Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-22 PC Agenda PacketAPPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 4, 2022 Planning Commission Regular Meeting 05 -04 -22 PC MINUTES.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 22 -008 –4073 Valentine Court –Variance (No Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF Planning Case 22 -009 –1700 Highway 96 W. –Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF Planning Case 22 -011 –City Of Arden Hills –Zoning Code Amendments – Chapter 13, Special Regulations For Drive -Up Windows And Drive Lanes (Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.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: Paul Vijums Commissioners: Jonathan Wicklund Marcie Jefferys Kurt Weber Arlene Mitchell Joshua Collins Shelley Blilie Clayton Zimmerman (Alt) Steven Jones (Alt) Council Liaison: Fran Holmes Planning Commission June 8, 2022 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 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: 3.C. Documents: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. 6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDAAPPROVAL OF MINUTESMay 4, 2022 Planning Commission Regular Meeting05-04 -22 PC MINUTES.PDFPLANNING CASESPlanning Case 22 -008 –4073 Valentine Court –Variance (No Public Hearing Required)MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF Planning Case 22 -009 –1700 Highway 96 W. –Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF Planning Case 22 -011 –City Of Arden Hills –Zoning Code Amendments – Chapter 13, Special Regulations For Drive -Up Windows And Drive Lanes (Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.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:Paul VijumsCommissioners:Jonathan WicklundMarcie JefferysKurt WeberArlene MitchellJoshua CollinsShelley BlilieClayton Zimmerman (Alt)Steven Jones (Alt)Council Liaison:Fran Holmes Planning Commission June 8, 2022 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity 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 desirableCity in which to live, work, and play.This 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: 3.C. Documents: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. 6. Approved: June 8, 2022 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2022 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL OATH OF OFFICE Chair Vijums administered the Oath of Office to Commissioner Clayton Zimmerman. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Paul Vijums called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Paul Vijums, Commissioners Shelley Blilie, Joshua Collins, Marcie Jefferys, Jonathan Wicklund and Clayton Zimmerman (Alternate). Absent: Commissioner Arlene Mitchell, Steven Jones and Kurt Weber. Also present were: City Planner Jessica Jagoe and Councilmember Fran Holmes. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – MAY 4, 2022 Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Wicklund, to approve the May 4, 2022, agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 6, 2022 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Jefferys moved, seconded by Commissioner Wicklund, to approve the April 6, 2022, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). PLANNING CASES A.Planning Case 22-004; 1152 Benton Way – Public Hearing Not Required ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 4, 2022 2 City Planner Jagoe stated 1152 Benton Way, the Subject Property, is zoned R-3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District. It is designated for Low Density Residential Uses in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The subject property is the site of a single-family dwelling owned by the Applicants. Surrounding parcels to the North, East, and South are also zoned R-3, Townhouse and Low Density Multiple Dwelling District and designated for Low Density Residential Uses in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The parcel to the West is zoned B-2, General Business District and designated for Community Mixed Use in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Staff provided a detailed history of this neighborhood and the approval requirements for the Hunter’s Park development. City Planner Jagoe reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and provided the following General and Variance Findings of Fact for review: General Findings: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a variance request to the required combined side yard setback and landscaped area and increase the allowed structure coverage and floor area ratio at the Subject Property, 1152 Benton Way. 2. The Subject Property is located within the Hunters Park Planned Unit Development which was approved with flexibility in the development standards. 3. The Subject Property does not comply with the underlying R-3 district standards for lot size, combined side yard setbacks, structure coverage, and floor area ratio. 4. The proposed building addition would maintain the current side yard setbacks and be located 5.8 feet from the south side yard property line. The combined side yard setbacks would remain 11.6 feet. 5. The proposed addition would not require a rear yard setback variance. 6. The structure coverage is proposed to increase from 27% to 30% of the Subject Property. A variance is required to exceed 25% structure coverage of a parcel. 7. The landscaped area is proposed to decrease from 65% to 62% of the Subject Property. A variance is required to reduce landscaped area below 65% of the parcel. 8. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is proposed to increase from 0.31 to 0.36. A variance is required to increase FAR above 0.3. 9. The proposed addition of the subject parcel would conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-3 district. 10. The City Council has approved similar variance requests for other properties in the Hunter’s Park Planned Unit Development. Variance Findings: 11. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 12. A single-family detached dwelling with an addition is a reasonable use within the R-3 District. 13. The nonconforming lot size for the R-3 District, which was approved as part of the Hunters Park Planned Unit Development, and the substantial amount of shared open space that is part of the development, presents a unique situation for the property owner. 14. The proposed addition will not reduce the existing side yard setbacks. The addition will not require a rear yard setback variance. The nearest dwelling unit to the south of the Subject Property is approximately 18 feet away. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 4, 2022 3 15. The increase in lot coverage and the decrease in landscaped area are unlikely to have a negative impact on the Hunters Park Development, due to the abundance of shared greenspace throughout the development. There is a total of seven acres of Homeowners Association common greenspace throughout the neighborhood. 16. The variance request is not based on economic considerations alone. 17. The Applicants have received approval from the Hunters Park Architectural and Environmental Committee for the proposed addition. City Planner Jagoe 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 Vijums opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Wicklund asked what was behind the house on the west side. City Planner Jagoe explained this was either the nature preserve or outlot. Commissioner Wicklund questioned what the size of the proposed addition would be. City Planner Jagoe reported the applicants are proposing to construct a 14’ by 14’ addition. Commissioner Zimmerman inquired if this variance request was unique to this lot, because of the lot size. City Planner Jagoe discussed the PUD amendment that was reviewed and process approved in 1985. She stated the original approval had varying standards by lot. She reported depending on the size of the addition requested by a lot, the variance needed for each property would be unique and there was no set standard. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if this request would lead to additional variance requests. City Planner Jagoe reported the City has heard four variances for the association in the past. Commissioner Zimmerman questioned if the overall development should come forward versus the City having to review each variance request separately. City Planner Jagoe stated when the development was approved it was granted the flexibilities that exist today. She indicated as circumstances change and homeowners want to make an improvement to the property, this was triggering variance requests. Commissioner Collins requested further comment on the R-3 lot size requirements. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 4, 2022 4 City Planner Jagoe indicated the R-3 zoning district requires lots to be at least 11,000 square feet. Further discussion ensued regarding the flexibility that was granted within the Hunters Park PUD when it was granted. Commissioner Collins indicated his only concern with this request was with the floor area ratio (FAR). City Planner Jagoe reviewed the FAR for the four variances that were previously approved for this development. Commissioner Jefferys stated the challenges of applying the City’s standards are difficult for this request. She asked if there were any other developments like this in Arden Hills. City Planner Jagoe indicated there were other residential projects that have utilized the PUD process. Chair Vijums asked when the other four variances were approved within this development. City Planner Jagoe stated the variances were approved in 1986, 1997, 2009 and 2012. Chair Vijums questioned what the structure to structure setback was referring to for this application. City Planner Jagoe reported this was not in reference to a zoning code setback requirement, but this was mentioned as a consideration discussed in the original PUD for the review of flexibilities granted. In this case, the applicant would be maintaining the 18 feet from the adjacent structure. Chair Vijums read a prepared statement with his thoughts for this planning case. He explained after reading through this case his initial thoughts were to deny or table the request. He stated he was troubled by the alternative set of regulations within the Hunter’s Park development that supersedes the City’s underlying zoning regulations. He indicated he did not understand the “flexibility” that was approved for this neighborhood. While he understood four variances were approved previously, he believed the Commission should not be forced into approving all variance requests. He was of the opinion that the homeowners purchasing lots within Hunters Park should be made aware of the fact their lots were non-conforming and he wanted to understand if there were practical difficulties with these lots. He reported in the past the Commission has adhered to City standards and he did not believe it was fair that this neighborhood did not have to. Bill Guelker, 1152 Benton Way, thanked the Commission for hearing his request. He explained he no idea how complicated variance requests were and he thanked staff for all of their assistance. He reported he has lived in Arden Hills for the past 38 years and he has lived in the Hunters Park addition for this entire time. He noted he has served as the president of the Hunters Park Association over the years. He explained the land behind Hunter’s Park was owned by Bethel University and Crepeau Park. He commented he did not believe his variance request would lead to numerous other requests. He discussed the proposed addition and noted he was hoping to add a 14’ by 14’ dining room onto the house to meet the growing needs of his family. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 4, 2022 5 Adrienne Guelker, 1152 Benton Way, introduced herself to the Commission and thanked the Commission for considering her request. Chair Vijums questioned if the applicant had considered other options for the addition, in order to avoid the need for a variance. Mr. Guelker reported he had considered other options and noted the only thing that could mitigate the need for a variance would be to put the dining room on stilts and to leave the area underneath unfinished. He explained if the dining room were 12’ by 12’ he would not need a variance, but indicated this sized addition would not meet the needs of his family. Commissioner Blilie stated she drove by the applicant’s home and it was her opinion that no one would notice the proposed addition except the neighbors to the immediate right and left. Mr. Guelker commented this was correct. Chair Vijums asked if the Guelker’s discussed the proposed addition with their neighbors. Mr. Guelker reported a committee consisting of his two nearest neighbors and association board members voted to approve his addition. Chair Vijums stated this was completely outside his comfort zone, having a separate set of rules for this neighborhood than any other neighborhood in the City of Arden Hills. He indicated he was having a hard time supporting this request, but understood four other variances had already been approved for the Hunters Park neighborhood. Commissioner Wicklund indicated the staff report was very clear for this request and clearly articulates the challenges that the PUD has. He commented that past variance approvals are not a basis for current variance reviews and the four previous variances that were approved are a framework or guide. He explained the existing structure setbacks were not being requested to be removed, but rather the structure lines were being maintained, which he appreciated. He stated the property to the south would not be visually impacted by the proposed addition and noted the property to the north was offering their support to the addition. He was of the opinion a 14’ by 14’ variance was reasonable and explained he would be supporting the variance as requested. Commissioner Collins stated the City completed an interesting study in 1985 to try and formalize the criteria for this neighborhood. He explained the Commission was being asked to apply a framework that was twice the size of this property. He commented on the flexibility that was written into this development and stated he would be offering his support for the variance requested. Commissioner Jefferys reported the Commission may see more requests like this in the future as residents request flexibility for their living space. She noted this development was PUD which allowed for more greenspace with more dense housing. She supported the variance with the conditions for approval. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 4, 2022 6 Commissioner Zimmerman commented this situation would require flexibility on an ongoing basis. He supported the homeowners association come forward and asking to change the requirements for lot sizes and setbacks for the overall development in order to eliminate the need for future variances within Hunter’s Park. Chair Vijums stated he understood this concern but reported this neighborhood would still require variances because the lots would never comply with City requirements. He believed it would be very difficult to establish any type of rules at this point for the Hunters Park development. Commissioner Wicklund moved and Commissioner Blilie seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22-004 for a Variance at 1152 Benton Way based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the two (2) conditions in the May 4, 2022, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). B. Planning Case 22-007; 4440 Round Lake Road West – Site Plan Review – Public Hearing Not Required City Planner Jagoe stated at their March 21, 2022 meeting the City Council reviewed a concept plan for a company called Saltbox. Saltbox offers flexible warehouse and office suites that are leased by individual businesses, usually startup/small digital commerce companies. The intent of Saltbox is to provide an all-inclusive collaborative workspace to small businesses by providing the essential operations and logistical infrastructure that enables a business to start and scale its growth. City Planner Jagoe reported Saltbox will be remodeling the interior of the building to construct flexible work spaces that can be used as either warehouse, office, or some combination of the two. Suites will range in size from 76 sq. ft. up to approx. 2,000 sq. ft. The suites are constructed with 10’ high modular walls that are open above with no ceilings. Each suite is equipped with power, HVAC, and Wi-Fi as well as access to a shared central loading dock for shipping/delivery needs. Each Saltbox facility is designed with conference rooms, huddle rooms/lounges, bathrooms, main entry/welcoming area, and a break room that are shared by the small business tenants. The facility is open seven (7) days a week from 6 AM to 11 PM. City Planner Jagoe explained Saltbox employs Operations Specialists that handle the on- demand logistical services for receipt and delivery of packages, plus they are able to provide order fulfillment assistance to the small business owners. A package that is delivered to Saltbox is received by the Operations Specialist at the loading dock. The Saltbox employee then distributes smaller boxes to the individual suites or there is secured warehouse space for larger packages. Saltbox employees are onsite from 8 AM to 6 PM. The Applicant has stated this window of time is when 95% of their activity is expected to occur. City Planner Jagoe indicated the Arden Hills location would be for 214 warehouse and office suites with an estimated maximum occupancy of 398 members and 15 Saltbox employees. Saltbox would say that their flexible business model means that the 398 members would not be at the facility at the same time, but rather come and go at the needs of their individual business. As part of the improvements to the property, the Applicant is proposing to reconfigure the parking lot layout that would result in the immediate addition of 36 parking spaces and also ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 4, 2022 7 identifies an area as proof of parking as a placeholder for future installation of parking spaces. Therefore, the Applicant is pursuing the Site Plan Review for the additional parking spaces. City Planner Jagoe reviewed the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The Applicant has submitted an application for Site Plan Review to install striping for additional parking spaces at the subject property 4440 Round Lake Road W. 2. The Subject Property is located with the Gateway Business District and is guided as Light Industrial & Office on the 2040 Land Use Plan. 3. The Subject Property was developed prior to the City’s creation of the Gateway Business District and is considered to be legal nonconforming. 4. The Applicant intends to continue the utilization of the existing 113,565 square foot building for office and warehouse purposes in a manner consistent with the nonconforming regulations. 5. The Applicant will be reconfiguring the parking lot layout within the boundaries of the existing parking lot. 6. The proposed plan does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. 7. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 8. The proposed plan will not produce any permanent noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid, or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics. 9. The proposed plan is not anticipated to have any impact on traffic or parking conditions. 10. A public hearing is not required for Site Plan Review. City Planner Jagoe 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 Vijums opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Wicklund requested further information on the proof of parking. City Planner Jagoe discussed the area that had been selected for proof of parking noting it would not be striped at this time, but could be in the future, if there was the need for additional parking. Commissioner Collins asked if the 36 parking stalls would be in addition to the 108 existing stalls. City Planner Jagoe reported this was the case. Chair Vijums asked if there was any overflow parking for this property. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 4, 2022 8 City Planner Jagoe commented there was no overflow parking lot. She noted there was not a lot of additional space on the property for parking. She reported on-street parking was not allowed on Round Lake Road. She explained Saltbox was aware of the number of parking stalls that was available to them and indicated Saltbox plans to manage the parking situation with their members through issuing access passes. Chair Vijums requested further information on the history of this building. City Planner Jagoe stated this building was previously owned by Deluxe Corporation and has been vacant for several years. She understood the interior of the building was being demoed in order to complete the buildout for Saltbox. Chair Vijums commented Saltbox would not utilize the full 108 parking spaces from day one but rather would be building their clientele over time. David Sorensen, Project Manager for Saltbox, reported this was the case. He explained the plans for the building were at about 90% and he has not yet applied for a building permit. He commented on the parking studies that were completed for the Dallas, Atlanta, Denver and LA Saltbox locations and noted the 108 spaces would be sufficient for the Arden Hills site. He indicated he supported adding the 36 striped spaces in order to more closely align with the City’s parking requirements. Commissioner Wicklund moved and Commissioner Zimmerman seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22-007 for Site Plan review at 4440 Round Lake Road West based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the four (4) conditions in the May 4, 2022, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Councilmember Holmes provided the Commission with an update from the City Council. She explained the Council approved the CUP for the home occupation the Commission considered in April. She thanked the Commission and all of the residents for their comments regarding the home occupation. She noted the Council would be discussing food trucks at a future worksession meeting. She stated summer hours would begin after Memorial Day and City Hall would be open Monday through Thursday from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and on Fridays from 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. She explained the City added a new tab on its website for resident resources. She indicated the Council approved an EAB contract with Rainbow Tree which would include discounted tree removal services for residents. She then discussed the major street reconstruction projects that would be completed this summer, which included the parking lot at City Hall. She invited the public to attend the Touch a Truck event on Saturday, May 21 that would be held at Perry Park from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. She encouraged the public to attend Scoops for Troops ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 4, 2022 9 at AHATS on Sunday, May 22 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. noting this was a fundraiser event for veterans and their families. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests Commissioner Wicklund asked if the Council had any update on TCAAP. Councilmember Holmes stated she had no update at this time. ADJOURN Chair Vijums moved, seconded by Commissioner Jefferys, to adjourn the May 4, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting at 8:14 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). Page 1 of 7 PC Agenda Item – 3A MEMORANDUM DATE: June 8, 2022 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #22-008 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Robert Kunze Property Location: 4073 Valentine Court Request: Variance Requested Action Robert Kunze (“Applicant ”) has requested a variance to construct a garage addition on the property located at 4073 Valentine Court (“Subject Property”). The Applicant has requested a variance to decrease the required side yard setback from 40 feet to 7.82 feet from the northwest side yard property line. Background 1. Existing Site Conditions 4073 Valentine Court, the Subject Property, is zoning R-1, Sing le Family Residential District. It is designated for Low Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The subject property is the site of a single-family dwelling owned by the Applicant. All surrounding parcels are also zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District and designated for Low Density Residential Uses in the Lane Use Plan. 2. Site Data 2040 Future Land Use Plan: LDR – Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Dwelling Zoning: R-1, Single Family Residential District Lot Size: 0.86 acres 3. Proposed Use Page 2 of 7 The Applicant is requesting a variance to decrease the required side yard setback of his single- family detached dwelling on the Subject Property from 40 feet to 7.82 feet for a proposed garage addition. Section 1320.06 of the Arden Hills City Code requires a side yard setback of 40 feet on corner lots. According to the Applicant’s narrative submitted as a part of his application, the Subject Property includes unique circumstances due to its nontraditional shape. The front of the property includes one curved section and three straight sections that make it difficult for the Applicant to conform to current setback regu lations. The Subject Property is a legal non-conforming lot, as the required side yard setback for corner lots was 10 feet when the property was built in 1953. The Applicant is requesting the proposed garage addition to allow for more storage space for his vehicles and additional space to store woodworking equipment. The proposed garage addition would meet applicable building codes and all other regulations in the R-1 District. The Applicant would not be able to construct the proposed garage addition without a variance. 4. History of the Planning Case The Applicant previously applied for a side yard setback variance to construct the proposed garage addition on March 25, 2021 (Planning Case 21-006). At their meeting on May 5, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to recommend approval of Planning Case 21-006 with conditions to allow a side yard setback variance at the Subject Property. At their May 24, 2021 meeting, the City Council voted to deny Planning Case 21-006. 5. Approvals The Planning Commission is being asked to determine if a variance request for flexibility on the side yard setback of a corner lot should be approved. The submitted sketches show the location of the proposed garage addition and the proposed driveway addit ion. The evaluation of the proposal should be based on the District Provisions in Section 1320 and the Requirements for a Variance in Section 1355.04, Subd. 4. Plan Evaluation Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 1. District Provisions (R-1 Single Family Residential District) – Section 1320.06 Lot Size and Dimensions The Subject Property was constructed in 1953 with a lot area of 37,541 square feet (Attachment D). Section 1320 – District Provisions of the Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of 14,000 square feet per single-family dwelling unit. Page 3 of 7 Structure Setbacks In the R-1 District, the minimum front and rear setback requirements are 40 feet and 30 feet, respectively. The minimum side yard setback on a corner lot is 40 feet . The current structure is located approximately 20 feet from the side yard property line. The Subject Property is a legal non-conforming lot, as the required side yard setback for corner lots was 10 feet when the property was built in 1953. The proposed garage addition would be setback 7.82 feet from the northwest side yard property line. According to the Applicant’s application, the proposed addition would be setback approximately 27 feet from the existing curb line. The proposed garage addition would conform to front and rear setback requirements. Landscaped Area In the R-1 District, t he minimum landscaped area required without a variance is 65% of the property or 24,402 square feet. The Subject Property has an existing landscaped area of 35,281 square feet or 93.98%. The proposed addition would decrease the total landscaped area to 34,702 square feet, or 92.4% percent of the property. Structure Coverage The R-1 District allows for a maximum structure coverage of 25% or 9,385 square feet of the Subject Parcel. The existing structure coverage is 1,486 square feet or 4%. The proposed addition would increase the total structure coverage by 339 square feet for a total of 1,825 square feet, or 4.9% of the Subject Property. Page 4 of 7 Floor Area Ratio In the R-1 District, the maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 0.3, or 11,262 square feet on the Subject Property. With the proposed garage addition, the FAR on the Subject Property would increase from 0.04 to 0.05. 2. Variance Review The role of the Planning Commission is to determine and consider how the facts presented to them compare with the city’s articulated standards. The Commission should base their decision on the facts presented and then apply those facts to the legal standards contained in city ord inances 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 grant ing variances as long as the conditions are directly related and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. For instance, if a variance is granted to exceed the front setback limit, any conditions attached should presumably relate to mitigating the effect of the encroachment. 3. Variance Requirements – Section 1355.04, Subd. 4 The Applicant requests a variance to construct a third stall addition to the side of their existing garage that would impede on the required side yard setback on a corner lot in the R-1 Residential District. The Planning Commission will need to make a determination utilizing the following variance findings and criteria on whether there are practical difficulties with complying with the zoning regulations. If the Applicant does not meet all the factors of the statutory test, then a variance should not be granted. Varia nces are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 1. Purpose and Intent. The variance request shall comply with the purpose and intent of the provisions of the City’s Zoning Regulations and with the policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The variance request for 4073 Valentine Court is for a proposed garage addition. The Subject Property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential 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. Page 5 of 7 According to the Applicant, a third car garage stall for a single family home is a reasonable use of the Subject Property in the R-1 Zoning District because the existing neighborhood includes multiple garage additions and has a variety of different garage and housing styles. 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, the Subject Property’s irregular shape creates a practical difficulty due to the curvature of the parcel’s front and side property lines. The Subject Property is a legal non-conforming lot, as the required side yard setback for corner lots was ten (10) feet when the property was built in 1953. According to the Applicant, other areas on the property were considered for a freestanding garage, but were ultimately not chosen because placements further from the property line would include removing 100+ year old oak trees. Adding behind the existing garage would involve significant drainage issues and would require major regrading under the drip line of some of the 100+ year old oak trees. c. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. According to the Applicant, the existing neighborhood has homes with a variety of different garages and housing styles, and the proposed variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood. Garage have been added to the road side of existing homes in the neighborhood in the past. The topography and odd lot shapes make the neighborhood quite varied. The homes are not all the same distance from the road or each other. 3. Economic Consideration. Economic consideration alone does not constitute a practical difficulty. The proposed variance is not based on economic consideration. 4. Access to Sunlight. Inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems shall be considered a practical difficulty. A solar energy system is not proposed. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. The Planning Commission members should state their rationale prior to the vote on the requested variance. A recommended motion by the Planning Commission should include the direction that Staff and the City Attorney prepare proposed findings of fact for City Council consideration. Page 6 of 7 Options and Motion Language Staff has provided the following options and motion language for this case. The Planning Commission should consider providing additional findings of fact as part of the motion to support their recommendation for approval or denial. • Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22-008 for a Variance at 4073 Valentine Court, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions below: 1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. 2. The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. • Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22- 008 for a Variance at 4073 Valentine Court, based on the findings of fact and the submitted materials. • Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial Planning Case 22-008 for a Variance at 4073 Valentine Court, based on the following findings: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. • Table: Motion to table Planning Case 22-008 for a Variance at 4073 Valentine 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 on May 27, 2022. A public hearing notice for this planning case was published in the Pioneer Press on May 27, 2022. Minnesota statute does not clearly require a public hearing before a variance is granted or denied, however, after consulting with the City Attorney, staff agree that the best practice is to allow public forum on all variance requests. A public forum allows the city to establish a record and elicit facts to help determine if the application meets the practical d ifficulties factors. Staff has received two public comment s in support of the requested variance as of June 1, 2022. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 18, 2022. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by June 16 , 2022 (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. The City provided the Applicant with written notification extend ing the review period to August 15, 2022 (120 days) based on the date of the submission for review by the Planning Commission and City Council during the June meeting cycle. The requestor confirmed receipt of this notification on April 29, 2022. Attachments Page 7 of 7 A. Land Use Application B. Location Map C. Variance Request Letter D. Site Survey 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 MNStatute 466.03 Subd 21. Location Map Lake Johanna BoulevardSa n d e e n R o a d ± Park and Open Space Subject Parcel §¨¦35W §¨¦694 £¤10Lake Valentine RoadOld Highway 10 NValentine Avenue 69§¨¦694 Page 1 of 7 PC Agenda Item – 3B MEMORANDUM DATE: June 8, 2022 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #22-009 – Public Hearing Required Applicant: Trident Development Property Location: 1700 Highway 96 West Request: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Requested Action Trident Development has submitted an application for two amendments to Chapter 6, Land Use of the Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments would change the future land use designation in the northwest corner of 1700 Highway 96 West (“Subject Property”) from P/I, Public and Institutional to be guided as HDR, High Density Residential as well as modify existing language in Section 6.4.10 to include the entire Subject Property to allow an increase in the maximum density through the use of a Planned Unit Development. Comprehensive Plan Requirements Minnesota state law requires that all communities within the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area update their Comprehensive Plans every ten years. The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to establish the policies that guide the future physical and community development of Arden Hills. It is also a reference document for the Planning Commission and City Council when evaluating private development projects. Based on the future land uses, the City can plan for improvements, anticipate infrastructure needs, and create appropriate land use regulations. The City’s Zoning Code identifies specific zoning districts through which the land uses and goals in the Comprehensive Plan can be implemented. The zoning cannot conflict with the future land use designation. When there is a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code, the City is required to amend the Zoning Code to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan and all its amendments must reflect the adopted regional policies in the Metropolitan Council’s system and policy plans. Local planning efforts are linked to the larger Page 2 of 7 regional infrastructure of parks and trails, road networks, and wastewater infrastructure, and the City’s plan must conform to the regional vision. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan requires a recommendation from the Planning Commission following a public hearing, and adoption of a resolution by the City Council. Adjacent communities must be given up to 60 days to review and comment on the proposed amendment before it can be reviewed and approved by the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council has the final determination as to whether to allow a CPA or not, though they provide great deference to the City as long as the proposed land use change does not have a negative impact on a regional system (i.e. transportation, sanitary sewer, and regional parks). Background At their February 22, 2022 meeting, the City Council reviewed a concept plan from Trident Development for the development of the northwest corner of the North Heights Lutheran Church property at 1700 Highway 96 W. Trident Development was proposing a 115-125 unit senior apartment development (apartments only, the proposed will not have an assisted living or memory care component). The Applicant indicated their intention would be to subdivide and purchase approximately 10.27 acres in the northwest corner of the Subject Property. In preparation for the February 22, 2022 meeting, the Developer had held a neighborhood meeting to garner resident feedback. At the meeting, residents voiced concerns regarding traffic, additional park demand, and noise concerns. Aerial Map of Subject Property For a residential project to be feasible on the site, Trident would need to amend the Comprehensive Plan. This Planning Case is only focused on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments and a proposed project for this property would come forward at a future meeting for review. At this stage, the City is being asked to amend the vision for future growth and development for this property. The Comprehensive Plan is the planning tool that guides the future development of land irrespective of a specific project. Page 3 of 7 Following the review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments, the Applicant will be required to submit another land use application for the development approvals. Based on the feedback Trident Development received from the City Council during the Concept Review, they’ve chosen to proceed with the preparation of their final development plans for this site. Based on the concept review plans, staff believes this proposal would require the following land use requests: • Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for Subdivision • Vacation of Easements (i.e. drainage/wetland) • Rezoning of the development site from B-1, Limited Business and R-1 – Single-Family Residential District to R-4 – Multiple Dwelling District • Conditional Use Permit for Multiple Family Dwelling in the R-4 District • Master and Final Planned Unit Development Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review 1. Future Land Use Designation For this application, Trident Development has requested that the 2040 future land use designation for the northwest corner of the Subject Property (i.e. approximately 10.75 acres) be amended from P/I, Public and Institutional to be guided as HDR, High Density Residential. The developed portion of the site (i.e. Church use, approximately 30 acres) would remain as is under the Public and Institutional land use designation. The Arden Hills 2040 Future Land Use Map would also be amended to reflect the change in land use classification. (Attachment E) • Public and Institutional (P/I) – Areas designated for uses such as government buildings, colleges, schools, and religious uses, but not medical uses. A Development intensity of up to 0.8 FAR may be allowed. • High Density Residential (HDR) – Townhome and multi-family residential land use category providing for densities of nine (9) to twelve (12) units per acre. The majority of the property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District. Approximately 6 acres of land at the northwest corner of the site adjacent to the Highway 96 and U.S. Highway 10 interchange is zoned B-1, Limited Business District. The property is also within 1,000 feet of Round Lake and would be subject to applicable Shoreland regulations. If the proposed amendment to the future land use designation was approved, the Applicant would include as part of their subsequent submittal a request to rezone the property to R-4, Multiple-Dwelling District to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The following table identifies the zoning and 2040 Future Land Use designations for the areas immediately adjacent to the Subject Property: North Heights Property North South East West Zoning R-1 (35 acres) B-1 (6 acres) Shoreland TRC – Flex Office, Retail Mixed Use Parks and Open Space R-1 R-1 Future Land Use Public & Institutional Flex Office, Retail Mixed Use (TCAAP) Parks and Open Space Low Density Residential, Low Density Residential Page 4 of 7 Very Low Density Residential *Area outlined in red identifies approximate 10.75 acres of Subject Property for proposed Future Land Use Classification from P/I to HDR. 2. Section 6.4.10, Development Capacity and Net Residential Density The Applicant has requested a second amendment to the existing language in Chapter 6, Land Use Section 6.4.10 that would modify the described boundaries within existing plan language to include the entire Subject Property. This existing language allows an increase in the maximum density through the use of a Planned Unit Development. (Attachment F) The proposed text amendment language identified in red font is as follows: Furthermore, the remaining vacant residential land that is south of Highway 96 and 10 is guided for development that could be built at a density of an average of five residential units per acre. Land guided for High Density east of Interstate 35W, south of County State Aid Highway 96, west of US Trunk Highway 10 Snelling Avenue North and north of interstate 694 density may be increased by up to 100% through the use of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process if the intent is to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The City Code includes PUD regulations that allow for a higher quality and compatible development of property by encouraging reasonable flexibility from 2040 Future Land Use Map Page 5 of 7 applicable standards, including at higher densities than would be allowed under the underlying zoning district and/or guided land use designation. The City has utilized PUDs and PUD Overlays for many residential and commercial developments, which is a trend that is likely to continue into the future given the limited size and amount of land available for new development and potential redevelopment east of Interstate 35W, south of County State Aid Highway 96, west of US Trunk Highway 10 Snelling Avenue North and north of interstate 694. As noted above, the application before the Planning Commission is not for the final development review for the Subject Property. The Applicant is seeking the proposed amendments in advance of their full submission to ensure their final development plans align with the City’s vision and future land use plans for this site. Planning staff has reviewed both of the proposed amendments with the Metropolitan Council and they have indicated support for the requests. Next Steps Following City approvals and the expiration of the 60 day review period, Staff would submit the amendments to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval. 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 of fact for consideration: 1. The Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use for the Subject Property as P/I, Public and Institutional. 2. The Applicant has requested a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the future land use designation of approximately 10.75 acres in the northwest corner of the Subject Property to HDR, High Density Residential. 3. The 30 +/- acres of developed land on the Subject Property would remain guided as P/I, Public and Institutional. 4. The Applicant has requested a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to modify the boundaries described in existing language of Chapter 6 to include the Subject Property. 5. The proposed text amendment incorporates a defined area of land west of Snelling Avenue North to existing Comprehensive Plan language that allows an increase in the maximum density as part of a Planned Unit Development. 6. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 7. The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to establish the policies that guide the future physical and community development of Arden Hills. Page 6 of 7 8. The Metropolitan Council has previously approved similar amendments adding language supporting increasing the densities above the maximum permitted in a specific land use district. 9. The proposed map and text amendments have been discussed with the Metropolitan Council. 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: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22-009 for a Future Land Use Map and Chapter 6 Text Amendments to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan at 1700 Highway 96 West, based on the findings of fact and the report submitted to the Planning Commission on June 8, 2022. 2. Recommend Approval with amendments: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22-009 for a Future Land Use Map and Chapter 6 Text Amendments to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan at 1700 Highway 96 West, based on the findings of fact and the report submitted to the Planning Commission on June 8, 2022 with the following amendments: the Planning Commission should identify recommended amendments and specify reasons. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 22-009 for a Future Lane Use Map and Chapter 6 Text Amendments to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, based on the findings of fact: the Planning Commission should identify findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 22-009 for a Future Land use Map and Chapter 6 Text Amendments to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons: the Planning Commission should identify a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Public Notice and Comments Staff published a notice in the Pioneer Press as per City procedure. Public notices were mailed out on May 27, 2022. The mailing was sent to neighbors within 1000 feet of the subject parcel. No comments have been received regarding this application as of June 1, 2022. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 29, 2022. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by June 27, 2022 (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. Page 7 of 7 Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Location Map C. Applicant Narrative D. Site Surveys E. 2040 Future Land Use Map F. Diagram of Text Amendment Boundaries April 29, 2022 Location Map Tax Parcels _Query result Personal Property Cities County Offices 5/26/2022, 1:35:08 PM 0 0.35 0.70.17 mi 0 0.55 1.10.28 km 1:16,000 Ramsey County Ramsey County MN f:\jobs\9321 - 9340\9327 - north heights church site\cad c3d\survey\description sketches\9327-dcs-comp plan amendment.dwgSave Date:04/27/22DESCRIPTION SKETCH FOR Revisions: COMP PLAN AMENDMENT f:\jobs\9321 - 9340\9327 - north heights church site\cad c3d\survey\description sketches\9327-tom areas.dwgSave Date:04/27/22Revisions: ofTRIDENT DEVELOPMENT, LLC 3601 18th Street S, Suite 103 St. Cloud, MN 56301 ARDEN HILLS APARTMENTS Arden Hills, Minnesota f:\jobs\9321 - 9340\9327 - north heights church site\cad c3d\engineering\9327_concept d.dwgSave Date:03/07/22 REVISIONSDRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:ISSUE DATE:JTRJTR10/20/211. 03/07/22 INCREASE LOT AREA1CONCEPT PLAN D1NOTES Comprehensive Plan Chapter 6, Land Use (Page 9, Future Land Use - 2040) Future Land Use Classification from P/I to HDR Trident Development – Comprehensive Plan Amendments Property Location 1700 Highway 96 W Red = Area already included in Chapter 6 that falls within the boundaries described. Orange Dashed = Area west of Snelling Avenue N that would be added to existing HDR language under Chapter 6. Blue = Approx. 10.75 acres for the proposed Comp Plan Amendment of land use designation from P/I to HDR. Purple = Approx. 30 acres to remain as is under current Comp Plan land use designation as P/I. Page 1 of 3 PC AGENDA ITEM – 3C MEMORANDUM DATE: June 8, 2022 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #22-011 – Public Hearing Required Applicant: City of Arden Hills Request: Zoning Code Amendments – Chapter 13, Special Regulations for Drive-Up Windows and Drive Lanes Requested Action The City of Arden Hills is proposing ordinance language in the Zoning Ordinance for business zoning districts that would strike language requiring a distance of separation between establishments such as drive-up businesses, drive-up windows, fast food restaurants, and automobile service stations. Ordinance language would be added to allow for review based on site suitability and compatibility with the area through the Planned Unit Development process. The proposed amendments to City Zoning Code Chapter 13 are within the following Sections: • Section 1320.085, Subd. 3 Special Regulations for Drive-up Windows in the B-2, General Business District • Section 1320.09, Subd. 3 Special Regulations for Drive-up Windows in the B-3, Service Business District • Section 1320.10, Subd. 4 Special Requirements for Drive-up Windows in the B-4, Retail Business District • Section 1325.05, Subd. 1.B, Proximity to Other Establishments Background At their April 18th work session, the City Council discussed possible topics that could be considered for holding a Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission. Reviewing potential topics in advance would allow planning staff an opportunity to research content and flexibility for scheduling the joint meeting at a later date based on planning case submissions. From this discussion, the Council decided that fences, drive-thru commercial districts, and home occupation deliveries would be worked on by staff. Topics for a future joint meeting would be signage and infill items. Staff was directed to bring forward the proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission for the first review and to hold a public hearing. Following the public hearing, the draft ordinance Page 2 of 3 language with recommendation of the Planning Commission would be brought to the City Council for subsequent discussion and adoption. Overview of Ordinance Amendments Staff has prepared a draft ordinance showing language to be removed and added in red font for your review (Attachment A). The general consensus of the Council was that the consumer preference for drive-up, drive-thru, and curbside pickup for restaurants and retail markets has changed dramatically over the past couple of years. The City in a number of instances has approved flexibility to the city code requirements for proximity to other establishments under the Planned Unit Development process to allow drive-thru windows and businesses within a closer distance of each other. Therefore, the Council directed the review of our current ordinance language which requires a separation of 1,320 feet (i.e. 0.25 miles) between these types of businesses. The proposed amendments would strike language in the business zoning districts which has a requirement of 1,320 feet between establishments such as drive-up businesses, drive-up windows, fast food restaurants, and automobile service stations and adds language to allow the City to review and add conditions for approval based on site suitability and compatibility with the area through the Planned Unit Development process. The applicable Sections are as follows: • Section 1320.085, Subd. 3 Special Regulations for Drive-up Windows in the B-2, General Business District • Section 1320.09, Subd. 3 Special Regulations for Drive-up Windows in the B-3, Service Business District • Section 1320.10, Subd. 4 Special Requirements for Drive-up Windows in the B-4, Retail Business District • Section 1325.05, Subd. 1.B, Proximity to Other Establishments An ordinance amendment to the Zoning Code does require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Additional Review N/A 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. The City of Arden Hills is proposing to amend ordinance language to allow the City Council to add conditions of approval for uses with drive-up windows and drive lanes through a Planned Unit Development. 2. The proposed ordinance will include amendments to the language of Chapter 13 – Zoning Code of the City Code. Page 3 of 3 3. Amendments to the Zoning Code regulations require a public hearing prior to action by the City Council. Options and Motion Language Staff has provided the following options and motion language for this case. • Recommend Approval: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22-011 as presented (or as modified by Planning Commission) for Zoning Code Amendments to Chapter 13 in Section 1320.085 - Subd. 3, Section 1320.09 - Subd. 3, Section 1320.10 - Subd. 4 and Section 1325.05 - Subd. 1.B of the Arden Hills City Code to strike language requiring a distance of separation between drive-up businesses and add language for review through a Planned Unit Development as presented in the June 8, 2022 Report to the Planning Commission. • Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 22-011 as presented (or as modified by Planning Commission) for Zoning Code Amendments to Chapter 13 in Section 1320.085 - Subd. 3, Section 1320.09 - Subd. 3, Section 1320.10 - Subd. 4 and Section 1325.05 - Subd. 1.B of the Arden Hills City Code to strike language requiring a distance of separation between drive-up businesses and add language for review through a Planned Unit Development: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial. • Table: Motion to table Planning Case 22-011 as presented (or as modified by Planning Commission) for Zoning Code Amendments to Chapter 13 in Section 1320.085 - Subd. 3, Section 1320.09 - Subd. 3, Section 1320.10 - Subd. 4 and Section 1325.05 - Subd. 1.B of the Arden Hills City Code to strike language requiring a distance of separation between drive-up businesses and add language for review through a Planned Unit Development: the Planning Commission should identify a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Public Notices A Zoning Code Amendment requires a public hearing. Notice was published in the Pioneer Press on May 27, 2022. The City has not received any public comments regarding this case. Attachments A. Redlined Ordinance Amendment B. Draft Ordinance 1320.085 Special Requirements for the B-2 General Business District. Subd. 3 Special Regulations for Drive-up Windows. Section 1325.04 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies additional requirements for drive-up windows and automobile service stations. In accordance with Section 1320.085 Subd. 1, the City Council as part of the land use application review shall require the following conditions to be met in determining site suitability for drive-up windows: The provision whereby the proximity requirement of one thousand three hundred and twenty (1,320) feet between drive-up windows may be waived if the following conditions are met as determined by the City Council: A. The architectural treatment, circulation plan, and signage system of such businesses shall be designed to visually and functionally integrate the building and the site on which it is located. B. The applicant shall submit a circulation plan that demonstrates that the use will not interfere or reduce the safety of non-motorized movements, specifically pedestrian and bicyclists. C. Requested modifications to the provisions in section 1325.04 shall be stated in writing along with an explanation of why the modifications would be in the public interest and would be consistent with the purpose of the B-2 District. 1320.09 Special Requirements for the B-3 Service Business District. Subd. 3 Special Regulations for Drive-Up Windows in the B-3 District. Section 1325.04 of this Code, specifies additional requirements for drive-up windows and automobile service stations. In accordance with Section 1320.09 Subd. 1, the City Council as part of the land use application review shall require the following conditions to be met in determining site suitability for a drive-up windows and automobile service stations: The provision whereby the proximity requirement of one thousand three hundred and twenty (1,320) feet between drive-up windows may be waived if the following conditions are met: A. The operation consists of one or more drive-up windows and is an integral part of a building containing one or more other allowed uses, or the operation is part of an architecturally unified complex containing two or more businesses using drive-up windows B. Shared access drives and shared parking are utilized by all such businesses using drive-up windows in said building or complex. C. Only one building or architecturally unified complex containing two or more businesses using drive-up windows will be allowed in addition to one freestanding business using a drive-up window. D. The architecture and the site, grading, circulation, landscaping, screening and signage plans shall unify the appearance and function of the complex or building. E. An architecturally unified complex may consist of one or more buildings on one or more parcels if the intent of providing a unified appearance and function is not compromised. F. The applicant shall submit a circulation plan that demonstrates that the use will not interfere or reduce the safety of non-motorized movements, specifically pedestrian and bicyclists. 1320.10 Special Requirements for the B-4 Retail Center District. Subd. 4 Special Regulations for Drive-Up Windows in the B-4 District. Section 1325.04 of this Code, specifies additional requirements for drive-up windows and automobile service stations. In accordance with Section 1320.10 Subd. 1, the City Council as part of the land use application review shall require the following conditions to be met in determining site suitability for drive-up windows: The provision whereby the proximity requirement of one thousand three hundred and twenty (1,320) feet between drive-up windows may be waived if the following conditions are met: A. The architectural treatment, circulation plan, and signage system of such businesses shall be designed to visually and functionally integrate the building and the site on which it is located. B. The applicant shall submit a circulation plan that demonstrates that the use will not interfere or reduce the safety of non-motorized movements, specifically pedestrian and bicyclists. C. Requested modifications to the provisions in section 1325.04 shall be stated in writing along with an explanation of why the modifications would be in the public interest and would be consistent with the purpose of the B-4 District. 1325.04 Additional Minimum Requirements for Drive-In Businesses, Drive-up Windows, Fast Food Restaurants and Automobile Service Stations. (revised 12/17/08 06/27/22) Because drive-in businesses, drive-up windows, fast food restaurants and automobile service stations present certain unusual problems, they are hereby required to meet the following requirements in addition to the general requirements applicable to them in the zoning district in which they are to be located, unless otherwise regulated in this Code: Subd. 1 Location. A. Proximity to Schools, Churches, Public Recreational Areas and Residential Lots. No drive-in business, drive-up window, or fast food restaurant shall be located on a site that is within four hundred (400) feet of a public, private or parochial school, a church, a public recreation area, or any residentially zoned property. B. Proximity to Other Establishments. In any Business Zoning District, nNo drive- in business, drive-up window, or fast food restaurant shall be located on a site that is within one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet of the boundaries of another one the proximity of the boundaries of another one is determined by the City Council through the PUD process to be incompatible with the area in which it the proposed use is to be located. A drive-in business, drive-up window, fast food restaurant, and automobile service station may be limited in proximity as deemed appropriate by the City Council so as not to unreasonably interfere with adjacent and nearby uses. C. Unreasonable Traffic Volume. No drive-in business, drive-up window, or fast food restaurant shall be located on a site if the probable result of such location would be to unreasonably increase traffic volume on nearby streets. D. Size of Lot. No drive-in business, drive-up window, or fast food restaurant shall be located on a lot of less than twenty-four thousand (24,000) square feet. 1 221909v1 ORDINANCE NO. _______ CITY OF ARDEN HILLS RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13, ZONING CODE, SECTION 1320 AND SECTION 1325 OF THE ARDEN HILLS CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Chapter 13 - Zoning Code, Section 1320 – District Provisions, subsections 1320.085, Subd. 3; subsection 1320.09, Subd. 3; and subsection 1320.10, Subd.4, are hereby amended by deleting strikethrough language and adding the underlined language as follows: 1320.085 Special Requirements for the B-2 General Business District. Subd. 3 Special Regulations for Drive-up Windows. Section 1325.04 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies additional requirements for drive-up windows and automobile service stations. In accordance with Section 1320.085, Subd. 1, the City Council as part of the land use application review shall require the following conditions to be met in determining site suitability for drive-up windows: The provision whereby the proximity requirement of one thousand three hundred and twenty (1,320) feet between drive-up windows may be waived if the following conditions are met as determined by the City Council: A. The architectural treatment, circulation plan, and signage system of such businesses shall be designed to visually and functionally integrate the building and the site on which it is located. B. The applicant shall submit a circulation plan that demonstrates that the use will not interfere or reduce the safety of non-motorized movements, specifically pedestrian and bicyclists. C. Requested modifications to the provisions in section 1325.04 shall be stated in writing along with an explanation of why the modifications would be in the public interest and would be consistent with the purpose of the B-2 District. 1320.09 Special Requirements for the B-3 Service Business District. Subd. 3 Special Regulations for Drive-Up Windows in the B-3 District. Section 1325.04 of this Code, specifies additional requirements for drive-up windows and automobile service stations. In accordance with Section 1320.09 Subd. 1, the City Council as part of the land use application review shall require the following conditions to be met in determining site suitability for a drive-up windows and automobile service 2 221909v1 stations: The provision whereby the proximity requirement of one thousand three hundred and twenty (1,320) feet between drive-up windows may be waived if the following conditions are met: A. The operation consists of one or more drive-up windows and is an integral part of a building containing one or more other allowed uses, or the operation is part of an architecturally unified complex containing two or more businesses using drive-up windows B. Shared access drives and shared parking are utilized by all such businesses using drive-up windows in said building or complex. C. Only one building or architecturally unified complex containing two or more businesses using drive-up windows will be allowed in addition to one freestanding business using a drive-up window. D. The architecture and the site, grading, circulation, landscaping, screening and signage plans shall unify the appearance and function of the complex or building. E. An architecturally unified complex may consist of one or more buildings on one or more parcels if the intent of providing a unified appearance and function is not compromised. F. The applicant shall submit a circulation plan that demonstrates that the use will not interfere or reduce the safety of non-motorized movements, specifically pedestrian and bicyclists. 1320.10 Special Requirements for the B-4 Retail Center District. Subd. 4 Special Regulations for Drive-Up Windows in the B-4 District. Section 1325.04 of this Code, specifies additional requirements for drive-up windows and automobile service stations. In accordance with Section 1320.10 Subd. 1, the City Council as part of the land use application review shall require the following conditions to be met in determining site suitability for drive-up windows: The provision whereby the proximity requirement of one thousand three hundred and twenty (1,320) feet between drive-up windows may be waived if the following conditions are met: A. The architectural treatment, circulation plan, and signage system of such businesses shall be designed to visually and functionally integrate the building and the site on which it is located. B. The applicant shall submit a circulation plan that demonstrates that the use will not interfere or reduce the safety of non-motorized movements, specifically pedestrian and bicyclists. C. Requested modifications to the provisions in section 1325.04 shall be stated in writing along with an explanation of why the modifications would be in the public interest and would be consistent with the purpose of the B-4 District. 3 221909v1 SECTION 2. Chapter 13 - Zoning Code, Section 1325 – General Regulations, subsection 1325.04 is hereby amended by deleting strikethrough language and adding the underlined language as follows: 1325.04 Additional Minimum Requirements for Drive-In Businesses, Drive-up Windows, Fast Food Restaurants and Automobile Service Stations. (revised 12/17/08 06/27/22) Because drive-in businesses, drive-up windows, fast food restaurants and automobile service stations present certain unusual problems, they are hereby required to meet the following requirements in addition to the general requirements applicable to them in the zoning district in which they are to be located, unless otherwise regulated in this Code: Subd. 1 Location. A. Proximity to Schools, Churches, Public Recreational Areas and Residential Lots. No drive-in business, drive-up window, or fast food restaurant shall be located on a site that is within four hundred (400) feet of a public, private or parochial school, a church, a public recreation area, or any residentially zoned property. B. Proximity to Other Establishments. In any Business Zoning District, nNo drive- in business, drive-up window, or fast food restaurant shall be located on a site that is within one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320) feet of the boundaries of another one the proximity of the boundaries of another one is determined by the City Council through the PUD process to be incompatible with the area in which it the proposed use is to be located. A drive-in business, drive-up window, fast food restaurant, and automobile service station may be limited in proximity as deemed appropriate by the City Council so as not to unreasonably interfere with adjacent and nearby uses. C. Unreasonable Traffic Volume. No drive-in business, drive-up window, or fast food restaurant shall be located on a site if the probable result of such location would be to unreasonably increase traffic volume on nearby streets. D. Size of Lot. No drive-in business, drive-up window, or fast food restaurant shall be located on a lot of less than twenty-four thousand (24,000) square feet. SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ____________, 2022, by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS By _______________________________ David Grant, Mayor 4 221909v1 ATTEST: _____________________________ Julie Hanson, City Clerk Published in the ____________________ on _______________, 2022.