Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-24 PC PacketChair: Address: Kurtis Weber 1245 W Highway 96 (2025) Arden Hills MN 55112 Commissioners: DEN HILLS Phone: Jonathan 651-792-7800 Wicklund (2024) Planning Commission Arlene Mitchell May 8, 2024 Website: (2024) 630 p.m. ' www•cityofardenhills.org Joshua Collins City Hall (2024) Shelley Blilie (2024) Brad Bjorklund (2025) Steve Erler (2026) Vacant (Alternate) Vacant (Alternate) Council Liaison: Emily Rousseau 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. Members of the public may attend a meeting in -person at City Hall or they may view the meeting remotely on the City's website using the below link. Meetings are also broadcast on Cable Channel 16 for those that live in Arden Hills. https://cityofardenhills.org/320/Watch-City-Meetings Agenda CALL TO ORDER 1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2.A. April 3, 2024 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Documents: PC MINUTES O4-03-24.PDF 3. PLANNING CASES 3.A. Planning Case 24-008 - 1511 Dawn Circle - Variance (No Public Hearing Required) Documents: MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 5. COMMENTS AND REPORTS 5.A. Report From The City Council 5.13. Planning Commission Comments 6. ADJOURNMENT ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. -AXQEN HILLS May 8, 2024 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 2024 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Kurtis Weber called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Kurtis Weber, Commissioners Brad Bjorlund, Shelley Blilie, Stephen Erler, Arlene Mitchell, and Jonathan Wicklund. Absent: Commissioner Josh Collins. Also present were: Community Development Director Jessica Jagoe, Senior Planner Elena Fransen and Council Liaison Emily Rousseau. APPROVAL OF AGENDA — APRIL 3, 2024 Commissioner Mitchell moved, seconded by Commissioner Wicklund, to approve the April 3, 2024, agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 6, 2024 — Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Bjorklund stated he was impressed by the level of participation at the last Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Bjorklund moved, seconded by Commissioner Wicklund, to approve the March 6, 2024, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 24-007; 3717 Lexington Avenue N. — Conditional Use Permit — Public Hearing Senior Planner Fransen stated SUPERVALU Inc., dba Cub Discount Liquor ("Applicant') is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow for Lower -Potency Hemp Edible Sales as a ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION — April 3, 2024 2 conditional accessory use at 3717 Lexington Avenue N. ("Subject Property"). Lower -Potency Hemp Edible Sales may be allowed as a conditional accessory use in B-3 Service Business Zoning District where the principal use is Retail Sales & Service, Restaurant, or Service Station, the business has a liquor or tobacco license issued by the City, and when such accessory use is clearly incidental to the principal use. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the conditional accessory use of Lower -Potency Hemp Edible Sales. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the existing site data, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The property located at 3717 Lexington Avenue N. is designated for Commercial uses on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 2. Lower -Potency Hemp Edible Sales shall be a Conditional Accessory use only permitted in the B-2 General Business, B-3 Service Business, B-4 Retail Business, NB Neighborhood Business and GB Gateway Business Zoning Districts where the principal use is Retail Sales & Service, Restaurant, or Service Station, the business has a liquor or tobacco license issued by the City, and when such accessory use is clearly incidental to the principal use. 3. The Subject Property is located within the B-3 Service Business Zoning District with a principal use of Retail Sales & Service. 4. The Applicant, Cub Discount Liquor, has a liquor license issued by the City. 5. The Applicant's site plan shows the proposed conditional accessory use is incidental to the principal use. 6. The Applicant's narrative notes the specifics of the proposed business, including the sourcing of products and customer and employee education. 7. Applicants for Conditional Accessory Lower -Potency Hemp Edible Sales shall follow the conditional use permit procedures. 8. A public hearing for a Conditional Use Permit request is required before the request can be brought before the City Council. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission for Planning Case 24-007 for a Conditional Use Permit to allow lower -potency hemp edible sales as a conditional accessory use at 3717 Lexington Avenue N: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 1. No additional exterior signage shall be permitted for the conditional accessory use. 2. Lower -potency hemp edible sales will be localized to the Cub Discount Liquor portion of the Subject Property. 3. The Applicant shall comply with all sections of the City Code and with applicable State Statutes. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Weber opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Bjorklund commented his first job was working for Jack Hooley, who started Consumers United Buying, also known as Cub. He stated he did not believe he had a conflict, but noted he also did consulting work for Cub Foods over the years but it has been many years since he was last involved with the company. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION — April 3, 2024 3 Commissioner Blilie explained she supported the proposed request. Chair Weber opened the public hearing at 6:43 p.m. Chair Weber invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comment Chair Weber closed the public hearing at 6:43 p.m. Commissioner Bjorklund asked if the City received any public input on this item. Senior Planner Fransen reported staff had not received any comments from the public prior to the meeting. Commissioner Bjorklund commented he did not have any real concerns regarding this request given the fact this was for low -potency hemp. He appreciated the fact the employees would have to go through proper training. Commissioner Erler discussed how Roseville and Shoreview were already selling these products in their communities. Commissioner Erler moved and Commissioner Blilie seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 24-007 for a Conditional Use Permit to allow lower -potency hemp edible sales as a conditional accessory use at 3717 Lexington Avenue N based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the April 3, 2024, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Council Liaison Rousseau provided the Commission with an update from the City Council. She explained the City was watching two active bills noting Ramsey County had submitted a bill requesting $25 million in funding from the State for Rice Creek Commons infrastructure and $2 million in State funding had been requested for a trail along Old Highway 10. She commented on the work being done by the PTRC, which included mapping the City's rain gardens. She reported NYFS would be hosting a luncheon on Wednesday, May 8 at 11:30 a.m. at Vadnais Heights Commons. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests None. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION — April 3, 2024 Commissioner Mitchell moved, seconded by Commissioner Bjorklund, to adjourn the April 3, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting at 6:52 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). PC Agenda Item — 3A ,-AI�EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: May 8, 2024 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Elena Fransen, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #24-008 — No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Kam and Jennifer Schmaltz Property Location: 1511 Dawn Circle Request: Variance Requested Action Kam and Jennifer Schmaltz ("Applicant") has requested a variance to construct an addition to the east elevation of an existing principal structure and attached garage on the property located at 1511 Dawn Circle ("Subject Property"). The Applicant has requested a variance to decrease the required side yard setback for corner lots from the minimum requirement of 40 feet to 28.2 feet. The Applicant is proposing a 12 foot by 36.5 foot garage addition to expand the existing attached garage width from 21.5 feet to 33.5 feet and allow for an addition to the upper floor of the principal structure. The addition would add 438 square feet to the existing attached garage and 386 square feet to the principal structure. Background 1. Existing Site Conditions 1511 Dawn Circle, the Subject Property, is zoned R-1, Single 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 Land 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: 0.32 acres Page 1 of 8 3. Proposed Use The Applicant is requesting a variance to decrease the required side yard setback on a corner lot for the Subject Property from 40 feet to 28.2 feet as measured from the portion of the proposed attached garage addition. The Subject Property is oriented with the front of the house and garage facing Dawn Circle and with driveway access off of Dawn Circle. The current attached garage is located 40.2 feet from the east side yard property line along Norma Avenue. 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, the existing principal structure and attached garage have limited storage space. The Applicant considered other ways to add storage to the property but due to the principal structure and attached garage layout on the parcel and city zoning requirements applicable to the property, the addition to the east elevation was identified as the desired solution. The proposed attached garage addition would provide for a third car stall and more accessible storage for the property. It would also permit for a principal structure upper -level addition that would include a bedroom and an office. The Applicant has provided elevations for the proposed addition. Two exterior elevation options are shown, the first without an additional dormer window and the second with an additional dormer window on the upper level. The Applicant will finalize the design following the review of their variance application. The included floor plans and square footage for the principal structure addition are for the design without the dormer window. The Applicant is seeking as part of the variance review to be able to construct either option. The Applicant is requesting a variance for flexibility from the 40 foot side yard setback required for corner lots to construct the proposed addition with a 28.2 side yard setback. The Subject Property was developed in 1984 and today is a conforming lot for the side yard setback for corner lots. 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 principal structure and attached garage addition without a variance. 4. 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 survey shows the location of the proposed attached garage addition. 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 — Meets Requirements Page 2 of 8 The Subject Property was constructed in 1984 with a lot area of 14,087 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. Structure Setbacks — Variance Requested In the R-1 District, the minimum front and rear setback requirements are 40 feet and 30 feet, respectively. The current principal structure and attached garage is located 40 feet from the front yard property line (i.e. Dawn Circle) and is located 58.5 feet from the rear yard property line, with an attached deck located 38.2 feet from the rear property line. The minimum side yard setback in the R-1 District is 10 feet and 25 feet combined. Additionally, the minimum side yard setback on a corner lot in all residential zoning districts is 40 feet. The current principal structure and attached garage is located 40.2 feet from the side yard property line as measured from Norma Avenue. The proposed attached garage addition would be setback 28.2 feet from the east side yard property line. Proposed Site Plan S89"37'21 JIV 105.00 Y —__—___ — Ica A ' I ` ia ....... r 7P 7P ^ 1, I IZ I° I -------------K� I Q .4 I M DECK a I I GA7r �k } *r &•L+, f CANT,'.- — 10,0 ---- 28.2 �ze,l _ EXISTINGcr� "r House L Ca to GARAGE a 1�S.... ; PORCH a / i20 �wixn I 931.pr • q4 .�. W K I 1Q _1. 5 I u ��t.e �W a� ., 13f 9 H - Dawn Circle Proposed Side Yard Setback Existing Side Yard Setback Page 3 of 8 Existing Proposed Garage Addition Front Setback 40 feet 40 feet Rear Setback 58.5 58.5 feet Side Yard Corner East 40.2 feet 28.2 feet Side Yard West 10 feet 10 feet not im actin ) Side Yard Total Both Side Yards 50.2 feet 38.2 feet Landscaped Area —Meets Requirements In the R-1 District, the minimum landscaped area required without a variance is 65% of the property or 9,156.55 square feet. The Subject Property has an existing landscaped area of 10,456 square feet or 74.22%. The proposal, including the garage addition and proposed driveway addition, would decrease the total landscaped area by 765 square feet to 9,691 square feet, or 68.79% percent of the property. Structure Coverage — Meets Requirements The R-1 District allows for a maximum structure coverage of 25% or 3,521.75 square feet of the Subject Property. The existing structure coverage is 2,697 square feet or 19%. The proposed addition would increase the total structure coverage by 438 square feet for a total of 3,135 square feet, or 22.25% of the Subject Property. Floor Area Ratio — Meets Requirements The R-1 District permits for a maximum floor area ratio of .3. Floor area is calculated as the sum of the gross horizontal area of all floors of a building as measured in square feet from the exterior walls, but not including decks; space where the average floor -to -ceiling height is less than six feet; attached or detached garages; and other detached accessory structures. For the Subject Property, the maximum floor area permitted is 4,226.1 square feet. The existing floor area for the lot is 3,550 square feet and the floor area ratio is .252. The proposed addition includes an upper level principal structure addition above the attached garage addition which would increase the property's floor area by 386 square feet for a total of 3,936 square feet and a floor area ratio of .279. This calculation is based on the design option without the additional dormer window. The Applicant has stated that the design option with the additional dormer window would increase the property's floor area by an additional 52 square feet for a total increase of 438 square feet. The total floor area would be 3,988 square feet and the floor area ratio would be .283. Square footage will be confirmed during the building permit application review. 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 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. Page 4 of 8 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 Applicant requests a variance to construct a principal structure and detached garage addition to the east elevation of their existing principal structure and attached garage that would impede on the required side yard setback on a corner lot in the R-1, Single Family 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. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 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 1511 Dawn Circle is for a proposed attached garage and upper level 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. According to the Applicant, the proposed principal structure and attached garage addition would provide for residential living and storage space in line with the existing use of the property as a single family dwelling. The addition of these spaces on the property would not be permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. 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 property is on a corner lot which was not a circumstance created by the Applicant. Corner lots have a required 40 foot side yard setback which is greater than the 10'125' required for non -corner lots within the R-I zoning district. On a non -corner lot, the attached garage addition would conform with the R-1 requirements. c. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Page 5 of 8 According to the Applicant, there would be no alteration to the character of the City or neighborhood. The SubjectProperty with theproposed addition would remain a residential single-family home and have the same look and feel as the existing Subject Property. 3. Economic Consideration. Economic consideration alone does not constitute a practical difficulty. The Applicant states that while the proposed project would increase the value of the home, this has no bearing on the reason for the variance request. 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 Reviews Building Official The Building Official has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments at this time. A Building Permit along with a complete plan set for review will be required prior to any construction taking place. Public Works Director/City Engineer The Public Works Director/City Engineer addition is outside of the clear vision area. Findings of Fact has reviewed the plans and confirmed the proposed No additional comments at this time. 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 side yard setback for corner lots at the Subject Property 1511 Dawn Circle. 2. A single-family dwelling is a permitted use within the R-1 Zoning District. 3. The Applicant states that the proposed addition will not impede sight lines from the roadways. 4. The proposed addition would have a decreased side yard setback for a corner lot of 28.2 feet. Variance Findings: 1. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 2. The proposed addition would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because the proposed design will look and feel consistent with the existing structure. 3. The variance request is not based on economic considerations alone. Options and Motion Language Page 6 of 8 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 24-008 for a Variance to construct an addition with a 28.2 side yard setback on a corner lot at 1511 Dawn Circle, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the May 8, 2024, Report to the Planning Commission: 1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. 2. A Zoning Permit shall be issued for the driveway expansion. 3. The proposed building addition shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 24- 008 for a Variance to construct an addition with a 28.2 side yard setback on a corner lot at 1511 Dawn Circle, based on the findings of fact and the submitted materials in the May 8, 2024, Report to the Planning Commission. • Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial Planning Case 24-008 for a Variance to construct an addition with a 28.2 side yard setback on a corner lot at 1511 Dawn Circle, 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 24-008 for a Variance to construct an addition with a 28.2 side yard setback on a corner lot at 1511 Dawn Circle: a specific reason and inforfnation 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 April 25, 2024. A public meeting notice for this planning case was published in the Pioneer Press on April 25, 2024. 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. Staff has not received any written or verbal comments regarding this proposal as of May 2, 2024. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 10, 2024. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by June 8, 2024 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. Page 7 of 8 Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Location Map C. Variance Request Letter D. Certificate of Survey E. Floor Plans F. Elevation Options Page 8 of 8 Attachment A ARZEN HILLS Planning Case No. 24- Submittal Date 1245 West Highway 96 Application Completed Date Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 Accepted by Telephone (651) 792-7800 Receipt Number Fax (651) 634-5137 Council Decision www.cityofardenhills.org Council Decision Date 2024 LAND USE APPLICATION Applicant Information Applicant: Kam and Jennifer Schmaltz_._ __ __-_-__.___-_ Address: 1511 Dawn Circle, Arden Hills MN 55112 Telephone No., 608-628-7496 Other: 608-628-5846 Fax No_: Email Address: jen.schmaltz@gmail-corn Property Information Property Owner: Kam and Jennifer Schmaltz _ _ _ ___ nAmp-rAddrass: 1511 Dawn Circle, Arden Hills MN 55112 Owner Telephone No Address of Property Involved: 1511 Dawn Circle, Arden Hills MN 55112 ---_.-------_..--- Legal Descri ttp on: Bnarknoll Plat Two Lot 6 Blk 3 Property ID No,: 223023320057 608-628-7496 Other. 608-628-5846 Type of Use: Residential Zone: R-1 Property Acreage: 0.32 - Type of Request LJ Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Fee: $550 + Escrow: $2,500) Conditional Use or Interim Use Permit/CUP or IUP Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500) Preliminary Plat (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $2,500) ❑ Final Plat (Fee: $450 + Escrow: $1,000) ❑ Concept Plan Review (Fee: $300 + Escrow: $750) ❑ Master Planned Unit Development or Master Special Development Plan (Fee: $600 + Escrow: $2,500) ❑ Final Planned Unit Development or Final Special Development Plan (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $2,000) ❑ Planned Unit Development Amendment or Special Develo ment Plan Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500f ❑ Site Plan Review (Fee: $450 + Escrow: $1,500) ❑ Rezoning or TCAAP Regulating Plan Amendment (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $1,500) ❑ Zoning Code or TCAAP Redevelopment Code Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500) ❑ City Code Amendment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,500) ❑ Lot Split/Minor Subdivision (R-1 and R-2 Districts Only) (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,500) ® Variance or Permitted Adjustment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,000) ❑ Vacation of Easement or Right -of -Way (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000) ❑ Appeal of Administrative Decision (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000) ❑ Land Use Requests — Not Already Specified (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000 Page I of 3 Brief Description of Request (please also include a typed detailed letter explaining the proiect): We would like to add a third garage stall to the east, adjacent to the existing two garage stalls. This would allow us space to store another car as we have children that will be approaching driving age. This would also allow us for much needed garage storage space, as our house currently has minimal storage space. We would also like to add another bedroom and office above the garage to keep up with our family size plus the post-COVID demands of working from home. *IMPORTANT* • Certain applications are subject to review and approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Contact RCWD directly at 763-398-3070 for additional information. ® The land use application fees do not cover building, sign, or other permit fees that may be required upon approval of a land use application. ® All applications will be subject to additional fees for reimbursement of consultant costs associated with filing, reviewing, and processing of application in the form of an escrow to the City. Molina & Information Requirements The City requests that you make a pre -application meeting with the Community Development Director to discuss the application process, requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the Community Development Director or Planning Commission, a certified survey of the property is required for all applications. A checklist with additional application requirements can be found at viww.citvofardenhills.orq/landuseapplications. Complete/Incomplete Applications Under Minnesota Statute, Chapter 15.99, cities have 15 business days to review all plans and application materials to ensure they satisfy City requirements. During the 15 day review period, planning staff will provide written comments on the application and may request plan revisions. If the application is determined to be complete, Minnesota State Statute then requires the City to approve or deny the application within 60 days, up to 120 days. If not complete, the City may require plan revisions and/or additional information before the application is scheduled for Planning Commission review and/or City Council action. Project will not be scheduled for any meeting until the application submittal is found to be complete by the Community Development Director. Payment of Fees and Escrows The undersigned acknowledges that she/he understands that before a land use application can be deemed complete, all required fees and escrows must be paid to the City. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. Each separate land use request shall be charged a separate administrative fee and escrow even if submitted on the same application. Costs expended in reviewing and processing an application will be charged against the cash escrow and credited to the City. Charges to the escrow may include planning and engineering staff time, City Attorney and consulting fees, and mailing costs. If, at any time, a required cash escrow is depleted to less than 20 percent of its original amount, the applicant shall deposit additional funds in the cash escrow account as determined by the City. The City may withhold final action on a land use application, withhold building permits, and/or rescind prior action until all fees have been paid. Unused portions of an escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. The escrow may be reduced or increased by the Community Development Director on a project by project basis. Notice of Meeting Attendance In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a designated representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the next available agenda. Page 2 of 3 Meeting Schedule Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the first Wednesday after the first Monday of each month at 6:30 PM, though please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. City Council meetings are held typically the last Monday of the same month at 7:00 PM. Meetings are held in the Council Chambers at the City of Arden Hills, 1246 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112, unless otherwise stated. The schedules below are for reference purposes only. Project will not be scheduled for any meeting until the application submittal is found to be complete by the Community Development Director. 2024 Planning Commission and City Council Schedule (*subject to change) ENTATIVE LANNING MMISSION TING DATE* rally held on the Fesday after the first Mondayat 6:30 .m_ TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE* (Generally held on the fourth Monday at 7:00 p.m.) DEADLINE FOR LAND USE APPLICATION SUBMISSION (1" day of the preceding month} January3 Februa 12 December 1 2023 February7 March 11 Januar 2 March 6 April 8 Februa 1 April 3 Aril 22 March 1 8 May 27* April iMay June 5 June 24 Ma 1 Jut 3* ly 22 June 3 August 7 August 26 July 1 Se tember 4 September 23 Au ust 1 October 9 October 28 September 2 November 6 November 25 October 1 IL December 4 January 13 (2025) November 1 Acknowledgement and Signature I hereby apply for the above consideration and declare that the information and materials submitted with this application are complete and accurate per city code and ordinance requirements. I fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. rroperry owner 5cgnature (Required) Applicant Signature (If different than the property owner) 3129/2024 Date Date Please contact the Community Development Director at 651-792-7800 if you have any questions regarding this application. Additional copies of this application form are available on the City's website: www.citvofardenhills oLgIlanduseapolications Page 3 of 3 Location Map Attachment B v,. ' r1i5. 4 ?6 2,2 Ala ° 15� 4/23/2024, 3:36:07 PM Personal Property Tax Parcels L••—•� Cities r County Offices W •:� s .1;1�. .•y.+�r 43r11" t 72 a j 1119 t111 F 1 t 1.121 { "�2 �86 �1� NMI 5730�4 T7* 173 Palk 1d2 15 1 w< � 1:2,400 0 0.03 0.06 0.11 mi 0 0.04 0.09 0.17 km Ramsey County Ramsey County MN Attachment C March 29, 2024 Arden Hills Planning Commission 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 Dear Arden Hills Planning Commission: Thank you very much for your consideration of our project at 1511 Dawn Circle, Arden Hills MN 55112. We originally purchased our home in 2012 and in those 12 years our family has grown and needs have changed. We do not want to move as we love our home, neighborhood and the city of Arden Hills so we are very excited at the prospect of an addition to our home that will allow our home to meet the needs of our family. Here is a brief description of our project: 1. Add a third car garage stall, adjacent to the existing two car garage stall. - We plan to make the third garage stall the full length of the house. This will provide us with much needed storage space for another car as well as meet general storage needs. Currently our home has almost zero storage space, apart from an attic above our current garage that is not easily accessible. All other home space is finished square footage with no storage space in the utility room. As such, we would utilize the back half of the third garage stall for shelving and space for recreational items like bikes and lawn equipment. Our oldest child is now 12, so it won't be long until we will likely have a third vehicle to utilize the newly added garage. This is preferred to storing a car in the driveway or on the street which isn't always visually appealing to neighbors and can be difficult to maneuver around. 2. Add a fourth bedroom upstairs above the garage. - When we moved into our home in 2012 we only had one child so three bedrooms upstairs was sufficient. Now we have three children (ages 8, 10 and 12). We would love to have a fourth bedroom upstairs to allow for all three children to have their own bedroom, which will be very nice as we approach the drama -filled teenage years. 3. Add an office upstairs above the garage. - When we moved into our home in 2012, we both worked in offices outside of the home. Now post-COVID, we both work from home. We need space for another office to make working from home a more practical solutions for both us and for our employers. Our home is on a corner lot. To add the third car garage stall, we would need to expand east approximately 12' from where our existing home ends. This would not allow for the required 40' setback from the edge of our property to the corner, thus the variance request. Our land survey has confirmed that the planned addition would reduce the 40' setback to 28.2'. This would be the only variance we would need to request as we have reviewed the remaining code requirements for properties in the R-1 district and we would maintain compliance with these requirements. The ratio calculations after the proposed addition would be as follows: 1. Min Landscape Lot Area: 68.8% - This is over the 65% minimum, as confirmed by our Land survey with 31.2% covered by impervious surface Impervious = 4,396 sq ft / 14,087 sq ft 2. Lot Covered by Structure: 22.3% - This is under the 25% maximum, with measurements confirmed by our Land survey. - Structure = 3,135 sq ft / 14,087 sq ft 3. Floor Area Ratio: 27.9% - This is under the 30% maximum, calculated using the following measurements: o Main floor area — 1,292 sq ft o Lower level sq feet —1,292 sq ft o Upper floor sq feet (existing) — 966 sq ft o Upper floor sq feet (new addition) — 386 sq ft - Floor Area = 3,936 sq ft / 14,087 sq ft In addition to the code requirements noted above, we also considered the 6 "hardship criteria" in relation to our proposed project: 1. The property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. - Within the official controls, we cannot expand our home east to add the third garage stall. There is no other space on our property that would allow for the addition of a third garage stall within the official controls. In addition, without the third garage stall we would be unable to add an office and a bedroom above our existing two car garage. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. - Our home is on a corner lot, which is unique to the property and not created by us. 40' on the corner lot side is much more than the 10/25' required for non -corner R-1 district homes. If we were on a non -corner lot, adding the third car garage stall would conform to the current R-1 requirements. 3. The deviation from the Ordinance with any attached conditions will still be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. - This property addition would not impede visibility for drivers and would still provide a total setback of 28.2' feet (not including the additional portion of the yard beyond our property line). 4. The variance will not create a land use not permitted in the zone - With the variance, our property would continue to be a residential single family home and we would not create any land use that is not permitted. The home would not be used for any other purpose. 5. The variance will not alter the essential character of the City - There would be no alteration to the character of the City. The home would remain a residential single family home. As the drawing portrays, the home has the same look and feel as it previously did, it would simply have more usable square footage. We are confident that this would increase the value of our property which would not only benefit us, but also the city of Arden Hills. 6. The variance is not for economic reasons alone - While our proposed project would increase the value of our home, this has no bearing on the reason for this request. The cost of the project to us would likely exceed the increased home value, but we would like to do this to maximize the usable space for our family. We have a great contractor, Barton Construction, that we would hire to perform the work. They have done several projects for us in the past and we have been very pleased with the results. We had an initial meeting with them where they indicated that this project makes a lot of sense given our current home layout. We are also currently working with Meyer Design Service, who drew up our initial set of plans and elevations. We would hire them to draw up the full set of plans upon approval. Because we would have high quality professionals complete this project for us, we know that this project would go smoothly and would be done in a reasonable timeframe. We have seen third car garage additions in our neighborhood that go uncompleted for many many months and so we are committed to ensuring that would not be the case with our project. The one design element that still is being flushed out is whether we want to include a third dormer window in the front of the house as that seems to be the only way to get natural light to the office addition. There are two elevation options we are considering, which is shown in the elevation pictures submitted. These are labeled Option 1 and Option 2. We believe either option looks visually appealing and fits with the character of the house. We plan to finalize this decision if our variance request is approved and at that point more detailed construction plans will be drawn up. We would be happy to address any additional questions you may have related to our project and want to thank you again for our consideration of our proposed project. Sincerely, Kam and Jennifer Schmaltz 608-628-7496 (Jennifer) 608-628-5846 (Kam) CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY —for— KAM AND JENNIFER SCHMALTZ —of— 1511 DAWN CIRCLE ARDEN HILLS, MN 0.4 GRAPHIC S zo 0 10 2 Attachment D I INCH = 20 FEET 934.@� I 1 go:35 05.00 15 ----------- ............. I m SHED I ................:.. .La. am9 W Iyam' 4_____________�932.2I _ I I � I DECK CANT. sa 1 EXISTING / HOUSE GARAGE s� FLOOR 932 8 PORCH I ss, sas Iq 5 I 932 ' z waao 3�s y I wao I I 0 930. a a eo N89"41 '28' 9e ' :.84.W e DAWN CIRCLE r' I 10 ,I z Iu, w to 0.4 �- �r GATE 40.2 — CQ, v3s� °a M 23 3I.a c 13212 �o I as I I 12.0 x93ao 19=2c,:: Nry, ..................... w ¢ av 10 ss 0W ...Dw.... IY IY G I o sn �o a � o AG�QO 9 .� IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATIONS 60 60 NORTH TOTAL LOT AREA ....................................... 14,087 S.F. (0.32 Acres) " EXISTING HOUSE, GARAGE, CANT ................. 1,794 S.F. EXISTING DECK ......................................... 666 S.F. rrr EXISTING PORCH ....................................... 185 S.F. T 'EXISTING CONCRETE .................................. 865 S.F. EXISTING SHED ......................................... 52 S.F. SURVEY NOTES EXISTING WALLS ....................................... 69 S.F. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ..................... 3,631 S.F. LEGEND - Field survey was completed by E.G. Rud PERCENT IMPERVIOUS ................................ 25.8 % DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND and Sons, Inc. on 03/26/24. O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET - Bearings shown are on Ramsey County EXISTING HOUSE,GARAGE,CANT................. 1,794 S.F. datum. EXISTING DECK ......................................... 666 S.F. )8( 800.0 DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION - Parcel ID Number: 22-30-23-32-0057. EXISTING PORCH ....................................... 185 S.F. xLDII.z DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION - Curb shots are taken at the top and back of EXISTING CONCRETE .................................. 865 S.F. ✓ DENOTES DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE curb. EXISTING SHED ......................................... 52 S.F. ® DENOTES AIR CONDITIONING UNIT - This survey was prepared without the EXISTING WALLS ....................................... 69 S.F. © DENOTES ELECTRICAL BOX benefit of title work. Additional easements, PROPOSED ADDITION ................................. 438 S.F. © DENOTES GAS METER restrictions and/or encumbrances may exist PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ................................ 327 S.F. © DENOTES CABLE PEDESTAL other than those shown hereon. Survey TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ..................... 4,396 S.F. ❑T DENOTES TELEPHONE PEDESTAL subject to revision upon receipt of a current PERCENT IMPERVIOUS ................................ 31.2 DENOTES HYDRANT title commitment or an attorneys title opinion. HOUSE NOTES x DENOTES FENCE ❑— DENOTES WOOD FENCE * BUILDER TO VERIFY HOUSE DIMENSIONS, SEWER DEPTH � DENOTES RETAINING WALL BENCHMARK AND FOUNDATION DEPTH. * DRIVEWAYS ARE SHOWN FOR GRAPHIC PURPOSES ONLY. ���������� DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS BENCHMARK: RAMSEY COUNTY FINAL DRIVEWAY DESIGN AND LOCATION TO BE F— BENCHMARK 9059 DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR. DENOTES BITUMINOUS SURFACE L — — L ELEVATION: 962.42 (NAVD88) * FINISHED GRADE ADJACENT TO HOME SHALL BE 0.5 FEET F— - - --1 BELOW TOP OF BLOCK EXCEPT AT DRIVEWAY AND PATIO. L.., _ J DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE Lot 6, Block 3, BRIARKNOLL PLAT TWO, Ramsey County, Minnesota. I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by direct that I duly Licensed DATUM: Ramsey JOB NO. 240249AB I jilC G. BOB S SONS. INC. me or under my supervision and am a REVISIONS SCALE: 1" = 20 ! IyiV`tL Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Professional Lands urve)/ors 1 04-OS-24 EVISEDIMPERVIOUS CALCS RAF DATE: 03-28-24 6776 Lake Drive NE, Suite 110 By: z DRAWN BY: RAF Lino Lakes, MN 55014 innesot License No. 41578 3 Tel. (651) 361-8200 Fax (651) 361-8701 Dated 5th day of Ap 024. Ivo. DnrE DESC—TIOn aY CREW: CB/BJ —grud.com 6-3 z O Lu LU O LU z I Attachment E z O w LU LU O LU z z O LU LU z O z X w ----------------------------------, ,z II Elevation Options Option 1: NEW SOUTH ELEVATION I Attachment F NEW SOUTH / EAST ELEVATION Option 2: NEW EA&T ELEVATION 2 NEW E45T ELEVATION 2