Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-07-20 PC Approved: December 9, 2020 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 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 Steven Jones, James Lambeth, Subbaya Subramanian, Paul Vijums, Kurtis Weber, and Jonathan Wicklund. Absent: Commissioner Marcie Jefferys and Clayton Zimmerman. Also present were: Community Development Manager/City Planner Mike Mrosla, Associate Planner Joe Hartmann, and Councilmember Steve Scott. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – OCTOBER 7, 2020 Chair Gehrig stated the agenda will stand as published. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 9, 2020 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Jones moved, seconded by Commissioner Subramanian, to approve the September 9, 2020, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 20-017; 3493 Siems Court Variance Request – Public Hearing Not Required Associate Planner Hartmann stated 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 ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 7, 2020 2 located within the Shore Impact Zone 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. Associate Planner Hartmann explained 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, 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 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. Associate Planner Hartmann reported 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. 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. Associate Planner Hartmann reviewed the Shoreland Regulations, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 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. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 7, 2020 3 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. Associate Planner Hartmann stated staff would 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. 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 Jones commented he was not against the request. Commissioner Lambeth indicated he supported the encroachment in the OHWL. He explained the applicant was proposing to build a structure on the same location as the previous structure and adoption of the current code. He questioned if the applicant could relocate the structure to where it would not be encroaching on the OHWL zone. He asked if this was a matter of excavation costs. Kai Samuelson, 3493 Siems Court, explained he was trying to minimally impact the land. He indicated he did not want to excavate the site more than was necessary. He reported he has ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 7, 2020 4 spoken to his neighbors regarding his plans and noted he was hoping to bring the hill side back into its natural state. Terry ____________, contractor for the applicant, commented this was not a cost issue. He reported the applicant was taking a green approach for the new structure. He stated the applicant spent a considerable amount of money to put the retaining wall in place. He indicated if the hill was cut into the significant oak trees would be impacted. He believed the applicant was being sensitive to the property by asking to put the structure back in its original location. He commented further on the slope of the back yard. Commissioner Lambeth indicated the requested encroachment was less than two feet. He asked why it was impractical for the applicant to shift the location of the proposed structure 20 inches to the east. He inquired if cost was the issue. Mr. _______________ explained the momentum on this project was an innovative structures ordinance that would allow for a creative building with no more hard cover and the building would have a green roof. He indicated it would be possible to shift the structure 20 inches but noted this would require a portion of the existing deck to be demolished. Commissioner Subramanian questioned if the allowed or permitted square footage to build an additional structure on lake lots was 64 square feet. Associate Planner Hartmann reported this was the case. Commissioner Subramanian asked why the City did not allow more than 64 square feet. Associate Planner Hartmann explained this language was recommended by the DNR. Commissioner Subramanian questioned how much it would cost the applicant to redesign the project in order to shift the building 20 inches away from the OHWL. Mr. ________________ explained the building has been oriented for security and storage purposes. He reported the proposed structure would be 90 square feet in size. Commissioner Vijums inquired if a 64 square foot structure could be built on this property at the proposed location with the same height. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla indicated the applicant could rebuild the structure within the one year timeline, but it cannot have any changes to the building height, size or width. Commissioner Vijums asked if more than one year had passed. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated this was correct. Commissioner Vijums inquired if the City had approved any other accessory buildings with variances on Lake Johanna that were similar to this request. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 7, 2020 5 Associate Planner Hartmann explained staff has not been able to find any similar variances. He indicated the variances he was able to find were to the front yard setback and not the rear yard setback. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated staff had not been able to find any variances that were approved for rear yard setbacks on this lake since 2010 when the City Code was approved. Commissioner Vijums reported the City had ordinances in place for a reason. He explained the applicant was asking for a structure that would encroach into the OHWL that was twice the proper size and was also too high. He understood the applicants needs to have a building however, the applicant should work harder to meet the City’s guidelines. He suggested the applicant rethink his proposal for this structure in order to meet the City’s requirements. Commissioner Weber questioned what kind of footings were already in place. Mr. ______________ explained the old structure was within the setback. He indicated the applicant was proposing to move the building further away from the shoreline. He clarified the old footings had been removed and new footings had been put in place. Commissioner Wicklund asked what the encroachment would be on the OHWL. Associate Planner Hartmann stated the encroachment would be approximately 17 inches. Commissioner Wicklund commented this lot was extremely unique given the slope of the backyard. He appreciated the fact that the applicant was considering the environmental impact of having a structure this close to the lake and was proposing to have a green roof. He stated he also appreciated that the applicant did not want to disrupt the roots of the significant trees on his lot. Chair Gehrig noted his questions had been asked and answered. He indicated the size of the structure was a concern to him and for this reason he would not be able to support the request. Having no further comments, he opened the meeting to the public. Commissioner Jones stated he appreciated all of the questions and comments that were raised by the Commission. He explained the building height, size and shoreland impact were all concerns to him. He questioned if the building could be rotated 90 degrees. He discussed a letter from a neighbor two doors down and requested staff address the map of neighborhood endorsement. Mr. Samuelson reviewed the comments he received from his neighbors and described the information provided on the neighborhood endorsement map with the Commission. He noted there were several neighbors he was not able to reach, but all other neighbors provided him with comment. Commissioner Jones asked if the applicant would consider rotating the shed 90 degrees in order to move the shed out of the OHWL. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 7, 2020 6 Mr. __________________ commented the building had been oriented parallel with the shoreline but noted he could look into a foot plan that would stay out of the impact zone. Commissioner Weber questioned if the variance were approved, could the City require the applicant to complete the green proposals for the shed. Associate Planner Hartmann reported this could be made a condition for approval, but noted this was not required per City Code requirements. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla indicated this condition could read: The green roof shall be maintained and kept in good condition. __________ Black, ___________________, stated he has known the Samuelson’s for the past five years. He explained he supported the proposed the requested shed. He noted many of the homes in Arden Hills were reaching an age where updating and deferred maintenance was a priority. He commented the Samuelson’s have put a great deal of money into their property. He indicated the proposed storage shed would replace the dilapidated structure that was in its place. He explained the shed would not impact the shoreline in any way and fits with the design of other sheds on the lake. He encouraged the Commission to support this variance request. Steve Nelson, __________________, indicated he has lived in his home for the past 35 years. He discussed the structure that was in place previously, noting there were two decks in place with no real storage. He feared the City has created a limitation on the size of these structures. He understood the requested size of this structure would allow the homeowner to securely store paddle boards. However, he recommended the shed be no more than 64 square feet in size. He anticipated if the Commission were to allow this item to be approved, the City would be receiving a lot more requests. He stated concerning the trees, there has been a significant disruption on this lot already. He explained Mr. Samuelson was a great person, but he feared a terrible precedent would be set if this variance were approved. Mr. Samuelson commented he was working to preserve the property as much as possible. He hoped the green aspects of this project would be taken into consideration by the City. He indicated he liked the idea of having a structure down at the lake for security and storage purposes. He noted he has had trespassers in his yard and some theft. He explained the requested shed would provide him some peace of mind. ___________ Struder, _________________, indicated he moved into the neighborhood in May. He stated he understood the concerns and need to maintain the shoreline. However, if the structure would be designed and built with green specifications, he believed the City should support the request. He reported Kai Samuelson has been an active member in the community and he supported the request. Chair Gehrig closed the meeting to public comments at this time. Commissioner Subramanian commented other members in the community could request similar sheds if the City were to approve this variance. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 7, 2020 7 Commissioner Wicklund stated having a green roof on this structure would be a great building design function for this lake. He explained if this item were to move forward, he would like to see 50% or 75% of the roof be green and vegetative. He questioned how the Commission wanted to proceed with this request. Chair Gehrig discussed the options available and noted the Commission could opt to table action in order to allow the applicant to shift the building out of the shore impact zone. Commissioner Weber stated he had concerns with the size of the requested structure and a fact that a precedent could be set. He explained he appreciated the green construction materials. Commissioner Vijums commented this was a slippery slope. He feared that if this was approved the City would receive numerous variance requests from lakeshore owners. He understood the reasonableness from the applicant, but he encouraged the applicant to find a plan that fits within the City’s guidelines. He stated at this point, he would support the matter being tabled or denied. Commissioner Jones agreed with Commissioner Vijums. He noted the applicant was requesting a shed that was two times the size that was allowed. He stated the building size was more of a concern to him than the shoreline setback or building height. He suggested the variance request be tabled and that the applicant be allowed to resubmit his application. He recommended the Commission consider how “green” was going to be defined within this request. Commissioner Wicklund asked how difficult it would be for the City to update a State-wide code in order to adopt its own code. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained the DNR had updated this standard in 2017. He described the process that would have to be followed by the City in order to update this language within City Code. He stated neighborhood meetings and public hearings would have to be held prior to the City Code being amended. Commissioner Wicklund questioned what issues should be addressed by the applicant if the item were tabled. Chair Gehrig stated he would like to see the applicant address the square footage of the shed. He noted the applicant would have the option of building a shed that meets City requirements and would not need to come back for Planning Commission consideration. He stated the applicant could also amend the plans and come back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. He requested staff speak to what a denial of the request would mean. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla commented he would recommend the Planning Commission table action on the item. He reported if the item were denied by the City Council, the applicant could not reapply for a variance for six months. Commissioner Jones indicated he supported the request being tabled versus denied. Commissioner Wicklund agreed. He stated he wanted to see the City finding a balance between being practical and allowing for green initiatives. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 7, 2020 8 Mr. Samuelson asked if he would be presented with the option to table his request. Chair Gehrig explained the Commission would decide whether to table, approve or deny the request. He stated this would be the next issue the Commission would be deliberating on. Mr. Samuelson requested the Commission table action on his request. Commissioner Wicklund moved and Commissioner Jones seconded a motion to table action on Planning Case 20-017 for a Variance at 3493 Siems Court to the November 4, 2020 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant to reconsider the feedback provided by the Commission regarding the building height, size and the shoreline impact. 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 stated Planning Commission packets would be hand delivered from now on. He noted the City Council recently considered a variance at 1741 Venus Avenue and passed a development agreement with Bethel University for the property at 2 Pine Tree Drive. He explained the Council recently passed the preliminary tax levy and budget for 2021. He discussed the emergency grant assistance program that had been established by the City noting this program was made possible by CARES Act funding. He reported staff was working on providing training for Planning Commission members. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported the City was taking feedback from residents at this time regarding the keeping of chickens. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests Commissioner Weber thanked staff for getting the Planning Commission meeting packets up in a more timely manner. ADJOURN Commissioner Jones moved, seconded by Commissioner Wicklund, to adjourn the October 7, 2020, Planning Commission Meeting at 8:02 p.m. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried unanimously (7-0).