided to city authorities. I propose using CCA wood members and sheeting on the roof components (not required). Thank you for your conderation and we look forward to the city discussions. Sincerely, Terry Pernsteiner Kye Samuelson Julia Samuelson 4IBLF4JEJOH $WWDFKPHQW( )*--4*%&)064&4*%& 4536$563& &YJTUJOH %FDL 4UFQ &YJTUJOH%FDL&YJTUJOH%FDL &YJTUJOH %FDL