Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-09-2020 PCAPPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 7th, 2020 Planning Commission Regular Meeting 10 -07 -20 PC.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 20 -021 –2 Pine Tree North Conditional Use Permit Release Request (Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF 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 December 9, 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/85286607965 This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website Agenda CALL TO ORDER 1. 2. 2.A. Documents: 3. 3.A. Documents: 3.B. Documents: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. 6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDAAPPROVAL OF MINUTESOctober 7th, 2020 Planning Commission Regular Meeting10-07 -20 PC.PDFPLANNING CASESPlanning Case 20 -021 –2 Pine Tree North Conditional Use Permit Release Request (Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF 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 GehrigCommissioners:Steven JonesJames LambethSubbaya SubramanianPaul VijumsJonathan WicklundClayton Zimmerman Marcie JefferysKurt WeberCouncil Liaison:Steve Scott Planning Commission December 9, 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/85286607965This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website AgendaCALL TO ORDER1.2.2.A.Documents:3.3.A.Documents: 3.B. Documents: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. 6. Approved: 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 DRAFT 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 t han 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 struct ure. 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 st orage 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. DRAFT 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 bet ween 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 o n the existing structure. 3. The proposed accessory structure shall conform to all other st andards and regulations in the City Code. Associate Planner Hartmann reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matt er: 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 support ed 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 cost s. K ai 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 DRAFT 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 Pernsteiner, 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. Pernsteiner 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. Pernsteiner 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. DRAFT 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 fo otings were already in place. Mr. Pernsteiner 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. Mr. Pernsteiner 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. DRAFT ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 7, 2020 6 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. Scott Black, 1545 Arden Place, 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, 3475 Siems Court, 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. Michael Studer, 1556 Arden Place, 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. 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 DRAFT ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 7, 2020 7 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 la keshore 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 fo r 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. Mr. Samuelson asked if he would be presented with the option to table his request. DRAFT ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 7, 2020 8 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 fo r 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). DRAFT MEMORANDUM City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for December 9, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-021 2 Pine Tree North - CUP Release Page 1 of 2 Requested Action Lake Johanna Fire Department has requested a release of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from Lot 2, Block 1 of 2 Pine Tree North. The property is zoned B-2, General Business District and is guided as Community Mixed Use on the Land Use Plan. Background In 2013 Bethel University acquired the Country Financial facility at 2 Pine Tree Drive. The property consisted of three (3) parcels that total approximately 43 acres. The subject property is located within the B-2 General Business District, where higher educational uses are permitted by Conditional Use Permit. At its November 25, 2013 meeting, the City Council approved a CUP for Bethel University to use the existing facility as higher education. Bethel University has recently received approvals to subdivide the existing property at 2 Pine Tree Drive into three (3) lots of record. One (1) lot of record is the existing building and parking lot, and two (2) new lots on the north side of the property (Attachment B). Lake Johanna Fire Department has purchased Lot 2 for a future fire station. The attorney for Lake Johanna Fire Department has requested to clear title. The effect of the releases are to free the new parcel from CUPs and easements that remain applicable only to the parcel Bethel is retaining. This same process will need to occur for Lot 1, Block 1 and will be completed during the approval process for New Perspective Senior Living Planning Case 20-022. Options and Motion Language Staff has provided the following motion language for this case. 1. Recommend Approval: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 20-021 to release the Conditional Use Permit from Lot 2, Block 1 of 2 Pine Tree North. 2. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 20-021 to release the Conditional Use Permit from Lot 2, Block 1 of 2 Pine Tree North: the Planning Commission DATE: December 9, 2020 PC Agenda Item 3.A TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Mike Mrosla – Community Development Manager/City Planner SUBECT: Planning Case # 20-0021 – Public Hearing Required Applicant: Lake Johanna Fire Department Property Location: 2 Pine Tree North Drive Request: Conditional Use Permit Release ____________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 3rd, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-005 Anderson Center Subdivision – MPUD, PP, FP Page 2 of 2 should identify findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. 3. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 20-021 to release the Conditional Use Permit from Lot 2, Block 1 of 2 Pine Tree North.: the Planning Commission should identify a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Notice and Public Comments A Public Hearing notice was published in the Pioneer Press on November 29, 2020. Staff has not received any comments in regards to this proposal. Attachments A. Location Map B. Subdivision Exhibit Disclaimer: This m ap is intended for reference purposes only and is not a legally recorded map or survey. The City of Arden Hills shall not be liable for any damages or claims that arise due to accuracy,availability, use or misuse of the inform ation herein pursuant to MNStatute 466.03 Subd 21. Location Map Cou nty Roa d E West Pine Tree DriveBenton WayH a r r i e t A v e n u eNB Hwy 51 To CO RD EBenton Way ± §¨¦35W §¨¦694 £¤10 Subject Parcel Park and Open Space Lot 1 Lot 2 Outlot A - Access Road C repeau Nature Pre serve ± Disclaimer: This m ap is intended for reference purposes only and is not a legally recorded map or survey. The City of Arden Hills shall not be liable for any damages or claims that arise due to accuracy,availability, use or misuse of the inform ation herein pursuant to MNStatute 466.03 Subd 21. Lot 3 City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for December 9th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-017 3493 Siems Court - Var\PC Packets\12-9-2020 Page 1 of 10 MEMORANDUM DATE: December 9th, 2020 PC Agenda Item 3.B 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 submitted a land use application for a variance to construct an accessory structure at 3493 Siems Court (“Subject Property”). The Applicant is requesting a variance for flexibility with a proposed accessory structure’s height and size within the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) setback. 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. Variance Flexibility Requested A variance is requested for: 1. Proposed accessory structure height: currently proposed at nine (9) feet and five (5) inches tall, eight (8) feet tall is allowed by ordinance. 2. Proposed accessory structure area, currently proposed at 93.5 square feet, sixty-four (64) square feet is allowed by ordinance. Background 1. Overview of Request At the October 7th Planning Commission meeting the Applicant requested a variance to build a 120 square foot accessory storage structure that encroached 18 inches into the Shore Impact Zone of Lake Johanna. The proposed accessory structure exceeded the eight (8) foot height limitation at ten (10) feet, six (6) inches. The Planning Commission voted to table that request to allow the Applicant to submit revised plans that would better conform to the provisions of the Shoreland Ordinance. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for December 9th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-017 3493 Siems Court - Var\PC Packets\12-9-2020 Page 2 of 10 The Applicant took the Planning Commissions comments under consideration and submitted revised plans for a smaller structure that would not encroach into the Shore Impact Zone. However, the proposed structure still requires a variance due to the proposed height and area that exceeds current ordinance standards. The Applicant proposes adding new conditions of approval to the request that would set performance standards for the structure and recognizes that this would set a precedent for future structures located near the shore to follow (Attachment E). For example, the Applicant proposing the use of language such as calling the overall structure a ‘floating shed’ that would require future residents to meet certain conditions unique to this specific scenario. On the Subject Property, the Applicant notes that the site features 100% drainage and runoff beneath the existing structure, with runoff uninhibited by any foundation or any non-natural elements, which could be a condition of approval for future applications. They also request an optional requirement for the addition and maintenance of vegetation around the future structure for environmental and aesthetic purposes. 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 new 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. A revised application should be reviewed in the same manner as required for a new application. Any structural alteration or changes to the original plan require that all procedures shall apply as if a new application were being requested. 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. The property is approximately 16,152 square feet in area and, including the deck structure near the shore, maintains a structure coverage of 24.8%, a FAR of 0.26, and an impervious surface coverage of 31.3%. The maximum structure coverage allowed is 25%, the maximum FAR allowed is 0.30, and the maximum impervious surface coverage allowed is 35%. If approved for this variance, the property would be beneath the maximum structure coverage, FAR, and impervious coverage allowed under City Code. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for December 9th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-017 3493 Siems Court - Var\PC Packets\12-9-2020 Page 3 of 10 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) 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 above sea level 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 25.2 feet from the OHWL setback just outside the Shore Impact Zone on top of where an existing landing structure is located. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for December 9th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-017 3493 Siems Court - Var\PC Packets\12-9-2020 Page 4 of 10 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 design that matches the exterior finish of the principal structure of the house. 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 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. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for December 9th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-017 3493 Siems Court - Var\PC Packets\12-9-2020 Page 5 of 10 Floor plans and elevations for the proposed storage structure 3. Shoreland Regulations – Section 1330 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 sixty-four (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 nine (9) feet, five (5) inches tall. The structure proposed would measure 8.5 feet by 11 feet, or 93.5 square feet, which exceeds the 64 square foot maximum allowed within code. 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 thirty (30) foot grade difference every 100 feet, which creates a steep slope to transport lake items up to store in the garage. The Applicant stated in their original 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 from the driveway down to the lake. This would make it difficult to locate an accessory storage structure elsewhere on the property. The proposal would prevent clearing of trees and shrubs for access elsewhere in the back yard and maintain the Shore Impact Zone. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for December 9th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-017 3493 Siems Court - Var\PC Packets\12-9-2020 Page 6 of 10 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 mentioned within their original narrative that the existing deck would be 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. 4. 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 of 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 City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for December 9th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-017 3493 Siems Court - Var\PC Packets\12-9-2020 Page 7 of 10 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 determine, using the following variance findings and criteria, whether there are practical difficulties with complying with the zoning regulations. If the Applicant does not meet all three 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, the storage of recreational water equipment for a single family home is a reasonable use of an accessory structure within the Shoreland Management District. 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 every 100 feet, which creates a very steep slope to transport lake items up to store in the garage. This 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 Applicant is proposing to add landscaping to assist in screening the structure and 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. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for December 9th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-017 3493 Siems Court - Var\PC Packets\12-9-2020 Page 8 of 10 A solar energy system is not proposed. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following findings for consideration: General Findings: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a request to build 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 an accessory storage shed located within the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) setback requirement for Lake Johanna. 6. The rear yard setback requirement for a proposed accessory structure is determined by the OWHL of Lake Johanna. 7. The proposed structure is located 25.2 feet within the OHWL setback from Lake Johanna which is 50 feet. 8. The proposed storage structure would be located outside the Shore Impact Zone of Lake Johanna. 9. 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. 10. The proposed structure exceeds the height at nine (9) feet five (5) inches tall and exceeds the area dimension at 93.5 square feet. 11. The proposed structure would otherwise conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-1 district. 12. 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. Rice Creek Watershed District The Rice Creek Watershed District has reviewed the proposed project and determined that no permit will be required. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for December 9th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-017 3493 Siems Court - Var\PC Packets\12-9-2020 Page 9 of 10 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 for an accessory structure 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 Applicant shall add landscaped screening to assist in screening the structure from adjacent properties. Planning staff shall review and approve the screening plan prior to the issuance of Zoning Permit.. 4. 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 City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for December 9th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-017 3493 Siems Court - Var\PC Packets\12-9-2020 Page 10 of 10 Staff have received one (1) comment regarding this variance request. The resident stated that they did not object to the request. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills extended the deadline for application processing for an additional 60 days on November 23rd ending on January 24, 2021 unless voluntary extensions are made. The Applicant has submitted revised plans on November 18, 2020 and staff received a completed application on November 30th. 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. Re-submitted Plans E. Variance Request Letter 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* • Certain applications are subject to review and approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Contact RCWD directly at 763-398-3070 for additional information. • The land use application fees do not cover building, sign, or other permit fees that may be required upon approval of a land use application. • All applications will be subject to additional fees for reimbursement of consultant costs associated with filing, reviewing, and processing of application in the form of an escrow to the City. 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 m ap is intended for reference purposes only and is not a legally recorded map or survey. The City of Arden Hills shall not be liable for any damages or claims that arise due to accuracy,availability, use or misuse of the inform ation herein pursuant to MNStatute 466.03 Subd 21. Location Map Siems CourtArden Place Ridgewood RoadRidgewood CourtLake Johanna Boulevard± §¨¦35W §¨¦694 £¤10 Park and Open Space Subject Parcel Kye and Julia Samuelson 3493 Siems Court Variance Request for Accessory Structure Revisions Explanation and Narrative – December 2020 Meetings As a result of the October planning commission meeting, Kye Samuelson and True North Contracting have taken all discussion topics into key consideration and made adjustments/reductions/modifications to acknowledge the variables surfaced in the prior meeting. Below is a summary of the variables addressed: - Repositioning/relocation of the structure, no longer encroaching within Ordinary High-Water Line - Confirmation of positioning of the structure to run laterally/parallel to shoreline - Reduction of overall square footage of the structure o Reduction in length – to 11ft. o Reduction in width – to 8.5 ft. - Confirmation of several variables that make the project entirely unique, in order to reduce precedent and future requests for variance within current code requirements Below is a summary of the key variables in consideration as conditional elements for this variance request: - Proposing the use of language of a ‘floating shed’ meeting the following conditions unique to this specific scenario o No adjustments to the existing footings/framing of the existing structure atop which the accessory structure will be constructed o No adjustment of the land or surface surrounding the area o 100% drainage and runoff (no pervious surface) beneath the existing structure, with runoff uninhibited by foundation or any non-natural elements o Improvement of the previous legal non-confirming structure to promote natural runoff o Optional requirement for addition of vegetation around future structure for environmental and aesthetic purposes o Optional requirements for language on maintenance of vegetation for aesthetic purposes We are hopeful that this summary will provide the necessary information on the key variables in order to accommodate this request for variance supported by the descriptions and rationale provided in response to the statutory requirements. Sincerely, Kye and Julia Samuelson True North Contracting