Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-09-22 PC Agenda PacketAPPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 5, 2022 Planning Commission Regular Meeting 10 -05 -22 PC MINUTES.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 22 -019 –3588 Ridgewood Road –Variance (No Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF Planning Case 22 -021 –City Of Arden Hills –Zoning Code Amendments – Chapter 13, Design Standards And Tree Preservation (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 November 9, 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: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. 6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDAAPPROVAL OF MINUTESOctober 5, 2022 Planning Commission Regular Meeting10-05 -22 PC MINUTES.PDFPLANNING CASESPlanning Case 22 -019 –3588 Ridgewood Road –Variance (No Public Hearing Required)MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF Planning Case 22 -021 –City Of Arden Hills –Zoning Code Amendments – Chapter 13, Design Standards And Tree Preservation (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 November 9, 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: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. 6. Approved: November 9, 2022 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2022 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL 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, Arlene Mitchell, and Jonathan Wicklund. Absent: Commissioners Joshua Collins, Marcie Jefferys, Steven Jones (Alternate), Kurt Weber, and Clayton Zimmerman (Alternate). Also present were: Community Development Director Jessica Jagoe and Councilmember Fran Holmes. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – October 5, 2022 Commissioner Mitchell moved, seconded by Commissioner Wicklund, to approve the October 5, 2022, agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 3, 2022 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Wicklund moved, seconded by Commissioner Blilie, to approve the August 3, 2022, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). PLANNING CASES A.Planning Case 22-018; 1411 Paul Kirkwold Drive – Conditional Use Permit Amendment & Site Plan Review – Public Hearing Community Development Director Jagoe stated the Applicant is proposing to install security perimeter fencing, vehicle gates, and two parking lot additions at the property located at 1411 ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 5, 2022 2 Paul Kirkwold Drive. The proposed fencing includes a 6-foot tall decorative metal fencing with spikes along Paul Kirkwold Drive and a 6-foot tall vinyl coated chain link fence with three strand barbed wire along Highway 96 W. The Applicant is also proposing two parking lot additions with a total of 23 stalls. Community Development Director Jagoe reviewed the site data, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The Subject Property located at 1411 Paul Kirkwold Drive is zoned CC - Civil Center District and is designated for Public and Institutional uses in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Applicant is proposing a security perimeter fence that will include barbed wire or spikes. 3. A vinyl coated chain link fence is allowed in the Civic Center District, but a Conditional Use Permit is required when fencing types include barbed wire or spikes. 4. The proposed security perimeter fencing is an addition to the site plan and a CUP Amendment is required. 5. The Applicant has requested Site Plan Review for the proposed parking lot additions. 6. The proposed changes for the installation of security perimeter fencing and parking lot additions would be in compliance with all provisions of the Zoning Code. 7. The proposed plan does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Plan for the City. 8. The proposed plan as narrated by the Applicant is not anticipated to have an adverse effect upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the owners and occupants of the surrounding land and the community because of its compatibility to adjacent properties. 9. A public hearing for a CUP Amendment request is required before the request can be brought before the City Council. Community Development Director Jagoe reviewed the options available for Planning Case 22- 018 to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 1) All conditions of the original Conditional Use Permit shall remain in full force and effect. 2) A separate zoning permit shall be required for all proposed fencing. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Vijums opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Wicklund asked what kind of comments were brought up by the City Council at their worksession meeting. Community Development Director Jagoe explained the Council offered comments regarding the existing landscaping and visual impact along Highway 96. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 5, 2022 3 Commissioner Mitchell requested further information regarding who would have access to the gated entrance. Community Development Director Jagoe stated the Sheriff’s Department would enter the site from Hamline Avenue. She noted the City and the School District would also have access through this gate. She explained there was a back entrance as well that the other agencies also use. Kyle Mested, Director of Administration for the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office, reported the patrol station was not the most secure facility and for this reason, the sheriff’s department was proposing a comprehensive fencing solution. He stated gates will be added. He noted these gates would remain open, unless the threat level to the department was elevated. Commissioner Mitchell asked where the new parking lot would be located. Mr. Mested reviewed the location of the new parking lot additions with the Commission. Commissioner Blilie questioned why two different fencing types were selected. Joel Dunning, Wold Architects and Engineers, explained two difference fencing types were selected for aesthetic and security purposes. Mr. Mested reported the Sheriff’s Department wanted the site to look as welcoming as possible while being a secure facility. Chair Vijums asked if the current chain link fence was installed federally. Community Development Director Jagoe reported this was the case and noted the existing federal fencing was exempt from local regulations. Chair Vijums questioned if the gates would closed in the evening hours. Mr. Mested stated the employee parking area would be secure, but the remainder of the campus would remain open for public works. Chair Vijums inquired how employees would enter the secured employee parking lot. Mr. Dunning explained employees would access this lot with a key card. Chair Vijums asked if additional lighting would be installed in the new parking lot. Community Development Director Jagoe commented it was her understanding no additional lighting would be installed adjacent to the two new parking lot additions. Chair Vijums encouraged the Sheriff’s Department to consider installing additional lighting for safety and security purposes. He suggested this be made a condition for approval and should read: Ramsey County will work with the City of Arden Hills to evaluate lighting priorities for safety reasons. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 5, 2022 4 Mr. Dunning explained there were three light poles already in the area that would provide adequate lighting. Chair Vijums commented this was good to know, but stated he would still like staff to review this further for safety purposes. He then questioned how the County was paying for the fencing project. Mr. Mested reported the County bonded funds for this project. Chair Vijums opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Chair Vijums invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comments from the public, Chair Vijums closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Commissioner Wicklund moved and Commissioner Mitchell seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22-018 for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Site Plan Review to allow security perimeter fencing, vehicle gates, and two parkin g lot additions at 1411 Paul Kirkwold Drive based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the October 5, 2022, report to the Planning Commission adding Condition 3: Ramsey County will work with the City of Arden Hills to evaluate lighting to address any potential safety issues. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). 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 congratulated Jessica Jagoe for being promoted to Community Development Director. She explained the Council would be considering a City-wide speed limit reduction to 25 miles per hour at their next meeting. She reported Ramsey County was invited to attend the last City Council meeting to discuss the recent tragedy that occurred at US Highway 10 and Highway 96. She reported the County would be completing a study at this intersection and would be reporting back to the City Council at a future meeting. Councilmember Holmes stated the Council would be holding a joint meeting with Ramsey County on Thursday, October 6 to discuss the roundabout at Old Snelling Avenue and Lake Johanna Boulevard. Further discussion ensued regarding the traffic and pedestrian safety concerns surrounding the proposed roundabout. Councilmember Holmes reported the City’s Truth in Taxation Hearing would be held on Monday, December 12 at 7:00 p.m. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 5, 2022 5 Councilmember Holmes provided the Commission with an update on the TCAAP project noting the City had approved a plan with the developer, but this plan was rejected by Ramsey County. She explained the next step would be for the County to discuss what type of project would be acceptable to them. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests Commissioner Wicklund requested staff and the Council take a look at the trees that were installed along County Road E near Brausen’s and Dunn Brothers, because there were sight line issues. ADJOURN Commissioner Wicklund moved, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell, to adjourn the October 5, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting at 7:23 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). Page 1 of 10 PC Agenda Item – 3A MEMORANDUM DATE: November 9, 2022 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jessica Jagoe, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case #22-019 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Ahmed Ali and Nawal Hirsi Property Location: 3588 Ridgewood Road Request: Variance Requested Action Ahmed Ali and Nawal Hirsi (“Applicants”) have requested a variance for future development of a single-family residential dwelling for the property located at 3588 Ridgewood Road (“Subject Property”). To construct the proposed single-family dwelling, the applicants are requesting three variances: • Lot Depth: The nonconforming property has a lot depth of 97.4 feet. The minimum lot depth in the R-1 Zoning District is 130 feet. • Setbacks: The applicants propose a 10 foot setback from the property line abutting Snelling Avenue North and a 16 foot setback from the property line abutting Ridgewood Road. The minimum front yard setback in the R-1 Zoning District is 40 feet. • Driveway Access: The applicants propose the driveway access off Snelling Avenue North. City Code requires access to be obtained from the local street - Ridgewood Road. Background 1. History for the Sale of the City Owned Parcel At the August 16, 2021 Work Session, the Arden Hills City Council first discussed selling the city-owned parcel at 3588 Ridgewood Road—now the Subject Property of this planning case. At the subsequent meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the interest in selling the parcel for consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City has verified that the parcel is not dedicated for a public purpose that would prohibit the sale (i.e. park land or public improvements) or as a site for future development to meet the needs of city infrastructure or operational activities, and it was found that the sale of the Subject Property would be in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Page 2 of 10 During the discussions, the City was evaluating the parcel size based off of Ramsey County Property Records and GIS mapping as there was no certificate of survey on record for the Subject Property. Ramsey County Property Records have the deeded acreage as 0.31 acres (approx. 13,500 square feet). The Subject Property came from the State through the County as part of the turn back of the Old Snelling Avenue (now referred to as Snelling Avenue North) corridor ROW to the City. Based on the best information available from Ramsey County, city staff initially identified that the total lot area of the parcel would be nonconforming since the minimum lot area requirement in the R-1 District is 14,000 square feet. A preliminary analysis of lot dimensions was completed as part of the Planning Commission review utilized the County’s GIS mapping in order to garner the approximate lot width and lot depth. Over the next year, city staff worked through the process to facilitate the sale of the Subject Property. On August 8, 2022, the City Council approved the purchase agreement for the Subject Property from Ahmed Ali and Nawal Hirsi. The purchase agreement included an acknowledgement of the Applicant’s responsibility for all costs associated with due diligence which includes the variance review due to the nonconforming lot size. As part of the due diligence via a survey, it was determined that the lot measured approximately 14,472 square feet, and would not require a variance for lot area but would require a variance for lot depth. 2. Site Data 3588 Ridgewood Road, the Subject Property, is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District. It is designated for Low Density Residential Uses in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The subject property is currently undeveloped. All surrounding parcels are also zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District and designated for Low Density Residential Uses in the Land Use Plan. 2040 Future Land Use Plan: LDR – Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Vacant Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential District Lot Size: 0.33 acres/14,472 square feet 3. Proposed Use The Applicants are requesting a variance for the nonconforming lot depth, to decrease the required front yard setback from 40 feet to a 10 foot setback from the property line abutting Snelling Avenue North and a 16 foot setback from the property line abutting Ridgewood Road, and the driveway access off Snelling Avenue North rather than from the local street - Ridgewood Road. Due to the nonconforming lot size of the Subject Property, the City Attorney has confirmed that a variance would be required for lot depth for future development of the site. The listing agreement did specify that a variance would be necessary due to the nonconforming lot size and it would be the responsibility of the Future Buyer to provide documentation including, but not limited to, a certificate of survey, elevation renderings, and floor plans in order to verify compliance with applicable city code requirements such as setbacks, lot coverage, floor area ratio, and other design standards with the proposed development as part of the variance review process. According to the Applicants narrative, the Subject Property includes unique circumstances due to its irregular shape, topography, and orientation of adjacent properties. Therefore, the Applicants have made the decision to also pursue a variance from the required front yard setback and driveway access. The Applicants have stated they would intend to meet applicable building codes and all other regulations in the R-1 District. Page 3 of 10 4. Approvals The Planning Commission is being asked to determine whether a variance request for flexibility on lot depth, front yard setbacks, and driveway access should be approved. The Planning Commission is being asked to determine whether a variance request for flexibility on lot depth, front yard setbacks, and driveway access should be approved. A certificate of survey has been submitted showing the location of the proposed dwelling and driveway. The evaluation of the proposal should be based on the District Provisions in Section 1320, General Regulations in Section 1325, 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 Zoning District) – Section 1320.06 Lot Size and Dimensions The Subject Property came from the State through County as part of the turn back of the Old Snelling Avenue corridor ROW. The lot is considered a nonconforming lot. Section 1320 – District Provisions of the Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of 14,000 square feet per single-family dwelling unit and a minimum depth of 130 feet. The Applicants did obtain a certificate of survey which verified that the total lot area of the Subject Property is 0.33 deeded acres (14, 472 square feet), but the lot depth has a mean depth of 97.4 feet. The Applicants is requesting a 32.6 foot lot depth variance to address this nonconformity in lot size. As previously noted, the lot size from staff’s initial analysis would require a variance prior to future development as confirmed by the City Attorney. From the recent survey completed by the Applicants, the City identified that the total lot area of the parcel is slightly larger than the property information available on the County records. City staff contacted Ramsey County and it was their direction to use the boundary dimensions and lot area calculations as shown on the official survey as this document was prepared by a licensed surveyor. They indicated that the County’s GIS map is only an inventory of tax records based upon the best available information. Certificate of Survey Page 4 of 10 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 setbacks on an interior lot are 10 feet on each side with a combined total side yard setback of 25 feet. The Subject Property is a Through Lot by definition - “A lot that has a pair of opposite lot lines on two substantially parallel streets and is not a corner lot. On a through lot, the determination of whether the street frontage is to be considered a front yard or rear yard shall be as subject to the provisions of this Code.” Section 1325.03, Exceptions to the Minimum Requirement for All Districts states for a Through Lot that “The administrator may determine that one of the front yards may be deemed a rear yard and shall determine appropriate rear yard setback regulations. Factors to be considered shall include topography, location of structures on the lot, location of structures on adjacent lots, and the type of streets or thoroughfares abutting the lot.” For purposes of the variance request before the Planning Commission, city staff has not made a determination of deeming one of the front yards (i.e. Ridgewood Road or Snelling Avenue North) a rear yard. In processing this variance request, city staff has identified both the east and west road frontages as front yards. As noted in the code, one of the factors for consideration in granting an exception is the location of structures on the lot. The Applicants are requesting their driveway access off of Snelling Avenue North and have orientated the front of the house towards Snelling Avenue North with the rear of the house off of Ridgewood Road. Based on the outcome of the variance, city staff will reevaluate whether to deem one of the road frontages a rear yard subject to rear yard setbacks. The Applicants are requesting a front-yard setback variance—abutting Ridgewood Road —to allow a future dwelling to be built 16 feet from the front property line. The Applicants are also requesting a front-yard setback variance—abutting Snelling Avenue North—to allow a future dwelling to be built 10 feet from the front property line. The Applicants are not requesting a side yard setback variance. The following table provides a summary of the setbacks for the immediately adjacent parcels obtained from City property records (i.e. certificate of survey or building plans) and Ramsey County GIS Mapping. Some of the distances are approximate based on the information available. Front Setback – 40’ Rear Setback – 30’ Side Setbacks - 10’/25’ 3583 Snelling Ave. N. 42.5’ – Snelling Ave. N. 30.87’ - Ridgewood Rd. 10’ (north)/ 40’/Combined 3570 Ridgewood Rd. 40’ – Ridgewood Rd. 70’ – Snelling Ave. N. (approx.) 16’ (north)/30’ combined Front Setback – 40’ Front Setback – 40’ Side Setbacks - 10’/25’ 3588 Ridgewood Rd. – Proposed 16’ – Ridgewood Rd. 10’ – Snelling Ave. N. 10’ (south)/69’ combined (approx.) Page 5 of 10 Driveway Access Section 1325.06, Subd. 1 (B) – Access of the Zoning Code requires “any residential lot, which has frontage on both a local street and a collector street or a major or minor arterial (as defined by the Comprehensive Plan of Arden Hills), [to] gain access only from the local street.” The Applicants are requesting a variance from this provision to construct a future driveway off Snelling Avenue North—a collector street, instead of Ridgewood Road—a local street. As proposed, the driveway off of Snelling Avenue North would have a 10% slope. The Applicants have stated that from the street to the garage there is an elevation change of 20 feet which would make for unsafe conditions to have their driveway access off of Ridgewood Road. Other City Codes - Landscaped Area, Structure Coverage, and Floor Area Ratio At this time, the Applicants have chosen not to include calculations for floor area ratio. Before finalizing their home design, the Applicants are looking to complete the City review of the current variance request. The Applicants will finish the design of a future structure depending on the outcome of the variance request. The certificate of survey identifies the proposed house footprint would equate to 15.4% structure coverage (max allowed 25%) and 23.2% impervious (max allowed 35%). The table below provides the district standards for the R-1 District and the preliminary analysis for the proposed development: Required Proposed Lot Area Minimum 14,000 SF 14,472 SF Lot Width/Depth 95’/130’ 95.96’/97.4’ Front Yard Setback – Ridgewood Road Minimum 40’ 16’ Front Yard Setback – Snelling Avenue North Minimum 40’ 10’ Side Yard Setback 10’ Minimum/ 25’ Combined 14’ (south)/ 69.9’ Combined Driveway Access Local Street – Ridgewood Road Collector Street – Snelling Avenue North Landscaped Area Greater than 65% (Minimum 9,407 SF) 76% Structure Coverage Less than 25% (Maximum 3,618 SF) 15.4% Floor Area Ratio Less than 0.3 (Maximum 4,341 SF) N/A Minimum Dwelling/Structure Width 20’ 46’ 2. Variance Review The role of the Planning Commission is to determine and consider how the facts presented to them compare with the city’s articulated standards. The Commission should base their decision on the facts presented and then apply those facts to the legal standards contained in city ordinances and relevant state law. Neighborhood opinion alone is not a valid basis for granting or denying a variance request. While the Planning Commission may feel their decision should reflect the overall Page 6 of 10 will of the residents, the task in considering a variance request is limited to evaluating how the variance application meets the statutory practical difficulties factors. Residents can often provide important facts that may help in addressing these factors, however, unsubstantiated opinions and reactions to a request do not form a legitimate basis for a variance decision. The Planning Commission may impose conditions when granting variances as long as the conditions are directly related and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. For instance, if a variance is granted to exceed the front setback limit, any conditions attached should presumably relate to mitigating the effect of the encroachment. 3. Variance Requirements – Section 1355.04, Subd. 4 The Applicants are requesting a variance for the nonconforming lot depth, to decrease the required front yard setback from 40 feet to a 10 foot setback from the property line abutting Snelling Avenue North and a 16 foot setback from the property line abutting Ridgewood Road, and the driveway access off Snelling Avenue North whereas city code requires access to be obtained from the local street - Ridgewood Road. 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 applicants do not meet all the factors of the statutory test, then a variance should not be granted. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 1. Purpose and Intent. The variance request shall comply with the purpose and intent of the provisions of the City’s Zoning Regulations and with the policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Applicants have stated the variance request for 3588 Ridgewood Road is consistent with the purpose and intent of the R-1 Zoning District and with the policies within the City’s Comprehensive Plan. A single-family detached dwelling is a permitted use within the Low Density Residential land use designation and the R-1 Zoning District. 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. The Subject Property is non-conforming with the R-1 district standards due to the preexisting lot depth. The Applicants have stated that without the granting of some form of variances the property would not be able to be put to a reasonable use such as construction of a home. They’ve indicated that their proposed home would be the same distance away from Ridgewood Road as the home directly to the north, and the proposed access to Snelling Avenue North will be similar to the adjacent circumstances in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. b. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Page 7 of 10 As confirmed by the City Attorney, a variance from the R-1 District minimum lot depth of 130 feet reduced to a mean lot depth of 97.4 feet would be necessary for future development of the Subject Property to occur. The Applicants have further stated that they are not responsible for the original configuration of the Subject Property which is driving the need for the variances requested. They’ve noted that the request for the driveway access off of Snelling Avenue North is a result of the unsafe conditions that would be created with access off of Ridgewood Road due to the significant elevation difference between the available building pad and the road. c. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The Applicants have stated that they have orientated the house and configured the layout of the parcel in a manner that would ensure consistency and compatibility within this neighborhood. 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. Additional Review Building Official The Building Official has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments at this time. A Building Permit will be required prior to any construction taking place. Public Works Director/City Engineer The Public Works Director/City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has the following comments which have been included in the draft recommended conditions of approval: • Grading and Erosion Control Permit would be required o As-built required, also showing utilities • RCWD review and approval is required • Two (2) Right-of-Way Permits will be needed o Snelling Avenue N driveway access construction. Through review it will be determined if a full-width patch on Snelling Ave N will be required. Reconstruction of the trail and curb will have to meet ADA standards. Potential conflict with the existing catch basin, driveway may need to be shifted to the South. All patches will have to match existing trail/street pavement section thickness. o Ridgewood Rd utility connections. Full-width patch will be required and must match the existing street pavement section. Inspection will be required and proper backfill material must be approved by Public Works. • Sanitary Sewer Connect Permit required • Water Connect Permit required Page 8 of 10 • Through plan submittals, Engineering will review in more detail and may have more comments. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following findings for consideration: General Findings: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a variance request to the required R-1 Zoning District lot depth, front yard setback, and driveway access at the Subject Property, 3588 Ridgewood Road. 2. The Subject Property is a nonconforming lot of record deeded to the City through the State and County from the Old Snelling Avenue corridor right-of-way (now referred to as Snelling Avenue North). 3. The Subject Property is a nonconforming lot with a mean lot depth of 97.4 feet and does not comply with the minimum R-1 district standards for lot depth of 130 feet. 4. The Subject Property is currently undeveloped. 5. The Planning Commission has determined that a potential sale of the City owned property at 3588 Ridgewood Road would be in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 6. The proposed single-family dwelling would not require a side yard setback variance. 7. The proposed single-family dwelling on the Subject Property would conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-1 Zoning District. Variance Findings: 8. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 9. The variance would be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan because it meets the City’s housing goal of encouraging redevelopment that is complimentary to and enhances the character of the City’s established neighborhoods. 10. A single-family dwelling is a permitted use within the R-1 Zoning District. 11. A single-family dwelling is a reasonable use of the property that would not be allowed under the rules of the Zoning Code without the requested variance. 12. The nonconforming lot depth for the R-1 Zoning District is a unique circumstance that is attributed to the dimensions of the Old Snelling Avenue corridor right -of-way (now referred to as Snelling Avenue North) turned over to the City. 13. The proposed single-family dwelling would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because the configuration of development on the Subject Property would be consistent and compatible with the neighborhood. 14. The variance request is not based on economic considerations alone. 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 22-019 for a Variance at 3588 Ridgewood Road, based on the findings of fact and the Page 9 of 10 submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 9, 2022, Report to the Planning Commission: 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. 3. A Grading and Erosion permit shall be obtained from the City’s PW/Engineering Division prior to commencing any grading, land disturbance or utility activities. 4. Upon completion of grading and utility work on the site, a grading as-built and utility as-built shall be provided to the City. 5. Final grading, drainage, utility, and site plans shall be subject to approval by the Public Works Director/City Engineer and Community Development Director prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit or other development permits. 6. Heavy duty silt fence and adequate erosion control around the entire construction site shall be required and maintained by the Applicants during construction to ensure that sediment and storm water does not leave the project site 7. The Applicants shall be responsible for providing verification of approval and obtaining any permit necessary from the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to the start of any site activities. 8. A separate right-of-way permit for each roadway shall be required for work performed within the City right-of-way. 9. All Public Works Director/City Engineer comments as stated in the November 9, 2022 Staff Report for driveway access connection and utility connections shall be addressed and are adopted herein by reference. The Applicants shall be financially responsible for 100 percent of the costs for connections. 10. The Applicants shall be responsible for obtaining a Sanitary Sewer Connect Permit. 11. The Applicants shall be responsible for obtaining a Water Connect Permit. 12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicants shall be financially responsible for 100 percent of all applicable sewer connection, sewer availability, water connection, water availability and Metropolitan Council SAC charges. 13. A Tree Preservation Plan shall be required as part of the Building Permit application for the new dwelling. Any tree removal, preservation, and mitigation shall be completed in accordance with City Code Section 1325.055. • Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22- 019 for a Variance at 3588 Ridgewood Road, based on the findings of fact and the submitted materials in the November 9, 2022 Report to the Planning Commission. • Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial Planning Case 22-019 for a Variance at 3588 Ridgewood Road, based on the following findings: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. • Table: Motion to table Planning Case 22-019 for a Variance at 3588 Ridgewood Road: a specific reason and information request should be included with a motion to table. Notice Although a variance does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within 500 feet of the Subject Property on October 28, 2022. A public meeting notice for this planning case was published in the Pioneer Press on October 28, Page 10 of 10 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 difficulties factors. Public Comments The City has not received any public comments regarding this planning case as of November 2, 2022. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on October 3, 2022. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by December 1, 2022 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day review period. The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Location Map C. Narrative D. Site Survey E. Supplemental Info Location Map Tax Parcels _Query result Personal Property Tax Parcels Cities County Offices 10/13/2022, 8:47:44 AM 0 0.02 0.040.01 mi 0 0.03 0.060.01 km 1:1,200 Ramsey County Ramsey County MN City of Arden Hills Community Development Department 1245 Highway 96 W Arden Hills, MN 55112 Letter of Intent Variance for: Ahmed Ali and Nawal Hirsi 3588 Ridgewood, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 ZONING: R1 PARCEL ID#: 34 30 23 22 0033 Letter of Intent for Zoning Variances Dear Planning & Mayor and City Council Members, We thank you for this opportunity collaborate with the City on the purchase and development of the City’s unused land at 3588 Ridgewood Road. Our family will be very happy when we build our beautiful dream home on this lot. After we signed the purchase agreement with the city, we brought different contractors to the lot to determine how to best use the land for a home with orientation being a primary concern. The proposal before the City reflects the fact that a Ridgewood Rd entrance would not be safe, especially in the winter, because of the significant elevation difference between the available building pad and the road (20 feet). Instead, multiple contractors identified the configuration we have put forward with an entrance off Snelling as the best way to address all concerns and be in character with the surrounding area. The home directly to the north of this parcel at 3583 faced similar challenges and implemented similar solutions. We are simply proposing to do the same on this parcel. I attend city councils work session meeting on Monday 10/17/2022, the city councils and mayor recommend if the house can be moved to north side close to the Snelling Avenue because there is 60-80 feet right of way that we can utilize. We follow the recommendation of the city councils, we moved the house close to the Snelling Avenue, and we are seeking variance for 10 feet front yard setback from the house to the property line. In addition, the Ridgewood Rd has 45.6 feet right of way from the house to the road, the Ridgewood is the back of the house, and we are seeking 16.3 feet back yard setback to the property line. To implement this solution, we are requesting variances in relief of the required front and rear yard setbacks, required lot dimensions, and the standard required access point from Snelling rather than the adjacent local roadway. The proposed variances will allow us to build a new house that would be in character with the surrounding homes along Snelling Avenue, and will help the City to meet its goal of providing more long-term opportunities for new housing to support the ongoing vitality of the community. Concerning the variance criteria, here are our responses: 1. The shape, elevation, and topography of this lot and surrounding area make it impossible to put this land to a reasonable use (i.e. construction of a home) without requesting some form of variances. 2. We were not responsible for the original configuration of this property, which is driving the need for the requested variances. 3. A primary goal of the zoning ordinance is to ensure consistent and compatible development throughout the City. Our proposed home will be the same distance away from Ridgewood Drive as the home directly to the north, and our proposed access to Snelling will be for the same reasons that driveway also accesses Snelling. In short, we believe our proposed home will fit very nicely on this lot and within this neighborhood. 4. This area is guided and zoned for single-family housing. Our proposed home is permitted in this zone. 5. This area of the City is guided and zoned for single-family home development. Construction of a brand new home on a parcel that meets minimum size requirements will be fully within the character of the area as a single-family neighborhood. 6. The variances would not be granted for economic reasons alone. We recognize the City as a whole will profit through the sale and development of this land, but the City would also be granting the variances to accomplish its Comprehensive Plan goals for creating high-quality housing and well thought out infill development. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, Ahmed Ali and Nawal Hirsi Page 1 of 3 PC AGENDA ITEM – 3B MEMORANDUM DATE: November 9, 2022 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jessica Jagoe, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case #22-021 – Public Hearing Required Applicant: City of Arden Hills Request: Zoning Code Amendments – Chapter 13, Landscaping and Tree Preservation Requested Action The City of Arden Hills is proposing to amend ordinance language in the Zoning Ordinance applicable to all zoning districts that would update the City’s current tree preservation ordinance to include landscaping and expand how tree replacement funds can be utilized. The proposed amendments to City Zoning Code Chapter 13 are within the following Sections: • Section 1325.05 - Design Standards • Section 1325.055 - Tree Preservation Background At their September 19th work session, the City Council discussed draft language for a proposed tree preservation ordinance. The City Council had previously requested Staff to investigate changing the City’s ordinance as it relates to tree preservation. Staff was directed to research whether or not the scope can be broadened to include items, such as landscaping or other green spaces. The City Attorney in his preliminary review of the draft changes believed the amendment would accomplish the flexibility being sought. The general consensus of the City Council was to move forward with the proposed amendments as presented in the work session and with the references to “green space” being modified to “landscaping”. Staff was directed to finalize the language with the City Attorney and 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 language with recommendation of the Planning Commission would be brought to the City Council for subsequent discussion and adoption. Page 2 of 3 Overview of Ordinance Amendments Staff has prepared a draft ordinance showing stricken language to be deleted and new language added in red font for your review (Attachment A). The general consensus of the City Council was that the current ordinance language is narrowly focused on tree preservation. The city code defines landscaping as “plantings such as trees, grass, shrubs.” Under the tree preservation ordinance as written, the City Attorney confirmed that the tree fund or a fee in lieu of planting may only be used for tree related expenses. The Council noted that there are projects (i.e. parks, right-of-way) in the City that could be considered or in need of all types of landscaping as defined in the ordinance (i.e. trees, grasses, shrubs). The City Council requested Staff develop language that would be broadened the ordinance to include items, such as, landscaping or other green spaces. The proposed amendments would add language applicable to all zoning districts that revises and updates the City’s current tree preservation ordinance to restate when a mitigation plan is required for extensive tree removal on a parcel of land, what is required of a landscape plan and the calculation of fees for tree loss when replanting on the affected site is not practical, and clarifies that those collected fees can be expended for tree and landscape purposes. To be clear, the proposed amendment is not modifying the minimum requirements for tree preservation and/or replacement. Instead, the draft language is intended to add language within the landscaping and tree preservation sections of the city code to allow for both forms of plantings to function as one “landscaping fund” in satisfaction of the ordinance going forward. It should be noted that any tree funds remaining will need to be kept separate and still need to be spent solely on tree related expenses. The applicable Sections are as follows: • Adding language: Section 1325.05 - Design Standards o Subd. 1.C.7 o Subd. 1.D.2 • Adding language: Section 1325.055 - Tree Preservation o Subd. 1.A.3 and 4 o Subd. 6.A.3.c through e 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 applicable to all zoning districts that would revise and update the City’s current tree preservation ordinance to include items, such as, landscaping and other green spaces. Page 3 of 3 2. The proposed ordinance amendment will reaffirm when a mitigation plan is required on a parcel of land, what is required of a landscape plan, and the calculation of fees for tree loss when replanting on the affected site is not practical. 3. The proposed ordinance amendment clarifies that those collected fees can be expended for tree and landscape purposes. 4. The proposed ordinance will include amendments to the language of Chapter 13 – Zoning Code of the City Code. 5. 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 22-021 as presented (or as modified by Planning Commission) for Zoning Code Amendments Ordinance 2022-007 to Chapter 13 in Section 1325.05 – Design Standards and Section 1325.55 – Tree Preservation of the Arden Hills City Code to add language to revise and update the City’s current tree preservation ordinance to include items, such as, landscaping and further clarify mitigation plan requirements and that those collected fees can be expended for tree and landscape purposes as presented in the November 9, 2022 Report to the Planning Commission. • Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 22-021 as presented (or as modified by Planning Commission) for Zoning Code Amendments Ordinance 2022-007 to Chapter 13 in Section 1325.05 – Design Standards and Section 1325.55 – Tree Preservation of the Arden Hills City Code to add language to revise and update the City’s current tree preservation ordinance to include items, such as, landscaping and further clarify mitigation plan requirements and that those collected fees can be expended for tree and landscape purposes: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial. • Table: Motion to table Planning Case 22-021 as presented (or as modified by Planning Commission) for Zoning Code Amendments to Chapter 13 in Section 1325.05 – Design Standards and Section 1325.55 – Tree Preservation of the Arden Hills City Code Ordinance 2022-007 to add language to revise and update the City’s current tree preservation ordinance to include items, such as, landscaping and further clarify mitigation plan requirements and that those collected fees can be expended for tree and landscape purposes: 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 October 28, 2022. The City has not received any public comments regarding this case. Attachments A. Redlined Ordinance Amendment B. Summary Ordinance 1 221909v1 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-007 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13, ZONING CODE, 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 1325 – General Regulations 1325.05 Design Standards, Subd. 1; is hereby amended by deleting strikethrough language and adding the underlined language as follows: 1325.05 Design Standards. Subd. 1 Landscaping. A. Purpose and Findings. The City declares that it is desirable and essential to the health, safety, welfare, and aesthetics of the City to protect certain existing plants and trees, to require new and additional plants and trees, to prohibit the planting of certain species, to require the maintenance of plants and trees as set forth in this subdivision, and that appropriate and unified landscaping is essential to meet the community objectives established in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Scope. The provisions of this subdivision shall apply only to privately owned property. Property within public rights-of-way shall be maintained in accordance with Chapter 7 of the City Code. C. General Landscaping Requirements 1. Minimum Requirements. In all districts, all developed uses shall provide and maintain a landscaped area according to the minimum requirements in Section 1320.06, the district requirements chart. 2. All land area not occupied by marshes, ponds, wetlands, buildings, parking, driveways, sidewalks, or other hard surface shall be sodded, seeded, mulched or landscaped with appropriate perennials, shrubbery and/or trees. 3. Landscaped Area Along Streets. In all districts all developed uses shall provide and maintain a landscaped area along streets. This area shall be kept clear of all structures, storage, and off-street parking. Except for driveways, the area shall extend along the entire frontage of the lot and along both streets in the case of a corner lot. 2 221909v1 4. Maintenance of Green Space. The property owner shall be responsible for the maintenance of all green space and landscaped areas in accordance with Section 600.02 of the City Code. 5. Green Roofs. Green roofs may be counted towards the minimum landscaping requirements of a parcel, as determined by Staff, based on the absorption rate and quality of the green roof. 6. Screening. All developments shall be in conformance with Section 1325.05 Subd. 4. 7. Tree Preservation. Clear cutting of an entire stand of trees is prohibited on all parcels. All developments shall be in conformance with Section 1325.055. and subject to an approved Tree Mitigation Plan as outlined in Section 1325.055, Subd. 6. D. Landscaping Plan. 1. Scope. In cases where a landscaping plan is required by this Code or by an approval granted by the City, the applicant for the building or grading permit shall submit a landscape plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of Appendix A of the Zoning Code. A landscape plan shall be approved by the City and implemented by the property owner: a) For any new development or new building construction in any business, industrial, Institutional, R-3, R-4, or I-FLEX zoning district, and planned unit developments, except as otherwise provided by specific development agreements. b) For any existing commercial, industrial, or institutional building or parking lot to be expanded by at least ten (10) percent, or at least 5,000 square feet, where an approved landscape plan is not on file with the city. In the case where a plan is required under this subparagraph, the property owner may submit a plan implementation schedule that would allow the plan to be implemented over a period of three years. c) No building permit for any construction described in items (a) and (b) of this subparagraph shall be issued unless a landscape plan required hereunder is approved by the city. 2. Landscaping Plan Standards. a. If the City determines, at its sole discretion, that landscaping to be planted in satisfaction of the ordinance exceeds that which can be accommodated practically on-site, a landscaping fee may be collected at the sole discretion of the Cit y in lieu of on-site planting. The landscaping fee amount shall be the cost of materials and installation of landscaping, plus ten (10) percent, and shall be provided by the applicant and approved by the City. All funds shall be expended exclusively towards landscaping, as defined by the ordinance, for implementation of the goals listed in Subd. 1.A of this section and Section 1325.055, Subd. 1. E. Performance Guarantee. 1. A landscape performance bond or other acceptable financial surety is required for all screening or landscaping required in this Code to insure completion and maintenance of all landscaping in accordance with the approved landscape plan required hereunder. 3 221909v1 2. The amount of the bond or surety shall be 125% of the cost of materials and installation. 3. The bond or surety shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits and shall be valid for, two full years, from the date of installation, or three years in the case of an extended timeline. 4. For any landscaping or screening that is not in accordance with the approved landscaping plan at the end of two growing seasons, the applicant shall replace the material to the satisfaction of the city before the guarantee is released. Where this is not done, the city, at its sole discretion, may use the proceeds of the performance guarantee to accomplish performance. F. Minimum Landscape Requirements. 1. Caliper Inches. The minimum caliper inches required per building site shall relate to the gross square footage of all floors of a building and the building height. A single story building in excess of thirty (30) feet in height shall be considered a two-story building for the purposes of determining gross square footage. Minimum total caliper inches = Gross Square Footage of all Floors of Building 320 2. Tree Ratio. The minimum total caliper inches shall contain the following minimum percentages of trees in various size ranges: Building Height In Stories Percentage of Trees of Various Caliper Inches 2.0" - 3.0" 3.5" - 4.0" 4.5" - 6.0" 1-2 50 % 30 % 20 % 3-4 50 % 30 % 20 % 5 and over 30 % 50 % 20 % 3. Coniferous Tree Measurement. Coniferous trees may be considered equivalent to the sizes shown by dividing the height of the coniferous tree in feet by 2.4. 4. Minimum size at time of planting. a) Two and one-half (2.5) caliper inches for deciduous trees. b) Six (6) feet in height for coniferous trees. 5. Trees Along Street Frontage. A minimum of one tree shall be provided along the right of way for every fifty (50) feet of public street frontage. 6. Perennials and Shrubberies. At least ten (10) percent of the total landscaped area shall be covered with perennials and/or shrubbery and be planted within the perimeter of private parking, building, and driveway areas. 7. Planting Islands. Planting islands shall be required to visually break up expanses of hard-surface parking areas, to provide safe and efficient traffic movement, and to define rows of parking. Planting islands shall occupy at least ten (10) percent of the parking area. Planting islands shall be edged with concrete curbs. Parking lot planting 4 221909v1 islands shall be a minimum of 150 square feet in area, be of appropriate width and length, and include at least one tree meeting the requirements of this ordinance. G. Landscape Design Specifications. All landscape plans and landscaping under this subdivision shall follow and be in compliance with the following requirements, together with all other Code regulations: 1. Diverse Selection. The landscape plan shall include a full complement of over story, ornamental and evergreen trees, shrubbery, and ground covers that are hardy and appropriate for the locations in which they are planted, and which provide year-round color and interest. 2. Existing Plant Credit. Plant materials existing on a site at the time of development, may be used as a credit against the requirements of these landscape regulations; the City Council shall determine the extent of credit allowed, based on the evaluation of species, size, location, quality of existing plant materials and the consistency with the intent of these regulations. 3. Plant Selection. The City maintains a list of trees that may not be used to satisfy the landscaping requirement of this section. 4. Method of Installation. All deciduous and coniferous trees shall be planted in accordance with American Standards for Nursery Stock relating to quality of stock and appropriate sizing of the root ball for balled and burlapped and spade-moved trees. 5. Slopes and Berms. Final slopes greater than the ratio of 3:1 will not be permitted without special approval or treatment, such as special seed mixtures or reforestation, terracing, or retaining walls. Berming used to provide required screening of parking lots and other open areas shall not have slopes in excess of 3:1. 6. Landscape Plan Maintenance. Quantity and character of landscaping, as originally approved, shall be maintained in perpetuity by the property owner unless the City approves a change to the landscaping plan. Maintenance shall include removal of litter, dead plant materials, unhealthy or diseased trees, and necessary pruning. Natural watercourses within a buffer shall be maintained as free flowing and free of debris. 7. Erosion Control. All areas of any site shall be restored and maintained in accordance with provisions of the city erosion control standards, and other requirements of the Code. 8. Placement of Trees and Shrubs. No trees or shrubs shall be planted within any drainage/utility easements, road right-of-way, or where it would now or in the future materially impede the clear vision area or other driveway between a height of two and one-half (2-1/2) and ten (10) feet in the clear vision area. (revised 3/18/09) 9. Completion Deadline. All plants required for screening purposes shall be planted to completion within six months from date of issuance of a building permit unless otherwise approved by the city due to the time of the year or if an alternative schedule is set in a development agreement. In no case shall the period exceed six months from issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 5 221909v1 SECTION 2. Chapter 13 - Zoning Code, Section 1325 – General Regulations 1325.055 Tree Preservation, Subd. 1 and Subd. 6; are hereby amended by deleting strikethrough language and adding the underlined language as follows: 1325.055 Tree and Landscaping Preservation. Subd. 1 Findings, Purpose and City Authority. A. Findings and Purpose. The purpose of this section is to identify trees that are to be saved when development or land disturbing activity is occurring. It is the City's intent to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural environment of Arden Hills and to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to development. The city council finds it is in the best interest of the city to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural environment of the community and to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to development and property alteration. In the interest of achieving these objectives, the city has established the comprehensive tree preservation regulations herein to promote the furtherance of the following: 1. Protect and preserve the environment and natural beauty of the City; 2. Minimize tree and habitat loss during development and construction; 3. Establish minimum standards for tree preservation, landscaping, and the mitigation of environmental impacts resulting from landscape tree removal; 4. Enforce tree preservation and landscaping standards to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. Increase and maintain property values; 6. Enhance energy conservation through natural insulation and shading; 7. Prevent or reduce soil erosion, sedimentation and stormwater runoff; 8. Protect privacy by maintaining buffers between land uses; and 9. Preserve the variety and extent of trees which exist in the City and which are an integral part of this City's identity. B. City Authority. To preserve protected trees, the City may: 1. Require and enforce a tree preservation plan as described below; 2. Specify trees or groups of trees for preservation; 3. Specify grading limits; 4. Require the clustering of buildings or the relocation of roads, drives, buildings, utilities or storm water facilities when this would preserve protected trees; 5. Specify time periods in which tree cutting, trimming or injury may not occur in order to prevent the spread of disease; and 6. Require easements to ensure that groups of significant trees are not destroyed after the development has been approved. Subd. 2 Tree Preservation Plan. 6 221909v1 A. Scope. A Tree Preservation Plan is required as part of an application for: 1. New building construction in any zoning district; 2. An expansion of an existing building or hard surface by ten percent or greater, where an approved tree preservation plan is not on file with the city; 3. Any project for which a city grading permit or erosion control permit is required 4. A plat or minor subdivision. B. Tree Preservation Plan Submission Requirements. A Tree Preservation Plan must include a tree survey certified by a registered land surveyor, landscape architect, or forester. See Appendix A for details on the requirements of a Tree Preservation Plan. Projects on residential sites of fewer than two lots are not required to have tree surveys certified. Applicants are encouraged to consult with city staff concerning preservation of protected trees before developing a Tree Preservation Plan. C. Review Process. The tree preservation plan shall be reviewed by the city to assess the best possible layout to preserve significant trees and to enhance the efforts to minimize damage to significant trees. The applicant shall meet with city staff prior to submission of the development application or prior to application for the grading permit, whichever is sooner, to determine the most feasible and practical placement of buildings, parking, driveways, streets, storage and other physical features, in order that the fewest significant trees are destroyed or damaged. Subd. 3 Performance Guarantee. A. Any applicant required to submit a tree preservation plan shall provide the required performance guarantee following preliminary approval of the tree preservation plan and prior to any construction and/or grading to insure completion and maintenance of all landscaping and trees in accordance with the approved tree preservation plan required hereunder. B. The amount of a bond or other approved financial surety shall be 125% of the cost of materials and installation. C. The bond or other financial surety shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits and shall be valid for two full years, from the date of installation. D. For any tree that is not in accordance with the approved tree preservation plan at the end of two growing seasons, the applicant shall replace the material to the satisfaction of the city before the guarantee is released. Where this is not done, the city, at its sole discretion, may use the proceeds of the performance guarantee to accomplish performance. Subd. 4 Compliance with Plan. The applicant shall implement the tree preservation plan prior to and during any construction. The tree protection measures shall remain in place until all grading and construction activity is terminated. A. Tree Removal Prior to Approval. No significant trees shall be removed until a tree preservation plan is approved by the city and except in accordance with the approved tree preservation plan. 7 221909v1 B. Inspection. The city shall have the right to inspect the development and/or building site in order to determine compliance with the approved tree preservation plan. The city shall determine whether compliance with the tree preservation plan has been met. C. Unapproved Tree Loss. If a tree that was required to be preserved is removed or damaged so that it is in a state of decline within two growing seasons from date of project closure, it must be mitigated at a rate of 2:1, or two caliper inches of trees replaced for every caliper inch of tree removed. This provision also applies to an easement area that is disturbed during or after development. The City may use the performance guarantee to accomplish this. Subd. 5 Tree Removal and Preservation. A. Tree Removal Allowance. Mitigation shall not be required for removing, cutting, or killing trees when: 1. Fewer than ten (10) percent of the caliper inches of the significant trees on the property are cut, removed, or killed 2. There is an existing principal use on the property and no construction, grading, or development is to occur in the location of the removed tree(s) within two years thereafter. 3. The trees to be removed, cut, or killed are identified as diseased or nuisance trees. B. Reduced Requirements. Mitigation requirements can be reduced as determined by the City Council when there is a greater public good such as; 1. Allowing for LEED Certified architectural practices; 2. Providing affordable housing; 3. Allowing for a public road or trail; or 4. Providing for a public utility service. C. Planned Unit Developments. A PUD plan for a new subdivision will be approved only if it demonstrates that the new subdivision has a reasonable number of lots or units and has lot lines and building pads that minimize tree loss. Mitigation must be provided for any removal of significant trees. D. Diseased and Nuisance Trees. Prior to grading, all diseased and nuisance trees on the subject property shall be removed from the property at the time of grading and prior to the commencement of building construction. Diseased and nuisance trees shall not count toward calculation of significant tree inventory. E. Removal of Trees Prior to Application Submittal. A tree that was removed or otherwise destroyed by unnatural causes within two years before a development application will be regarded as if it were present at the time of construction or a development application. Subd. 6 Approved Tree Mitigation. A. Mitigation Standards. Mitigation for tree removal of significant trees must meet the following specific standards; 8 221909v1 1. Mitigation Rate. Significant live trees lost or reasonably anticipated to be lost as a result of building, construction, or grading immediately or in the future, shall be replaced by the property owner by planting that number of caliper inches of trees ("replacement trees") determined at a rate of 1:2 or one inch replaced for every two inches lost. The trees required to be replaced pursuant to this Section shall be in addition to any other trees required to be planted pursuant to any other provision of the Code. 2. Mitigation Species. Replacement trees shall be of a species similar to the trees which are lost or removed and shall include those species pre-approved in writing by the City. The City maintains a list of trees provided for guidance in selection of trees and shrubs. 3. General Mitigation Standards. a) All replacement trees shall meet the American Standards for Nursery Stock relating to quality of stock and appropriate sizing of the root ball for balled and burlapped and spade-moved trees. b) Trees planted in accordance with mitigation requirements shall not be comprised of more than 25 percent of the same species or size unless approved by the city. c) Replacement trees shall be planted on the same property from which the trees were removed. If the City determines, at its sole discretion, that the number of replacement trees to be planted exceeds the number of trees that can be accommodated practically on-site, off-site planting may occur at locations to be determined by the City, or a landscaping fee in lieu of off-site planting may be required as provided in paragraph d below. d) Where tree replacement on-site in satisfaction of Subd. 6.A above is not practical and a suitable off-site location cannot be determined by the City, a landscaping fee in lieu thereof may be assessed for the replacement required. The landscaping fee amount shall be the cost of materials and installation of tree(s)tree, plus ten (10) percent, and shall be provided by the applicant and approved by the City. All landscaping funds collected shall be expended exclusively towards landscaping, as defined by the ordinance, for implementation of the goals listed in Subd. 1 of this section and Section 1325.05, Subd. 1.A. e) Development that is subject to the landscape requirements in Section 1325.05 of the Zoning Code may count preserved trees towards the required landscaping plan. The planting of trees for mitigation shall be in addition to the landscape requirements of Section 1325.05 and shall be replaced in accordance with paragraph c and/or d above. f) The required mitigation trees shall be replaced by the property owner or original developer if they have died or have severely declined after the second full growing season following installation. A tree shall be considered to be severely declined if more than 25 percent of the crown has died. Subd. 7 General Tree Protection Standards. A. Prior to Construction. Before construction, grading or land clearing begins; trees or tree areas that are to be preserved shall be visibly marked and the city-approved tree protection fencing or other method shall be installed and maintained at the critical root 9 221909v1 zones of the trees to be protected. The location of the fencing shall be in conformance with the approved tree preservation plan. This fencing shall be inspected by city staff before site work begins. B. During Construction. The following activities shall be prohibited within the critical root zone areas of trees to be protected. 1. Trenching; 2. Temporary storage of any construction materials or chemicals; and 3. The routing or parking of heavy equipment, including cars, trucks, bulldozers and construction trailers. 4. Sediment and erosion control. All sediment and erosion-control silt fencing or straw bales shall be placed at the limits of grading or where needed to minimize the deposition of sediment within the drip line of the protected tree(s). 5. Attaching protective devices, signs, etc., to trees is prohibited. No protective devices, signs, utility poles or lines, or other objects shall be nailed or attached to any trees that are to be preserved. 6. Other actions prohibited. Any other action within the drip line of the protected tree(s) that may result in the severing of roots or compaction of soil, or that may impede the free access of air and water to tree roots, shall be prohibited. C. Ponding. Water retention ponding may not be located where there are significant trees, unless approved by the city. The water retention ponding must be created in a manner that prevents erosion into any nearby water resource. D. Amendments to Plan. An amendment to the tree preservation plan shall be required prior to the removal of trees that were designated for preservation on the original tree preservation plan. The amendment shall be subject to City approval prior to implementation. SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. A Summary of this Ordinance will be published in accordance with state statute. PASSED and ADOPTED this 10th day of October, 2022, by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS By _______________________________ David Grant, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Julie Hanson, City Clerk 223754v1 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2022-007 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13, ZONING CODE, SECTION 1325 OF THE ARDEN HILLS CITY CODE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, on October 10, 2022, Ordinance No. 2022-007 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that, because of the lengthy nature of Ordinance No. 2022-007, the following summary of the ordinance has been prepared for publication. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the ordinance adopted by the City Council revises and updates the City’s current tree preservation ordinance to clarify when a mitigation plan is required for extensive tree removal on a parcel of land, what is required of a landscape plan and the calculation of fees for tree loss when replanting on the affected site is not practical, and clarifies that those collected fees can be expended for tree and landscape purposes. A printed copy of the whole ordinance is available for inspection by any person during the City’s regular office hours at the City of Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, MN 55112. The Ordinance is also available on the City’s website at http://www.cityofardenhills.com. APPROVED for publication by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota, this 10th day of October, 2022. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS By __________________________________ David Grant, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Julie Hanson, City Clerk