The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCCP 03-13-2000 - ~- ..... r' \-.... CITY Of ARDEN tULLS 4364 \NEST ROUND LAKE ROAD ARDEN HILLS. MN 55112-5794 AGENDA CnY COUNCIL MEETING, crn' llALL MONDAY, MARCl:l13, 2000, 7:30 p.M. City PhilosopbY To provide a basic and necessary scope of quality services through the innovative and purposeful use of resources. 7 :30 l' ,M. 1. CaU to Order 7 :30 l' .M.. 2. APproval of Meeting Agenda 7:301'.M. 3. APprovalofM.inute!l a. February 22,2000 Council Worksession 7:35 l' .M. 4. Consent Calendar """ ,.~ ,.., _ '" '""'" ~,_ ~ ,,".-'. ~.- '" '" C~ ~."cl' "'" wm ~ - '" ",.-"" '"""''''''''' ,- """ "" ~ ~~_"_""~ ,_, ~_.~."cl' _~.~-;. w""'- '" ,_ wm ~ -" ,- '" """", "'""' ............... -""';. ,. nonnat se<luence on the agenda. a. Claims and 1'ayro\\ b. Receive 1999 Treasurer's Report 7:401'.M.. 5. public Conllnents "",oo ~,_~ 'm ",_. ""~" ". "."cl"'-" "" ,- '" _'" ~ '" ~... fu ",,- ",,,,,.,, - -,~ -.-.-. 'm '" -"" ""'. ",' --"'''' ...'" ,-~"" -. '" -'. ".". _, ,~, ,m "" ,.". .","". ""'" '" -, ~ "".. ..''''''''"''..,_._'""'.-. w....---" "",_,," _"......' ""'~ mOO -" -..".... - ,.., presentation. ... PHONE: l651163305676 · fAX l6511633-7839 AGENDA - PAGE TWO 7:45 P.M. 6. Unrmished and New Bosiness a. P1illJninSl Cas~ 1. Case #00-12, LaWrence Erickson, Rear Yard Variance 2. Case #00-13, Julie SChumacher, Special Use Pennit (Class II Home OcCupation) 3. Case #00-14, Chuck Mertensofto, Comer Side Yard Varianee 4. Case #00-15, Robert A1eksander, Rear Yard Variance 5. Josephine East Development, Road Request b. {;itv Hi!11 1. Architectural Alliance, Authorization to Proceed with Rebid of City Hall 2. Authorize City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for seWer and Water connection c. COllUnendation, Public Works Maintenance Department Employees, Mike Schifsky and Fred Reed ~..~ - 9:30 P.M. 7. Administrator COlllments CITy COUNCIL MEETING, CITY HALL MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2000, 7:30 P.M. - 9:40 P.M. 8. COOncil COlllments 10:00 P.M. 9. Adjool"Q The abOve times may Vary depending upon length of issue diSCUSSion. F:IUSERS\SHEILA ICOUNCIL IAGENDASIREGlILAR12000IR.03_13_00.DOC -.: 03/13/00 MON 09:09 FAX 6126337839 City of Arden Hills 141001 -- -, TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST. TIME USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* 1784 4810551 03/13 09: 08 00'38 2 OK . -- --- 03/10/00 FRI 10:41 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECT I ON 10 ST. TIME USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT . -- -- City of Arden Hills I4i 001 ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* 1774 6124219511 03/10 10:40 00'58 3 OK 03/10/00 FRI 10:39 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST. TIME USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT . -....... -- City of Arden Hills Ig] 001 ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* 1773 6461220 KMWB WB23 MPLS M 03110 10:38 00'48 3 OK 03/10/00 FRI 10:36 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST. TIME USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT . -- -- CIty of Arden Hills ~001 ********************* ... TX REPORT ... ********************* 1772 6123701378 BRW, INC. 03110 10:35 00'48 3 OK 03/10/00 FRI 10:35 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST. TIME USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT . -- -- City of Arden Hills ~001 ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* 1771 4821262 03/10 10:34 01'08 3 OK 03/10/00 FRI 10:32 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST. TIllE USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT . .-- -- City of Arden HIlls ~001 ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* 1769 6333846 03110 10: 30 01'46 3 OK 03/10/00 FRI 10:30 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMISSION OK TXlRX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST. TIME USAGE T PGS. SENT RESULT . -- -- CIty of Arden Hills ~001 ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* 1768 6286833 03110 10: 29 00'51 3 OK 03/10/00 FRI 10:42 FAX 6126337839 C1ty of Arden H111s Ig] 001 *************************** *** ERROR TX REPORT *** *************************** TX FUNCTION WAS NOT COMPLETED TX/RX NO 1770 CONNECTION TEL 4810433 CONNECTION ID ST. TIME 03110 10: 41 USAGE T 00'00 PGS. SENT 0 RESULT NG #018 . -- -- . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS 4364 WEST ROUND LAKE ROAD ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112-5794 SEND TO: " LLS.T FAX#: MESSAGE FROM: -:To e DATE: ~O{~7> --NO~6FPAGES, rnCLlJDING TIllS PAGE: . NOTES: {J-~/t:Yl--'S1?'l C01A..t-_rr'-t L(~ (2.-1\(2/ *- \:::0 ~S fJ l.~'S P A-(2. CH'Z... ]'fr N1?>. ~ lCe...h ~ . >Ir ~ o.....-C~n... YV<::SS - NAf'JC-~ Nb-o ~ (l TV - Ll z..... N~.rl.. [NCS PHONE #: L>f ~-v1 TIME: j 0 ~. -36 P+- 3 ***IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL*** PHONE: (651) 633-5676 FAX: (651) 633-7839 :. . . "'e ... DRAFT MEETING MINUTES JOINT WORKSESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2000, 4:45 P.M. Mayor Probst called the meeting to order at 4:47 p.m. Those present included Councilmembers Beverly Aplikowski, David Grant, Gregg Larson and Lois Rem. Staff present included City Administrator, Joe Lynch; City Treasurer, Terry Post; Public Works Director, Dwayne Stafford, Parks and Recreation Director, Tom Moore; Building Inspector, David Scherbel; Associate Planner, Nancy Randall; Recreation Program Supervisor ,Michelle Olson; and Recording Secretary, Sheila Stowell. Plarrning Commission members present were: Steve Erickson, Stephen 1. Baker, Brent Nelson, David Sand, Terri Duchenes, and Therese Galatowitsch. a. City Hall 1. Architectural Alliance, Presentation of Revised Intcrior Design Ms. Jearrne Sterner, Architectural Alliance, was introduced by City Administrator Lynch, at which time she presented an overview of the original City Hall design, and the revised design, with all current offices on the main level, and increased lower level space build-out at an estimated cost increase of $60,000. Mayor Probst opened the floor for discussion. Discussion items of the revised plan included size and location of conference rooms and possible build-out of conference room on the second floor; necessity of additional stairway from lower level to main floor; excavation for full basement expansion during initial construction; review of proposed re-bid schedule and need for authorization for plan revisions; anticipated fee title being obtained in May; additional basement storage space and security for Parks and Recreation Department supplies; and a required separate entrance for required National Guard office personnel. Staff was directed to proceed with an updated package, as revised, and an updated bid and construction schedule, for formal Council consideration at their March 13, 2000 regular Council meeting. The previous Alternate I (brick or stone exterior materials) was to be included on the re-bid. Staff was further directed to correspond with the Department of Army regarding the City's proposed construction schedule and seek their confirmation of the proposed land transfer date. Staff was also directed to contact the City of Shoreview for possible cost sharing for the proposed 12-inch emergency cross-connection between the Cities as part ofthe City Hall construction. ARDEN HILLS JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION FEBRUARY 22, 2000 DRAFT . Staff was directed to review, with the architect and consultant, the City Council Chambers audio/visual design and related budget, and provide recommendations for the March Worksession. 2. Sewer and Water Connection City Administrator Lynch advised Councilmembers that the sewer and water cOillleetion was not originally bid as part of the City Hall construction project. Mr. Lynch and Public Works Director Stafford were recommending that the Council authorize the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for this connection. Mr. Stafford reviewed the projected costs and indicated that it would cost an additional $8,000 for the water main service to City Hall if a twelve inch line is installed for future cross connection with the City of Shoreview, he suggested that the City consider an agreement with the City of Shore view for an emergency water connection as part of the City Hall construction project. Staff was directed to include the water and sewer connection, and related emergency water cross- connection with the City of Shoreview, with the original City Hall construction bid package. b. Metropolitan Council Presentation, Metro Transit Restructuring Study/Service Plan . Representatives of the Metropolitan Council's Metro Transit office, Adam Harrington and Randy Rosevall were introduced by City Administrator Lynch, and proceeded to review the Metro Transit Restructuring Study, Sectors I and 2, Volume II: Service Plan, anticipated to begin operation in September, 2000. Additional implementation is scheduled for 2001, increasing the frequency of service for the Arden Hills area. Discussion items included current and proposed ridership numbers, schedules and routes; Bethel and Northwestern College usage and potential alleviation of parking problems; implications of current and proposed service; outdated demographic information for the Roseville Circulator; additional "Park and Ride" sites; and federal funding requirements. Councilmembers were requested to forward their comments to staff, and staff was directed to draft a resolution for formal Council action at their February 28, 2000 regular Council meeting, reflecting the City's comments on the study including those regarding the Metro Transit's consideration of an additional route to serve the Bethel College area. Staff was further directed, upon adoption of the resolution by the City Council, to provide a copy of the resolution to Ramsey County. c. Future Land Use Discussion as Proposed by Vento Re-Use Committee and Comprehensive Plan Update (Joint Worksession with Planning Commission) -- -- ARDEN HILLS JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION FEBRUARY 22, 2000 Dw~AFr . Mayor Probst formally welcomed the Plaillling Commission members and introductions were made. City Administrator Lynch introduced the discussion of the Civic Center Rezoning and original intent of the Vento Re-Use Plan for the benefit and review of those newer Councilmembers and Planning Commission members. Mayor Probst provided a historical perspective over the last ten (10) years related to the Twin Cities Army An1munition Plant (TCAAP) property, the Vento Reutilization Committee, and impacts on the City of Arden Hills and surrounding communities, the school district, and community service agencies. Associate Plailller, Nancy Randall, addressed financial and plaillling considerations as the Plaillling Commission and City Council consider Phase II of the TCAAP zoning exercise and related approval ofthe Comprehensive Plan by the Metropolitan Council. Ms. Randall spoke to scheduling requirements by the Planning Commission for review of Phase II of the TCAAP zoning, as well as a timeframe for the Commission and City Council's review of the seven Neighborhood Business District sites recently zoned. . Discussion items included the military process of land release; zoning unification between the Comprehensive Plan and Civic Center Zoning District Ordinance recently adopted; legal easement covenant to protect preserve area (i.e., future tower construction requests); review of the Town Center option and apparent confusion over the intent of that option; and possible alterations for setback requirements to allow for a more urban downtown approach in the Town Center. Further discussion included the proposed Ramsey County maintenance facility and how it is incorporated into the vision for the property development; incorporation of Civic Center zoning into the TKDA consultant's study for the Ramsey County maintenance facility; possible grant monies for further studies, determination if the City wants to be the receiving party for the land as it comes out, or zoning considerations only; additional input from former consultant ,(Camiros); maintaining a presentable entryway for a town center; ramifications along County Road E and those existing retail businesses; and the level of detail and accuracy of projections. Mayor Probst announced that the City would be in a staff transition period which would impact this project and its schedule, with Ms. Randall leaving the City's employment the end of April and employment advertising currently underway for another Planner. It was the consensus of those present the following schedule needed to be initiated: -- . Development of a basic City philosophy and need for City to be pro-active, not reactive, with zoning, infrastructure, and development of the TCAAP property . Staff completion of outstanding portions of the Comprehensive Plan and -- ARDEN HILLS JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION FEBRUARY 22, 2000 0, 0') IF, a:T' .'\',....... 4 . resubmittal to the Metropolitan Council (within two months if possible . Provide Met Council with a current and twenty-year scenario for TCAAP development regarding water, sewer and other infrastructure projected requirements, depending on how the property is released . Met Council approval of City's final Comprehensive Plan . Review oflegal descriptions for those various parcels consisting of the City Hall, Ramsey County maintenance facility, National Guard, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), Building #105, Alliant TechSystems building and surrounding safety arcs, and the Army Reserve Center parcel, using the Ramsey County GIS . Begin work on "Part A" ofthe TCAAP, Phase II zoning study, consisting of preliminary review for the Town Center as an immediate step, then proceeding with further issues and infrastructure studies. . Council consideration of financial implications for initiation of Phase II Staff was directed to draft a detailed action plan for Planning Commission action; with copies going to the City Council and Planning Commission for consideration and further discussion at a City Council/Planning Commission joint Worksession on March 20,2000; and Council definition of the process and schedule to be followed available by the end of April. . Staff was further directed to formally forward the conditions ofthe Civic Center zoning requirements to Ramsey County as they continue their maintenance facility construction planning process, and on a stafflevel, obtain Ramsey County's proposed schedule for construction of their facility. Mayor Probst and Councilmembers thanked the Plaillling Commission members for their attendance and discussion. d. Highways 96/10 Discussion Public Works Director Stafford provided an historical perspective and reviewed the most recent three options and projected costs of each option, along with traffic counts at this intersection. Discussion items included amenities and proposed costs of each respective plan; and a permanent solution to present to MnDOT rather than a short-term solution. Staff was directed to provide public notice to affected residents (including Arden Manor Mobile Home Park residents, North Heights Lutheran Church, Mike Fix of TCAAP) of an informational meeting to be held the week of March 6,2000 between staff, the City Engineer, Ramsey County representatives, MnDOT representatives, and the City Council to provide these three options and the City's proposed recommendation to Ramsey County. Staff was further directed to schedule formal Council action at their March 13, 2000 regular Council meeting. -- -- ARDEN HILLS JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION FEBRUARY 22, 2000 DRAfT 5 . Staff was further directed to clarify with the City's Consulting Engineer, BRW, the actual existence of a residence and the cost differential between alternatives No. I and No. 1A. MisccIlaneous Finance Departmcnt Mr. Post, advised the City Council that he was currently working with Ramsey County on submission ofa CDBG grant for funding of the Old Hwy. 10 Watermain Project, as well asadditional funding for the Arden Manor Mobile Home Park project. Mr. Post addressed several issues on which the City's Operations and Finance Committee sought City Council clarification; senior utility rates; rubbish hauling; and the Assessment Policy. Mr. Post also briefly updated the City Council on future requirements ofthe Government Accounting Standards Board pronouncement #34 which includes Governmental Funds financial reporting on a full accrual basis. Smaller cities may be exempt from this reporting procedure. . Public Works Departmcnt . Mr. Stafford advised that, due to the lack of snowplowing this winter, the Public Works Department had been able to pursue various department activities, and the department was anticipating centerline street sweeping if the weather continued to be mild. Mr. Stafford stated that a recent innovative plexi-glass installation on the passenger doors of the larger snowplow vehicles had received the attention ofthe City's insurance provider, Berkley Risk, and was being shared with other communities that they insure. Mr. Stafford sought Council comment regarding the City retaining the 1991 pickup as a spare vehicle, once its replacement in part of the fleet. Parks and Recreation Departmcnt Mr. Moore reviewed various Parks and Recreation Department activities, including distribution of the City's Spring Recreation Program Guide; an update on a joint meeting with Presbyterian Homes and Northwestern College regarding soccer field use; continued and expanded planning for the annual Day in the Park, scheduled for Saturday, June 10, 2000; work with various agencies in maintaining the natural habitat of Crepeau Park; work with Eagle Scouts on several trail projects; hiring of SUfill11er staff; and initiation of an "Adopt a Flower Garden" program. Additional Council discussion included use and installation of banners for the City's Fiftieth Anniversary celebration. --- -- ARDEN HILLS JOINT CITY COUNCILIPLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION FEBRUARY 22, 2000 D11 [;') I!j~ lL: T g',H,r I . Councilmember Larson Councilmember Larson continued discussion on the goal prioritization and direction to the Operations and Finance Committee. Councilmember Larson also updated City Councilmembers on activities of the Water Quality Task Force and continuing discussions regarding formation of the Ingerson Neighborhood Review Group. Councilmember Grant Couneilmember Grant complimented the Parks and Recreation Department on the trail grooming he had observed. Councilmember Aplikowski Councilmember Aplikowski updated Councilmembers on the City Events Task Foree activities, and the group's plans for observation and serving as greeters at the upcoming Town Hall meeting, tentatively scheduled for April I, 2000. Mayor Probst . Mayor Probst and Councilmembers spoke briefly of broad Town Hall meeting plans. Mayor Probst stated that he would like to incorporate the groundbreaking for the new City Hall to coincide with the Town Hall meeting. Mayor Probst requested that staff include invitations to the event to Congressman Bruce Vento and staff; Senator Rod Grams; and Department of Army representatives. Mayor Probst advised that Councilmembers concurred with the Job Description for the Planner position and directed staff to proceed with advertising for the position. Mayor Probst complimented the Public Works Department on their handling of recent watermain breaks. Mayor Probst stated that he would be moderating a meeting on April 26, 2000 of the 'Triangle Transit" meeting, with various representatives ofthe Metropolitan Council, Ramsey County Commissioner, area City Councilmembers, and area Planning Commission members being invited. ADJOURN MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). -- ~- . . . , CITY OF ARDEN HILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT TO BE APPROVED AT 03/13/00 COUNCIL MEETING CLAIMS PAID SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING 102128/00) PAGE] OF 3 t7279 t7280 1728t 17282 17283 17284 17285 17286 t7287 t7288 t7289 17290 1729t 17292 17293 17294 02/24/00 02/25/00 02/28/00 02/28/00 02/28/00 02/29/00 03/0 lIOO 03/01/00 03/01/00 03/OlIOO 03/01/00 03/01/00 03/0ll00 03/01/00 03/07/00 03/07/00 Arden Hills Deve10 ment Co oration PeU Cash Affini Plus Federal Credit Union leMA Retirement Trust - 457 Public Em 10 ees Retirement Association MN State Treasurer AMB Pro crt Co oration E-Z Rec clin , Inc. Health Partners t.U.O.E. Local 49 Lake Coun Service Coo erative Lake Count Service Coo erative Minnesota Mutual Life Ml'WA MPSA Northern States Power Com an t4.859.45 226.70 4,289.94 1,564.92 3.t75.48 3,569.06 4378.00 4.714.00 615.75 175.00 4943.91 452.53 245.95 100.00 25.00 7,308.0t Subtotal - Paid Claims 50,643.70 Paid Claims From Above - 50,643.70 Add Unpaid Claims. Page 3 of 3- 25 689.27 Total Accounts Payable Claims for Council Approval, 03/13/00- 76,332.97 Note: Checks for unpaid claims totaling $92,119.55 were mailed on February 29, 2000 after approval at the February 28, 2000 Council Meeting. They were check numbers 1723 J - 17278. This sequence corresponds to unpaid temporary numbers T1 - T48. Check numbers 17229 - 17230 were used for alignment. 1999 Second Half Pro e Tax Reimbursement Pett Cash Re lenishrnent First March Pa roll First March Pa roll First March Pa 011 Bid Permit Surchar e 4 99 March Rent/Oen 0 eratin Ex Feb Service Dental Insurance - March Febru Pa roll Deductions Heallh Insurance - March COBRA - March Life Insurance - March Munici al Utilit Ins ector's School-Perron 1st uarter Meetin - D. Winkel Febru Service ",,"dY'''",,''"l.<l'''y.b]~'d,im,1 . . . '. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT TO BE APPROVED AT 03/13/00 COUNCIL MEETING PAGE 2 OF 3 UNPAID CLAIMS REGISTER: I?ffiml@I :ImllililKi i:nl:Mb~Nt::::.. TOI 03/14/00 Accurate Press, Inc. 656.04 Feb Newsletter/Pennit Fonns T02 03/14/00 Advanta~e Paner 208.46 PaDer Supplies-CH T03 03114/00 Airtouch Cellular 88.30 Cellular Phone Service T04 03/14100 Animal Control Services, Inc. 400.35 Dog/Cat Enforcement-Feb T05 03/t 4100 AT&T t2.49 Long Distance-Public Works T06 03/14100 Beisswenl!er's How-To Store 98.95 LockslKevslPaint-Parks T07 03/14/00 Bift's Inc. 240.28 Portable Toilets T08 03/14/00 Brunn, LuAnn 240.00 February Cleaning-CH T09 03114/00 Comorate Express 403.61 Office Supplies/Cony Paner no 03114/00 Economic Develooment Assoc ofMN 175.00 2000 Membership Fee III 03/14100 Electro Watchman 479.26 A1ann System 311 - 5/31 Il2 03/t4/00 Frattallone's Hardware 35.80 FebruarvPurchases Il3 03114/00 Glenwood Inglewood 34.89 Soringwater-CH TI4 03114/00 Gonvea Homes 272.23 Refund-Bid. Penni! #6957 Il5 03/14/00 Gonher Snort 435.19 Soccer Balls (30) Il6 03/14/00 Graina-er Inc. 14.06 Circuit Breaker-S. Tower Il7 03/14/00 Indeoendent School Dist #621 575.00 Bide Supervision 9/99-12/99 TI8 03/14100 Kissoon, Tillack 28.00 Refund~Basketban T19 03/14100 Lake Johanna Improvement Society 500.00 1999 Goose Removal T20 03/] 4/00 League of.MN Cities 60.00 Safety & Loss Control Seminar JL TM & DS T2t 03114100 Leail'ue of.MN Cities 96.57 2000 Dir of.MN Cities T22 03114/00 LeaQue of.MN Cities Insurance Trust 83.00 CMC 18091-Reverse Credit T23 03/14100 McCallum Transfer 43.t8 Delivery Service T24 03/t 4/00 Municinal Toy Company, Inc. 144.00 Plastic Eggs-Annual EM Hunt T25 03/l4/00 North Suburban Communications Comm 11,304.28 2000 Contribution-Adjusted T26 03/14100 NCPERS Graun Life 45.00 PERA Life-March T27 03114100 New Brip"hton Parks & Recreation t25.00 Christmas Tree Recvc1inl;! T28 03114/00 North Metro InsDcctions Inc. 993.60 Feb Electrical Inspections T29 03/14100 Northern Water Works Sunnly. Inc. 53.58 Curb Box Kevs-Meter Installers TJO 03/14/00 Olson, Michellc 82.08 Mileage!Expense Reimbursement TJI 03/14100 Pat Y ounp" Inc. 225.00 Instructor Fees T32 03114/00 Pitney Bowes 237.60 Postage Meter Rental 4/16-7/] 5 T33 03/14/00 Pitnev Works 465.00 Postal?e-Meter TJ4 03114/00 Post, Terrance 41.65 Mileage!Expense Reimbursement T35 03/14/00 Ramsev County 1093.55 Diesel Fuel/Unleaded Gas II Total- Unnaid Claims--- 19,991.00 II ",od~/.="I'l"y.,lI~"I';m<1 . . . . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLAIMS REPORT TO BE APPROVED AT 03/13/00 COUNCIL MEETING UNPAID CLAIMS REGISTER: PAGE 3 OF3 \)i$M'ttit ) ?~iiK~:6Atjf/ T36 T37 T38 T39 1'40 T41 1'42 T43 T44 T45 1'46 03/t 4/00 03/t4/00 03/t4/00 03/14/00 03/14/00 03/14/00 03/t4/00 03/t 4/00 03/t4/00 03/14/00 03/14/00 Shoreview Ci of S rint pes 51. Paul Pioneer Press Stafford Dwa ne Star Tribune Suburban Chamber of Commerce Tower As halt Inc. Twin Ci Unic ele Club U.S. To Co. Universi of Minnesota US West Communications 2,665.69 77.62 91.00 64.35 598.00 366.00 167.74 96.00 ]44.60 t25.00 ],302.27 Subtotal, Page 3 of3 - p 2 of 3 Brou ht Forward - Total Un aid Claims . 5,698.27 19,991.00 25,689.27 Jan & Feb BId Ins eetor - J. Thill Cellular Phone Service One Year Subscri tion Mile elEx euse Reimbursement Ad-Planner Membershi 3/01/00-3/01/0] Cold Mix Blackto Patch Instructor Fees E Hunt Su lies Shade Tree Short Course & Lab-Winkel March Phone Service ""dy1a<:<<>unt.<p"y>bl<>'<',,",,1 . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS 4364 WEST ROUND LAKE ROAD ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112.5794 February 29,2000 The Honorable Dennis Probst Members of the City Council City of Arden Hills 4364 West Round Lake Road Arden Hills, MN 55112 Dear Mayor Probst and Councilmembers: . I am respectfully submitting the attached report on the investment portfolio ofthe City for the year 1999, as required by the Investment Policy. The report is due within ninety (90) days following year-end. Please let me know if you have any questions. This is the ninth such annual report, and the eighth prepared by myself. As always, I am particularly interested in any suggestions you may have as to its content and scope. Sincerely, ~;1.~ Terrance R. Post City Treasurer Enclosure . PHONE: (651) 633.5676 . FAX (651) 633.7839 . . . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS ANNUAL REPORT OF INVESTMENT PROGRAM AND INVESTMENT ACTIVITY 1999 The City's Investment Policy requires that a comprehensive ailllual report be provided by the Treasurer that summarizes the following: Investment Strate!!ies The investment strategy is to approximate the yield on the benchmark two year Treasury Note while meeting the daily cash needs of the City and conforming to regulatory requirements. The objectives of safety and liquidity are balanced through the process of diversification, while maintaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles. Specifically, the objectives for 1999 were to maintain a position where the investment instruments were diversified by type as suggested by the policy diversification goals, as well as by maturity. The portfolio maintained a much stronger position in cash and cash equivalents than that required by policy goals because of the following considerations: a) City Hall facility reconstruction costs are currently estimated in the $3,100,000 range; and b) The planned Pavement Management Program (PMP) project (West Round Lake Road, Phase II) was not undertaken in 1999. Instead, budgeted dollars from 1999 were carried forward to 2000 to assist in undertaking a proposed $2,200,000 Ingerson neighborhood improvement project. Description of Portfolio (as of 12/31/98 and 12/31/99) Cash or Equivalents Fixed Rate Instruments (FRI) Zero Coupon Instruments Recommended Policv Goals Actual Portfolio Mix 12/31/98 12/31/99 53% 47% 34% 42% 13% 11% Pro Forma 12/31/99 * 14% 68% 18% 15% 65% 20% * Restated mix based upon $3, I 00,000 reduction in cash for City Hall facility funding requirements and $2,200,000 reduction in cash for funding the proposed 2000 Ingerson neighborhood improvement project. Portfolio Maturities Maturities should be varied, with not more than twenty percent (20%) of the portfolio invested out five years (maximum term). Maturities ($ in OOO's) . Annual Maturities Al!:!!re!!ate Maturities Investment Bv Cate!!orv Annual Entire Year Catcl!:orv Amount Pct Amount Pct Portfolio 20000 Cash - I $ 6,553 100% FRI - 2 $ 1,490 25% Zero - 3 $ 271 17% $ 8,314 59% 59% 2001 FRI $ 1,100 19% Zero $ 382 24% $ 1,482 11% 70% 2002 FRI $ 1,096 19% Zero $ 280 18% $ 1,376 10% 80% 2003 FRI $ 1,090 18% Zero $ 346 22% $ 1,436 10% 90% 2004 FRI $ 1,092 19% Zero $ 297 19% $ 1.389 10% 100% $13,997 $13.997 1- "Cash" is Cash and Cash Equivalents - generally Money Market Funds. . 2- "FRI" is Fixed Rate Instruments - generally Notes or Certificates of Deposit (CD's) 3- "Zero" is Zero Coupon Instruments - generally Government Note Strips or CD's Risk Characteristics The risk to principal due to credit quality is low as all investments are either insured by, or are an obligation of, the U.S. Government. Fixed rate investments, and zero coupon investments, are all subject to market risk if required to liquidate on short notice. In the case of fixed rate instruments and zero coupon instruments, this market risk is mitigated by an investment policy to hold for the duration of a maturity. Accordingly, internal reports reflect original costs and current market value. Maturity Philosouhv The concept of "laddering" maturities is a commonly used technique that, in this case, supports an objective that overall return will tend to more nearly approximate two ycar Treasury Note interest rates, as investments are made at then current five year intermediate term rates with varying maturities. This also allows for a consistent stream of maturities and the opportunity for investing in smaller, more frequently available amounts than iflarge amounts were invested in "lumps." This is a source of liquid funds that can either be reinvested or used for current needs as appropriate. . . . . The report shall explain the total investment return and compare the return and compare the rcturn with budgetary expectations. The total return for 1999 was $742,563 on an average portfolio balance (including cash equivalents) of $13,256,498, which equates to an average yield of 5.58% for the year. This compares favorably to 1999 interest income expectations in the range of 4.5% to 5.0%. The 1999 yield also compares closely to the benchmark 1999 average rate for a two year U.S. Treasury note of 5.43%. 1999 interest income of$742,563 resulted in a $288,363 positive deviation (63.5%) against budget. The primary reasons for this performance were slightly higher than expected yields and a larger than expected portfolio balance arising from construction start delays for the City Hall facility construction project and public improvements in the Gateway area (West Round Lake Road, Phase II) not proceeding in 1999. The rcport shall contain a discussion ofthe outlook for interest rates and the economic trend for the upcoming year investment strategies to he implemented, and budgetary expectations for investment incomc. The general outlook for interest rates in 2000 is for them to be higher than average 1999 levels. Many economists believe the United States economy will be negatively impacted by inflationary concerns caused by a tight labor market, higher energy costs, and Federal Reserve actions. There is also some market discontinuity (i.e., an inverted yield curve) resulting from the question if the thirty-year Treasury Long Bond will remain the pricing benchmark. By year-end 2000, we may be seeing the yield curve for all maturities less than the December 1999 higher yield trend. The estimated annualized rate of return for 2000 should be in the range of 5.0% to 5.5%. 2000 interest was budgeted at $548,300 on an expected average portfolio balance of $10,950,000 with an expected yield of5.00%. Attached Schedules Attached are related schedules for your further review: I. Investment Portfolio Analysis, December 31, 1999 2. Annualized Investment Portfolio Return, 1999 3. Investment Ladder, Note and Zero Maturities by Year, 2000-2004. This report will be discussed with the Operations and Finance Committee at their March, 2000 meeting. I herewith submit this ailllual report to the City Council pursuant to the annual reporting requirement of the Investment Policy. ~ Ii :Jb T eITance R. Post City Treasurer (Enclosures) . . .. .. .;!!~O'\ ~<g:: ~.~ .5~;;; 'Et:: ... < . " 'a~e to ~ ~ .- E i' U~~ ~ . ~ . I I I I . :;: 0 . g ~ . . "1"1 .. .; ~ ........... ~ ~ . . ~ ~ .-Io-Vl".,. "" -=...r ~ 0- . -(;I - N Zl ( - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::;e I~ . . ~ ~ g.;b ~ ~ . 0 on on on on ";'!i'i . . . ~ ;j;~ . ~ . 0 , ....;,...; g:~.-i:j;;;: N~ ....~~i1.~ ~~ 5 f"i..-\ ~.- N ~ . . . ill ~- N N ;; .; ~ :~ --:- ~ if; :!: . ] e . OJ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ . = ~ "" "" . ] = . . ~ "" .( .( = = . = "" ~ "" :l! = " ~ ~ = ., " :l! ;:l ~ .J ~ ,g'D ~ .. .. .. J ~,,~ '0 .0 '0 = g >=:1 ~;.. '. '. ., " .,J:tl = = = .:: i;;.; :l! :l! :l! . z z ~ ; ~~ :l! :l! ".co r;f1U $ :l!:l! :l! :< :< :l! :< :l! :l! :l! ~.-E . . . . . ....-...:l 0:1 a a a a :.;e:::;:Q :2:~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ . . ~ --'::0; !!:~ :i " . ~-~ " ':il:~ ~ j - . Ji . t = E ~ i O! . ;; "" > "e:] I ~ ~ ~ oS <.1)-.<:> = " ;:6 = .J ~ "' ~ E:::J :l! :< ~~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ,iI:! 3 1'1 ~ Ii . ~ . g~Vl~~OgM~M~M~Mg~WVl2g2M""'2g~gg ~~~~~~~~~~q~~~~;~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~gggl~~~~gS:Sgl.~;I~~;~~=:ll N.....NMM .-I M._.~ _ ~ _M....._ ~ ~ iSI gggggg~gggggggggggg~gggggggg ~g~~~g~~~~g~gg~gg~~....;~~~~gg~1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~"1~~~"1~l~~~~~~Vlft ~""'~~~~~_Vl""'~~WVlVl~~~VlVlVlO~VlVl""'~M _____ _ _M MM N __ M_ -II") Cl ~~ttttttttttttttt~ttttttttt~ ~~;~~~~~Q~QIQ~~:~;~~~g~~R~~2 ~~~~li'ili'ili'ili'ili'i~~";~~li'i";~";li'ili'ili'ili'ili'ili'i~~~~ ggggggggggggggggggg2g8g8g2gS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....~~~~...~~. ~~~~gg~~g~g~ggi~tgi~~gtlgtii M~M~~ M_M~M~~ M_~ M~ ~M .~ .- ~ " ~ = = s ...... ~ .... = E g ~~ ~~~:~~: c 'i~ g5g~~ ~a~a~~ e is ~M 5 ~iS=~E ~18~~~l::: ~..~::c :;!~:;;s ~uu~~ _~~~~l~ ~~~7. ~~ ~u t-:~~:;;c. ~';:'.o';:"';';:';:"'"~A.~, lo'!l= iJ~ ~~~-~~=Q~Q~ =~~iJ~~ ~= c.~ ~~\:I~~===.~=;z;==~li=~OI "'"Os '= ~..,~s~~ud=u~aa~~:~~_~su=s~~ >:1:~~g3-;~~~~j~<:E:=:1: =g ~~t:u~' u.~, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~t~~t ~~~5~w~~~~~g~~~~~~z~~~~~~~~ ~~~~-Ez--~-::C--<~-~c=o~~~~~< >>>>.. ~>~>_>> >>>~";-oo__~ ~~~~~~~~~~~f~~<~~~~s=~z~==P ~==~~~~====i==~===l<<~~~~~~! ~PPPP~oPPPp~pp~pppA.~~~P::C~~~ =~~~~~Q~~~~~~~O~~~OOO~~Qz~O uzzzzzuzzzzzzzuzzzuuuzzuzzu .. ...... ...... .. ~:~>~>~>~~>>~~>~~~>>~>~>>~> ~~~~~~M~~"';~~",;~~~~",;~~~~~~~",;~ OO~~8~8____-MMMM~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~P~~g~~~~~~~~~~~~ _0 _-, '-~~__~Q~.__v.~.__~Q~,=~~~ ~s~~sss~~~~~s~~~~~~~g~~~SS~ QO~O-_-QS~~-QQ__QQ____QQ=__ ~~~~~~:~~~I~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~ ~~~~~sS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ QQQ~-_-oS=Q-QQ-Q_Q____QQQ__ ~~E E E ~~ E ..h .. ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ .. .. E ~ ~ .. E .. .. E .. E .. .. E << 0 0 0 u ~ u 0 u 0 0 ~ 0 = << f ij Q << 0 0 ~ = ~ = 0 01 =uuueeeUeUUEuu=EEU=UU=U=uu= ~jjjiiijijjijj~ilj~jj~j~ji~j ~ ~ ~ ~].s]~] ~~.s ~ ;~.s.s;JJ; ~~ ~~ ~ ;JL~ c.<<<<t:~t:<<-,<<~~OI~=--.=<<<<c<<c<<<<=~ e~""uuu~ ~~u~~e~~~e"~e~e~"e~ 0~.5~~f~~~~.5f.5~off~o~~o~=~.5=& ~o~d~l~d~d~~OO~~Z~~QO~O~OO~ g~~g~g<lO:;g ~'.o.'.o.Q."'!.Q.~":.~ Q'.oOllQOIlQ~_>O Q""~Q~Q\Q~ _M<"l_<"l_.....M~ e~~<<IQ&~e~~ ~'=M~~""_~N r2i8;:;::=:g::g~~~ l"- "'!.~.~~~I#"J."i"'!.<l'i 0Il_~""l"-""~'.o..... __ _ __0- . ~'#.'#.'#.~'#.';f.';!.'if. e'.o<"l o~o~~ _'.oI"\~~_Q~O!l gr,j>ri..Q~..Q~~~;';'; ~gg=g~ggs:: ~~:e~~~~t! .:;01.-:.,.;01."...:;.-::\0 l"-~~~l"-~l"-~f" _M M MM.... ;:; ~ N "" ~ :< . i ";: g<<_ - ~ ;;:;:;"'."S ::t_'E~';:o=~U g~~iJ~ua~.i:l' -""'.,.~.,.Olt1Q..c lo'l~.-:g""U\AQu Q': ~;;:; ...:l zr;,~ Uo~ ~c.;:z ~~gQg~al;;a ~ "" zr; r.: ~ ~ ~ ~:] t";:~or;,:; ~~:':II ]~e]e~~r:~ II ~ "" ,. "":a..( ,. 'of ~rg~W~Cl:~~N :::~~~:e~~~ NNNNNNN;.j >~>..>~>~ O~~>~Q .,., ~ori"';I"\";lI'i";lI'i oe-os@:2~ ~~~;:.;~",il'l"" QSS~S~~S O_O__Q-- ~~~~~~~$ ~;::;Q~';;~::::: S~;;g::::2~::::g u u u u Ji to Ji Ji Ji u ~:;5~5~55 E U,:I:l E E E It! ~ -...c:;....~.....c:;.c:; ~-5] ~ ~ ~]"~~ :~~:::~~i! ~~e~~~er1. ~.50~f~oo~ ZO~zzz~] ;:; o 3 . "> ~ ;( ~ . :1. ~ r; ~ . "- ~ ~ on ~ o ~ . , . . Z ~ ~ " ;:; N ~ = . ~ ~ on ; o ~ .; ~ " ~ ~ '" ;; " " - :i ,.. ~ ~ ~ ';!.'#. ~~ ~~ "- .,;~ 0 ~ ~ d z . 3 0 . ~ " !!!. ~ . .. . ~ . ... . e = i . E ~ . iJ e .... .5 . ~ :< ~ . 1;- ~ = ~ . . 5:< ~~ 'OE . . ~~ ]; . . .~ ~1 ~~ . . 0.'1 ~O ~o ....- ~. "'- >0 ? > Q" . . c S ;; '" .g ~~ J: 0 0- c~ ~Co> 1!~8l <j~ - 0 o ~ ~~ 0; ~ .~ OJ ~ c c < . f~~mM~~ '~*~11!1 . "~ iIIt, $:1 :mlii ;;i~w.1 1~1'111'1 IIi. , ~~;. 'i .....f:: ,I iti~~i l~rS" <i~M If~~ili~ I~ ' I:~ .. H~!~{ 111'1:1 litll 11!1. II l!i!:I: =:::,:';:.:.::i: 1~li 1'1' , ~ l:": : '.~: : ~;~l~lfl~~ffi dWH :~II ,.t~ 11:1 '1i!I' " I~I Ilill:1111 *** N"'''' "''''0 ~.,flri L(') lOIN ~ gl~ ;tgj~ ""., .... ..i-.:ieJ ~.......... I n~1 ~~~~I' 0.......... 100.... 0....'" "'N'" t-:c6al 'V!""-C') "'....'" NNO y; 000 .. 888 qo~q r::.r:r: "''''''' o;t-IO- ui .. g~to ",N'" <011) cO ....0'" "''''''' r-:<61t'i .. I~ ~ ~~.c: ~ ~ y c.o ~ ~ ~ ~ ..,u.:! *** "''''N "'N'" -.ilrilri "''''.... 00'" "'N.... 115r-:6 "'~o "'0.... N(t)~N i3:!1:!1 0........ r--:...:.,.: ...."'''' r:o_~c:o_ ...."'~ ....~O ........0 aill50i "''''''' '" ..........6 ~ ~~ 000 888 000 ...:r-:~ ...."'''' "'....'" IO-uiui ...."'- o::t ....,0 ~~I~ "''''.... ...."'''' L()aO.,f .. ~ ~ <:::IE"; *** "''''''' "''''''' Lrilt'iari N_.... "''''''' N 0 cO as It)- ............ 0....'" '<i <t'i (")~ 0"'0 0"'''' ...."'0> r-:aSci "''''- ....NO MCtSCt5 ~ ~- :!1:!1:!1 "'t.~""': (0(0(0, "''''''' ":_":1 ....0.... 0"'''' N........ c6r-:a5' 0"'.... qC'l-r: 000 888 000 "':NN "'........ ...."'''' If"iu"iu"i gfii;!; N........ c:riu"it-: "'N.... ....0.... c6u:i1fi ~ .0 ~ = o ~ ~~1i. :J :; 1Il ..,<<Il *** "''''0 "'''' arilf.icci "'....0 -........ "'''' o;f~J'-.- "'N.... ...."'''' cricri-.:i 0....0 0"'''' o as-.fr-: 0....'" ...."'''' NNc-) 2l2l2l ............ t!)- (()- cD ............ LO_LO_~ -",- O>",N "''''.... ,...:r-:6 "''''N ~N"" ......"....:C\i 000 888 000 (\,jC\ict.i ........'" '" '" u)lO.o , ;;;ill," "''''.... 0'iu)C\i "'N'" .... '" LOcD(() ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.o.o ~ = = .0 ~ ~ ,g> C) y 0 ~ OZC * '" ... iii "' 0> .... '" It) N ,; 0; 0>* NO ... . .0 ~O "'~ ,; 0; "'*!I~I ~... ... . .'" ::l~ ... 10; ~~!I~I .lD gj'" "'. - ~ .. o *~I~I "0 00 ~I*I* o ~~. .OlD It) ''It'.fP :=: iii .. :1 **, Nf"';Q,1 tti~'~1 8 <D .. c o :s ':Ia .c-o G)';:C) y~ c .!:2j: <<l c,g ~ ~:B Ql 0:0 '" 1:: :a! ~ ~;:Q en ......: >-.- <~.l1 'C -fi:1: ><~ coom", "'Ct)Q)'It CD"'C\lC\l .;o~o CDC)f'ooolli CD-.....f'ooo .. .. iii C\J 0 M1 OJ 'It..... co m"'MIIi r'tO eti C\l" ~!8~~ .. .. OOf'ooof'ooo .. :U Ilitti ~ ~ ~o; lliC\lMCD m'ltN'" m",'ltCD r'tOr'cD C\l<CCOC\l "'~ CD .. .. 0000 .. .. Q)C\l~0 C\l'll;f"C\l_ f'ooof'ooo"lt"'ll' ":<<i~o NCD<ON "'~ '" .. .. co 0 Olcol CD CD' N N cO cO ~ ~ .. .. .i 1; I.. ~ IS !! .E.5c ""~ "C Gl Q).E! 1Il::J::J Q,) .i:!: C3 C3 a: Gl CJ CJ 0 CJc(<Cij IIlcomo "'0>0> ..__0 0..........1- GlMM... iNN~ ~"::~i 00"'01: 00"'0_ S!~<i ~ z [ ,** ICI':l:m l"":.~ If)';lQ '" '" iii * 0> ... .; , 1,* I'" ... iii ~ z I 1 * '" "l It) ~ '1!l* I"",::C') mo l,l'bd * '" o iii ** :'Iilt.N """"t ttiHti c ~ ~ ;; '" " ~ .~ OJ ~ c c < 0> 0> 0> - c,:C :;':3 l):,ii '" a:i i:G;1 0>:0) t::~1 JI JlI .., ..,1 ~ ~I .~:.~ = =, 88J , I N' o z ~ "5 " ~ .c: y ~ 1:: o 0. ~ '" .0 ~ S o ~ ~ t= 0> 0> 0> ~ . . . .... (I) "C .... "C co co (I) -I> ..... > ~.o EVJ- ..... (I) .VJ VJ ",j:i 0 (I) .;:: 0 > ::::l 0 c: ..... - CO c: VJ ~ .- = VJ :.;: 0 .... .... .... CO c: (I) = (I) N 0 "C"Ce .... c: <C CO O~ ~~ .- U o o o N -0 to M o::t .... -0 .... to " .... -0 o o In .... -0 o o o .... -0 o o In -0 .... o o N o o o N o -0 o::t o o N M o o N N o o N ~ en w I- o z D en o a:: w N M o z ~ ;;l 'C ell ..c: o III .. ~ o C- eil a: .IIl ~ ell ~ ;;l III ell ell ~ I- a> a> a> ..- r I Planning Case 00-12 1860 Indian Place Rear Yard Variance .1.- ... . . "I -- , I . . . ........ 200 , o 400 Feet , 200 N A . . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: Mayor and City Council March 13, 2000 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Case #00-12, Variance (Rear Yard Setback) Lawrence Erickson, 1860 Indian Place Request. The applicant is requesting approval of a rear yard setback variance (20 feet proposed, when 30 feet is required) for a 16 by 32 foot garage addition on a single family lot zoned R-2 (Exhibit A). Background. The proposed garage addition is 16 by 32 feet (512 square feet). The applicant currently has a 22 by 24 foot (528 square foot) two car garage. The applicant desires to build a longer garage to allow for a workshop area in the rear of the garage. . Findin!!s - Rear Yard Setback Variance Staff concludes that the following factors relate to the requested variance: 1. Circumstances Unique to the Property: The property meets all the mlllllllUm dimensional and area standards except the 120 foot depth requirement. The current house and garage meet the required setbacks. 2. Alternate Location: The garage addition can be expanded east three more feet without requiring a variance allowing for a 19 by 24 foot (456 square foot) garage addition. There is room for an addition to the west; however, the garage addition would not work well with the existing interior configuration. 3. Variance not greater than necessary: The applicant currently has a 22 by 24 foot (528 square foot) two car garage. The proposed garage addition is 16 by 32 feet (512 square feet). For a total of 1,040 square feet of garage space. The City Ordinance does not restrict the size of attached garage space. It does, however, restrict detached garages to 728 square feet. . Deadline for Agency Actions. The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on January 28, 2000. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, fue City must act on this request by Tuesday, March 28, 2000 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The additional review period would extend to Friday, May 26, 2000. The City may with the petitioners consent, extend the review period beyond the Friday, May 26, 2000 date. Lastly, if the City denies the petitioners request, "...it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request." Recommendations. The Planning Commission recommends denial of the rear yard variance (20 feet proposed, when 30 feet is required) for a garage addition based on the "Findings- Rear Yard Setback Variance" section of this staff report. Note: Zoning Ordinance Section VIII, E, 4, states no application which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six (6) months from the date of said order of denial. Updates: At the Planning Commission meeting several alternatives were discussed. Staff has drawn two of the alternatives for rcview. (Exhibit B) > e e e '. ~ tit - e exh;b;+ A Y1 January 27, 2000 Ms. Na-ncy Randall & City Administrators Arden Hills Planning Commission Arden Hills City Council Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: My wife and I reside at 1860 Indian Place, a cull-de-sac located off of County Road E near Lake Johanna. This is a very pleasant cull-de-sac and is located across County Road E from an Open Spaces area. This means there are no neighbors across the street. I wish to add a third stall to my garage. I wish to build it 16' wide by 32' deep. Unfortunately, this puts me within 20' of my rear property line which requires a 10' variance. I'm okay on all other property lines. The reasons I feel I should be granted a variance are as follows: MOST IMPORTANT POINT 1. LOT DEPm: My lot is only 100' deep at the point this addition would be built which is the reason for this variance request. I understand that the "normal" Arden Hills lot is 120' deep. Obviously, if this were a "normal" lot, I would not be requesting this variance. While I understand the need to have regulations which apply to all situations, it would seem unfair to penalize me because of this shallow lot if there are no negatives to granting the variance. OTHER POINTS 2. INACCESSffiILITY OF THE REST OF THE LOT FOR GARAGE PURPOSES: I have a large lot-270' across the back. However, the majority of it is not accessible by car because of its positioning related to our neighbor's (PoeJzer's) home, and the overhead power lines on the far corner orit Also, most of my lot is at an elevation which is 3' -7' higher that the level of the cul-de-sac. There is no way I can build another garage/addition anywhere else on our lot. 3. DESIREABILITY OF THIS SIZE GARAGE: I am able to build a third stall (19' by 24') within the constrictions of my lot lines. However, the rectangular nature (16' by 32') of my desired addition is more usable because it provides for a nice size potential workshop in the back (10' by 16') while still providing enough length for a car (22') in the front of the garage. A workshop section is not as easy to fit in, or as functional, in the other more-square option. I feel this makes the property more attractive to future owners as well as us. '. '. .... "~. . ~ I ~~. oS' , .<:: - "- ~ ~ ~ " - .0 -<- J> ~ .-- ~ ,\ ! s '> .- -..c. --, i' " {T> , , J . . II LvrXibtl. f} P Ne;./c>ttB{)(2b 6WILp'rJ f:z5 , ---- '3/, .~rs[~;c- ./.J.dt>'L""~ ' ~.. '. i~ ,.,~."<,.,,./) . ;~~/,. "'-'::"J'p. _i " ' ' , -;-L -~i-;- ! !:: , i- -->- . , ' , , i~; I: .t-;: --~-r--~--- -. ! 'i ~~-':-l---~~"-' i 1"#1" i 1 i/I' i 11. T;: ! j '-"1 1 ~ ~J I - f '- i -t-'--..--'- l , ' ! j . . ~ .... r r"\V I ..,t?;:l~! 1,'-j,';,'Pl - "---'--r--~-iir-; " 1'1101 '-'-'---"-'-',-~ ::! ~,'l ,:I~ . ."--'r-r'-'-'--T I"~ , ! II" r..,...,.r',: ; ! : ~ ~.... i . I:' . -, I ',' ,: -I ' . I : ' 1111 '-'--'-'--"-', ' ; I :', I INn .0: I : : 'j i rvr _u -- _n_ '-:-iiTir-r-j'j-/:[Tri .,,__~_.__._~~~_Wln : . - : ; i : )' "l--rrr _.__._~,__._.._____~___..~.._._.___.." . : : I i I ! ! l,/,!:~',,:;k?~l --.-- ..-----.-~-i::r-r-rTr7Vi ! ~-~!' i<.rr 'r.;~~:iL:I.,A;,~: '..~..,~,""':;j:~...~;tj': ,I"'t:~ ". ~_;. "i '/;I-X~~M"f' : 'R~~i i""I~"",.!;<'~i t ...,.t\'" r-" , " ;.0;',: J,.>; tl I~'~' ..,!...,,,.... i~t: II II i i~i!' 1'.r:F1 ~' -, , . . ; i .1 ! '::,1 I 1 II - ---,. ___uU .-.~._-.-_.-:.-.--:;-.-:irT!, 1 ~PII' i, i ,1b'-- uH.... ,_.,-:+-r-I: f-+P-:-:~:::'\ ~ ' , '. 11",. ,1":< ! , ;::> i ' I i i>+,I);-;.i,.. i L- ~r --.- .u:u. .-----:-~~:~;~-; : :.~ !i\i'.i~.r~~l~ 1 t ' i ! i i I'. 1.0.. "i " 'i:'ii'fi;:.Wl ~ '1," ]./i"'''' ~ I !1 '~'. '~"'I,i..,;; ~t~t:;~,1 ; i ! ! i f..pr.ji,; ,;;i..~ ;~,~~',l I', I.,-",~ !; " v~~;1 ;--, : i, '.' "<" .". ~_:Y.';I . ( . ,- ==-. ....'>;~,;~1>)2 I I', v' "~'1 I [ 1.-1': h" ~~~.t! ,~., ; i .! 1'"-' .-,o~ ~ ~~~ .~ ,.i , -;f Ii ! .,;.j-. <;~":' '~.':;1,~:~~-+~~J~n:':: !:ii:! 1 ! i j<" ;Wg;~~ ,~-. !iill~ " i ! I i ......,'f!J1<~""~~~i\. , j I i ~->'.' ;~::~' ~ ~~;; ;;.;W~f-~~~ -.-------~-_._~-._----- - -"-~..__._-- ~---- ;: Iii' I --> -'--'-.--r- ,.-~----_. i ' i ! I \',.,,! j.:; I 'i I i Fi, "".-'- ~~': : ..," ,.'- o __'~__ .__.-,.. .,-.--<----..--. .---- .. -,.---. ~--'-';"- -......,.:....----_. _u' - ; /' I., ~~~.' ~~-1- :--~ _IL__ _ _ , ",. i...!:l .I.k "I ! L:~il'I"" '."] ! :t.,~! " ..1 hii';)',!, i ~ " '".'f", ! I ".,1 I I I, I"-! 11 ; :r7 , , T ", , I i -! . ! j 'J. -....-~~~ I I.. I ,1' :j'- -, i J." 'I . I ! j.j"i- i , II i i , ~ -<_i ~I"1. i.' .. ~.-: ~ \. L : >-A~ ':"'"'":'1'"~- ,J" , '.'~~ :- -..K ~_.._. \ ;\' . .-... . '" l'I - '-/ .;c..: " . f-. ;~- "-.;/'--- -'~-T-'; ~ "-':1.':: 1=;': ~ l ; i m .~.~ ~"..[ ;:r-I" I I .~u. .~. x ~! ! ! ~T ~ ~i ! i ' ! t ~. ~ ,,: i . -;:;- -'-="--:-;-, : : ~ \ I I : ; : ,--.---.-. ----~-:-- ------- -.--.----ij~ j .__ ._u ;'-:,.,~~ i , ", '!'~~ " ? , I ' ,-..-- ':'" --~ -r---'-' ,f.; ~--' , ~, : " ";" ~ . - . ~"" . ~'-- ~,- ..-. . ~ . . , ~ .~ . , j -'-,,'j , ., --'- -. ! '.~!~;..: 1~:'~ . ,:1 : -- o , H'~"">;Y'''''''~''' " '- . '1'\." '-~",;"_:";~F<\'l~:i,':,;,~~;..l, ,:',.l+~~ ;. "1:,:'.~'):~~';;' ,;,._:!~:;:,)J?,,~il-~~~ I:"" .l-~--;~: I ~ ,-~ I I," I -;-, _.---.------~. 5/7 ......: tvJIJ()W:--3;-~h'! . ___ __ _~~_""-____.__'_' h_,_ .-006W~o-'1'?'ZJf_'f.2 L__ . .. . > i -:----/J-;;~~Lc;---. _ _M' . 1N1t1L. /1> ~I iBU;:' - ~' . .. . -%~1:~~~ .-D()();l.:~ 30' ."). - , -_.----.-...-_---~..:....------,-----_.._- -. .... . J)1<.uu, · . I. .... .. ... .u.~ U ". .'~.iE:::;"':/k::2~<" ...IIIlh.' f~.~~::~~~ ... 7l';-T:~--- '--fj '\1 ~ ~_.______...__~__:tJ::::.;~;~~t<C; __ _ -- ..n '''r- ,-'''--'--' t;) }ff./ff)fJl;. ~,,/5.~-IoH-MF~J} J:~lIlu)~I' ....... ........ ._._.~____. I ... ... ~i",';;oeiJ":' ;i- ;, ~ ___ _~ .. ?~o ~3~.~C() - -"-r-t~r'-'-~:l,:" -~,;~c- ;-"..-- .-. - ~.;.-_._------ '}' II 7 OOV(l- '>1 . ~ ,<.>~" ". ',~. .' d, '-'-"-',' .. .-. /(,' : - , ....... ~_'''''''_''''''''M"_''''''''''_'',_''_''_____ '1'>_M"~"'-"""'-~_~'__'~" .. _~_W"_~'4__""'_""'~_"_ A".. .'.1.. ~~'..~ "~.".".,_'_'_'m_.' _'-',w.-_.._t-~..,.,..._",.". . '" fi;,FiA t w. (;JPP."2Lr.~~~J;af.>QE~ 1fo 11 fi.... -:z l:f(J U:J/A/4:> ( p;. G ttiiA:P......... 'Ii-: IlIA p..-PD.. ......1'......~...... .... (tv ~J&f /Jft.-rrj# ..1tf<M Fa&: (t . . , r - -- - 717 jI;,~'i~r:..j)Qfli~;J15 GA/2.r.r;>s- .;-,' !#W1N. &, MW1-J.(jj /':::p.fLE_ {'ift/ NiOt1;'" ;?liJ:.-,CM1,lt4>l:.-)t tpjJb 1M f1H-ilc r(2..l)i"1 HtJ1ifi;.. iV8;fT'-1i:.. of C' r tlt..{L.,jJ.1;i./ tJ:, II t3-n<..s. i~ LA<> I , , &hibi+ B I/~ . \ . Required 51 setback Required 5' setback 1 e l . . 8.\-.;b;+ 'IS 0/..2.. - . I I I: Planning Case 00-13 1932 West County Road E Special Use Permit j r (I , I II 11I_ r I I . , . iii III . ~ . .... . .It .11 r- , n- M mD ~ . 300 , o 300 N ~FeaA e CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 13, 2000 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Nancy Randall, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #00-13, Special Use Permit (Home Occupation) Julie Schumacher, 1932 West County Road E Request. The applicant is requesting approval ofa Special Use Permit (Class II Home Occupation) for a personal training studio on a single-family lot zoned R-2 (Exhibit A). Background. The home, located at 1932 West County Road E, was remodeled in 1994 to include a workshop area behind the existing two-car garage. The applicant has a purchase agreement on the home and would like to use the workshop area, attached to the rear ofthe garage, for a training studio. e Conditions Reuuired for Annroval of a Class II Home Occunation Zoning Ordinance Section VI, B, 3, a, states home occupations are allowed as either accessory uses or special uses depending on the characteristics of the operation. All home occupations shall comply with the following conditions: 1. It shall not result in traffic, parking, noise, light, fumes and odors to such an extent that it is noticeable that the property is being used for non-residential purposes. 2. It shall be conducted entirely within the dwelling. 3. There is no exterior evidence of the home occupation. 4. It does not require any special entrances to the dwelling. Zoning Ordinance Section VI, B, 3, c, states Class II Special Accessory Home Occupations may be allowed by Special Use Permit if they meet the conditions stipulated above for all Home Occupations and the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. e 6. The primary business activity shall be conducted by an occupant of the residence; One person not residing in the residence may be employed to assist in the business activity; It does not occupy more than thirty-three (33 percent) of the floor area of the dwelling; It has a limited number of patrons visiting the premises; Off-street parking for no more than two (2) additional vehicles than those required by the occupants shall be permitted; on-street parking shall not be used to satisfy required parking; It requires delivery of products to the premises no more than once per day. It appears the proposed training studio would meet the above conditions. The City has several Class I Home Occupations on file however, only one (Arden Hills Nursery) Class II Home Occupation. e The workshop area is sound proofed; however, the nature of the business may require some music. The music should be kept to a minimum as to not disturb neighbors. The applicant plans to occupy the residence and does not plan to have other employees at this time. Clients would be dealt with on a one-on-one basis, there could be an overlap at times. The property has ample parking for patrons along with the applicant's vehicles. The training studio is 24 by 36 (864 square feet). The dwelling is 3,516 square feet (including the garage and studio area). The studio would be 24.5 percent of the dwelling, which is below the maximum 33 percent allowed. Deadline for Agency Actions. The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on January 28, 2000. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by Tuesday, March 28, 2000 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The additional review period would extend to Friday, May 26, 2000. The City may with the petitioners consent, extend the review period beyond the Friday, May 26, 2000 date. Lastly, if the City denies the petitioners request, "...it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request." Recommendations. The Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case #00-13, Special Use Permit for a personal training studio with the following conditions: e 1. Music be kept to a minimum as to not disturb neighbors and windows shall remain closed during sessions. 2. Applicant must reside in the home. 3. No more than one person can assist with the business. 4. No more than three patrons visiting the premises at a time. 5. Hours of operation be between 5:30 a.m. and 9 p.m. 6. No street parking of patrons. 7. Review of Special Use Permit by City Council every two years. 8. All required permits be obtained. 9. No business signs on premises. Updates. None e E Xh;bJ ~ ~ 5" e January 2000 Julie Schumacher E612) 78-9-8104 Home POOne 1932 West County Road E. Arden Hills, MN 55112 Home Occuoations-Class II Special Accessory Home Occupations I would-like to set up a personal training studio intheabove home. I am not currently living in this home. I will be purchasing this home, pending your decision. e (2) One of the nice iliing:l about this home is that Ilis fairly remote for being in a residential area. It is on a comer lot. (a) Photographs of the:OOmeare attaChea I) This is thefront of thel1ome-thereis room for Jive cars in the driveway. ~) There is only one neighbor -we are garage to garage 3) This is the backyard 4) This is the room built off the back of the garage I would utilize for my studio-on the right in the picture. 5) Across the street from the home is a small business-a hair salon-Facing the house this is Qn your right 6) Across the street is a park-directly across from the home. (b) Afloor plan is attached (c) A statement describing the horne business along with the compliance is below (d) A copy ofa permit if required by state or county-None is required. I am planning on having a personal training studio. I would work part time out of my home. I work with clients l-on-l and take them through their personalized ex.ercise routines. The workshop attached to the home is 24x.36. It is separate from the house. It is attached to the back of the garage and has a separate entrance from the house. I will be conducting the primary business activity. There are slots for five cars in the driveway. I would only have one person at a time_ There are no deliveries associated with my business except for the initial drop off of the ex.ercise equipment. There are-DOt really any sight disturbances because ftom the. outside the studio looks like a living room. 1 will have no sign posted. You can't hear any noise, the room is sound proofed. There are no smells associated with the business. Tfrel'roper llumbel of ",... wifl-be I'fukd ill the driveway and people will be coming and going during polite hours of the day. This property only has one neighbor because it is on a corner lot and across the street from a park and a business. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. e Sinct;fely, _, >4tdft_;k/1tb~ // Julie Schumacher j , e e e 2./ r;- F"",,+ J horY\lL ( Nc,rtlo SiJ,..; n...,:"",-, +, ,___I ,-,c.-v-os-S IN''"''''r I I T:> I Ov...... "'" '" " V-A1>T ~~ o. ; q "'-TOy--, l'-(J<>.-cA ~ "$.1. /6 e . Sl'o~;, ov-"-'A 6..0"s+ S,d:... . Wu:,j- 'S i cL.. or' he1\-'-<.. -1 0 c C ""'I UJ 0 4- ~ c h 1 0) (' ~ r (.Y) Cl [ C) ~ 0 ., --c C) t" 0- ;t - \ ~b n r---. ~ ~ Co b C> ... b .., I r a :3 ~ "8 I e OOw (':> ~ ~ cD~ "l r-~ <' "" E. <Jl ~ t:L. "C ....-,c ~.J (C . '-lIs- ~ :z co. -+- -D- ~ :E. ~ rr- c <.n (") ~ ~ , e I \ \ " "-'- --- S-4- ~\)~~'1 \(oo.d E ---- -- ------ - / --- - ----------.-.-."...---------- ------ ( ! e c:i 6 rJ2 I ~I ~ '<. i ~ ~I rP1 3' ~ e d .... 1 4~ € ~ . ~G /'I:> Zoning Ordinance Section VI General Regulations Section B. Accessory Uses 3. Home Occupations. Home occupations are allowed as either accessory uses or special uses depending on the characteristics of the operation. a. All home occupations shall comply with the following conditions: (1) I! shall not result in traffic, parking, noise, light, fumes and odors to such an extent that it is noticeable that the property is being used for non-resideutial purposes. I! shall be conducted entirely within the dwelling. There is no exterior evidence of the home occupation. It does not require any special entrances to the dwelling. I e &~iL. if '8 (2) (3) (4) b. Class I Accessory Home Occupations. (1) Home Occupations will be pennitted as accessory uses if they meet the couditions stipulated in the home occupation definitiou and following conditions: ( a) The business is engaged only by the occupants of the premises; (b) The business activity does not occupy more than twenty- five-(25%) of the gross floor area of the dwelling; (c) There will be no patrons visiting the premises; (d) I! requires no delivery of products other than those delivered by private passenger vehicle. (2) e Applicants for Class I Accessory Home Occupations shall be required to obtain an Accessory Home Occupation Pennit from the City prior to engaging the activity. Review by the Planning Commission and City Council is not required. Application forms as prescribed by the Administrator shall be accompanied by the following information: (a) A photograph of the residence; (b) A floor plan indicating the floor area to be used by the home occupation along with a tabulation of the total floor area and the floor area to be used for the home occupation; (c) A statement describing the home occupation and the compliance with the required conditions. (d) A copy of the state or county license or pennit if' such a license or pennit is required by the state or county for the proposed home occupation. c. Class II Special Accessory Home Occupations. (1) Home occupations maybe allowed by Special Use Permit as regulated in Section VIII if they meet the conditions stipulated above for all Home Occupations and the following conditions: (a) The primaIy business activity shall be conducted by an occupant of the residence; (b) One person not residing in the residence may be employed to assist in the business activity; (c) I! does not occupy more than thirty-three (33 percent) of the floor area of the dwelling; (d) I! has a limited number of patrons visiting the premises; (e) Off-street parking for no more than two (2) additional vehicles other than those required by the occupants shall be pennitted; on-street parking shall not be used to satisf'y required parking; (f) I! reqnires delivery of products to the premises no more than once per day. (2) e (3) Applicants for Class II Special Accessory Home Occupations shall follow the procedures prescribed in the Special Use Pennit section of Appendix A, Procedure Manual. The application shall be accompanied by the information required for Class I Home Occupations in VI, B, 3 a, (2) above and a site plan showing any additional parking or other modifications to the site required to accommodate the home occupation. A copy of any required Stale or County license or pennit as discussed in Class I Home Occupations B.3.b(2)(d) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Special Use Permit, however, evidence that the proposed Home Occupation meets all the requirements for State or County licenses or permits shall be submitted with the Special Use Permit application. In reviewing applications for Class II Special Accessory Use Permits for Home Occupations the City shall consider criteria which affect the appropriateness of a particular use in the location proposed, as discussed in Sec. VIII, D, 3, b. . " ~I Planning Case 00-14 3491 Lake Johanna Blvd. Corner Side Yard Variance . . ---~-------- /- 400 , o 400 800 Feet , N A ~_._- e CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 13, 2000 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Nancy Randall, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #00-14, Variance (Corner Side Yard Setback) Chuck Mertensotto, 3491 Lake Johanna Blvd. Request. The applicant is requesting approval of a comer side yard setback variance (7 feet proposed, when 40 feet is required) for a porch addition on a single-family lot zoned R-2 (Exhibit A). . Background. The proposed porch addition is 183 square feet running along the front and side ofthe home. The applicant currently has an 8 by 30-foot (240 square foot) porch on the rear on the home. The applicant desires to build a porch on the street side to enhance the property. It appears that there was a porch in front of the existing door at one time due to some existing footings. The property is currently a rental property. To date, little information has been compiled regarding historic sites or buildings in Arden Hills having architectural/visual interest. Investigation with the Minnesota Historical Society and Ramsey County Historical Society has identified only one site. This house, known as the Charles Perry house, has been designated as a possible nominee for the National Register of Historic Places (Exhibit B). Further research, as well as community interest, is required before actual placement on the Natural Register of Historic Places is pursued. This home currently does not have any historic restrictions or reviews for modifications. Lake Johanna Boulevard will have to be reconstructed in the near future. Staff is uncertain as to what the reconstruction timing and location of the road will be in the future. There currently is a 66-foot right-of-way; however, due to the proximity to the lake and possible need for a sidewalk the right of way may be re-adjusted. Findinl!s - Corner Side Yard Setback Variance Staff concludes that the following factors relate to the requested variance: . 1. Circumstances UniQue to the Propertv: The house currently is 15.37 feet (where 40 feet is required) from the easement line. The house was built (moved) prior to the current setback restrictions. It appears at one time (due to some existing footings) there was a porch approximately 5 by 8 feet in front of the door. Any front entryway will require a variance. 2. Variance not !!Teater than necessary: The variance can be reduced by eliminating the 8 by l4-foot section on the northeast side. Deadline for Agency Actions. The City of Arden Hills received the completed a application for this request on January 31,2000. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the .., City must act on this request by Friday, March 31, 2000 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The additional review period would extend to Monday, May 29,2000. The City may with the petitioners consent, extend the review period beyond the Monday, May 29, 2000, date. Lastly, if the City denies the petitioners request, "...it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request." Recommendations. The Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case #00-14, comer side yard setback variance for a porch addition based on the "Findings - Comer Side Yard Setback Variance" section of this Staff report with the following modification: L Eliminate the 8 by 14-foot section on the northeast side thus only needing a l2-foot setback where a 40 foot setback is required. Note: Zoning Ordinance Section VIII, E, 4, states no application which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six (6) months from the date of said order of denial. Updates: The applicant supplied staff with a news article pertaining to the City of New Brighton. (Exhibit C) . . ,c<E)tn;bi~ A L / ~ 7/ -------~ / ---~- // - / -- -- --- t --- N 89'41'42" E ROAD 208.71 --- _// -- --- CO. E e I") I") , o o rei . to .. -.-.--..--.-----. -,_."..-.-~.,._- _.._--~.:-~----- -- "::--0, w~" \. Fto) /.\ .. W.H$: , _ -- - S 89'4"42" .___ W 108.00 " -r- - -4)- I 440 F..."t Y~yCJ ~+bc,' [ ., Ii ! "'~I &,~ _C)<I)'; ~.".~ "- / ~s 8;~~ 0 I J b,! c5"' .."'". !?I (:J is " N 49.19 / I E~ <$ \ ~1: OC-J \ /-0 \' ""1 \ '? / \....., 'vC" ,,, '80\\ d C\b~ ACto\' !\ - f ~ ~) i / "])n.\>Os..& I ~dd:t,On / Llo Co-,'",-[ ~I i s;,\.L Y~,-d . 3d R.", '-(od i s..CtbO ,-.\l,- 74.59 I / /j II /. '/ /1 II II // / 68'31 ^. , 'y ! ~ . _0 ~ \ T\- I \ lOT 2, SEe. 33, T 30. R 23/ 89'41' 42" E 208.71 - :.; .-- . ,.-;; / II ,/ ,I ~ N I e \ \ 50UTb LINE OF GOy'T Ii - / I ! / / ~ / U) I o o ui '-D ... u ~ < ! ... !~ , r--- ! cO /1 : 0 /; ! ('oJ II : II , /1 < . <.; '~-._-- 3: -..j- '::J '.0 ~ ::J ::J Z .... / ~ -' l:! "''(". '--...j ~ 7 e o Q " o t-j x CD " r " "- LQ " , e t-j x CD ~ o . .. ,. "' - 1'1' ~r ~ -0 "' 0" ~ 00 -0 ",. :> LQ "' e e I I - - - - - , -~ " \ " D \ ~ ~~ \ \ - /. "\S ( l - W l :J l I~ ..-J # J ~p D A '-J ~ ~ LJ W "'ItT ~/ ~, e e e . e D 111 CJ D , e . II B . D D 4'1 'w/7 , e s..,-\\r.. fu.s\. stJ..... (\...c;.\u.. ~\..Q.W'4 6\od') e e Soct-\-! ~oct sik (Lo..td6k.nnA ll~d) 7/7 e e N<sw\' 6..st 'S:nk e t-le..-tlt. (p.-O\J..."(" ~..,\ 'p-'j..;st:f\\ f'Oyc.-1.-...- - / , " e e / / ) / i ~ Ii ;' E~a "B~ , 'I i I, :J 'I .' :J I: .Ii . I "1 d, 'il ., \ , I , l , I: r 1i r-t., .:,k _ TIlE PERRY HOUSE AT Jot.1 Lab lohlUlha Boulll:~nl a. k Ioob todlill)'.1'he porch was removed when 11. WaI place' 11II thla locaUoh IIDd the part of the houle OIl. &he rillht wal added. MIl. aark Adair, OIarls Pert)".. lfe.L.gra..ddaugbL<<. ho141a1.... yoWlger son. Nlek. and 1iOD., R8lph. .Ild d.ug~~.. lle'~. "'~l la lront of the Perry hOllle. ", 'j :'::::"_~~== . ,.... .J --_ ' - _ -...._......-.._1 -- -------.--~.. --~-.--r~ -.--.----.-. ~.--=;.~~~.~:.- ..~ :.~ .... k r-'..' .., '. ' larles Perry, area's first settler ,it- '<' " ~ ; ., . ' , -' , , ,., '1 LAKE JOHANNA REActl, whell it w.. Ihe Perry noat Renlal perhaps about 1114.' r"'N";;;:-Eirighton I l EIIM " ....-,!. ,I'. ! ~ e e e L.~"ll 011. L '{ ( N, B..ht6n"~" t' ~.. 'Jd:['VrrD ew nr on ,'-\..-- HOlDe. ...:reJl1odel~rs..get..l;tre.lk Qonewporches,eritryways jfi :,Council OK's changes to .allQ'" ) encroachments nr(~; :(iE-'-.- lIpJIWlli:h~ the city with plans 10 " will:e~~ce the~ting Concrete 'addnewenttyways. The bqm.~wn- ,block,~Iel"S. Theirconsttuction, , ers' only, option was to seek a vari-, ,slaIed for later thisyelir, is parlof ': " 'll1Ii:eto the wning code. Legally, the first phaSe of the. city's two- the city clm grant a variance only )'eat, $2.5 million park improve- ' 'ii' . fo(~ of bardsbip, snell as ment program. , ' by Jim Schwait%, . " . ' i1Wkwlinlterrainorapecu1iarly-')' ..,,J-lomeowners planning porcb or shaped lOt. late last year, the city .' , . .i\uthOl'izOO. the illclusion ~f;' llJl[IyWay additions will get a little council directe<I the planning ~'i ,. . .cilY,cil1!liCil~mbeJ,"S"jn, a city',e1il-;q leeway when their plans ,\\,Ol1id en- ,.mission to seek a possible solutioo.' )'-jlfoyee 'weUh~ PilijliWn, wiIicll'1il". [, croacbonthe 30-fOOP~,'_'_I',i.in".;'l'A:_,., "....'... '.' ';"f'! ,~evetthe Iastseveral'!Ilooths" ,~fudeSfiell;il1~iP at the '. ..' front yard sethaclC '., _. 'il1~~~iilg cdiDlni$SlimiiiliSCi;i#!"''''1'~~~eiVi,ce(1)~, The prci:"-o , The New Brighton City Council 'side(edt1lree ojitfuns . . .to arrow ,"', ",' g1Mn8lS6' irib1\i:deSfuembers6(ihe' " , Feb. 22 approved ~ ~endr.nent ~' so~ type of encro!ll'hnllmt inlOthe volunteer fire t\eJllit"b!1ent. ' " thlvzoningctJdelJliltWillilllow~" ciiY'~30-foot front:Yaf1t setti3ck'i-e. ,.' " ' ',' .".' bouse additionstoenctOacl1llPIO~ quiiem.eIll," SIlid City.l'lanner Cllry .Auihori7.ed~pllyment of feet into the front yanLPrior 10 the Tellgue. .'J:bose options \\,ere ~ Ie-: $321,O()Oto ,tlie,9W1!ers of E-Z Mi- c1fange,it was illegillto build,llt1~ ,', d~ce tllesetba\:k 102Sfeet,relllin' 'niS!Qnl&.~lil~rat~35W south of slructures in the sethack zon~. But ihe~<Ffootsetback, or reduce the C]ouiitY~<#'-l'!2,Jor tLStormwater the change bas severalcoilditions: ,'retj!lite4setback under a special 's~e .PilI1d, ~ent: The 0:. The proposedilddition ~ust use~t with certain conditions:" i1m(jtiDl~$60'W9 above the city's use the same exterior s~lUte,ma- 'Iileplanning conunlssion unani- " , ajljlJ;;liSlilfol:the easement, bUt, ~sand colors as'lbepriticipal m9uslyagreedlO recommend the $1)();OOObelQwthelltll()unt the , strUcture. , '... .', ..., ' ,1lllter. O"",,~sought.~ payment will . The roof of the additionmllst . ',' ""\VMiwe found istbat we JliI'1l\ , ,~furtded tbtOugh,taXjncrement fI- be 'properlyproponionell ll!'-dinteC Illllllen>\lssplit entries ,in this coin- "nll!'-cing. grated into the roof of the ~isting mlillity;"said Mayor Steve LatS~ stnicture. . ' , ,', thecirycouncil's liaison, [() the ,'. ',. .The base of the additioilm\lst p~gcommissionduring its ~ be,enclosed and remain coiiSistent Iibera:tions. "We never want ~ ' with the base of the building:> ',.. stlnd iIrtbe way of peopleimprov, . The addition cannot exceed 35ingthcirproperty," be added. , , percent of the width ()ftlwf1:llntof '1'belllnendmentis scbeduled to the existing SInlCllJre, eXCh1(1ing the go lnlOelfect Marcb2. garage, od2 feel,wbicbeVet is lesS. ' ',',' , . Any proposalissuhject lOa public bearing before the planning commission. .Appro~elI.tlie purchase of four ,policevebiCleS:threeFord Crown , ' VICtoria $<iwldcm ~d a Ford 'F250p1ckpplnlck for community serviceoffiCcrs. GroWing'illterest , Over the pliSt couple of years, ' ab!>ui a dozen bomeowners baye ,Ap~nts on bold " " AJsp'8t the Feb. 22 meeting, tl!tl" cltycol11lc:il: ; APProved site plans fOr the , consu-uc:!ion of shelter buildings at F~HJlDseu;Si1uiiySqWiie' and TotellrP6le parl<S.The2,1~ . ,sq~fOOt, wood'fIa!ne, SIJ1JCl11reS . A~1O continue a proposid regarding l!deve\oper's plan to,' , build i15Q..Unit apartment building " oil Old fIlghway 8 near Jones ; 1.1<-P. The developer/owner, Mir Ali of New BrighlOn, is in the pr0- cess of drafting a new proposal that , callsfor 35 10 40 owner-occupiect IOwnboUSll units for the 4.3-acre plIlWt " . '.', , t Planning Case 00-15 4453 Old Highway 10 Rear Yard Variance ,,<:,~ "\'\\.- \\>,,>~\ "0 \-,'\. if\.\,\;.... /i!...~,,'0'-:.. -~----T------ -_/ '..--..----~~ - ~------~~--~ ----~~ ... .. . ~" <:'h,:l\ '.'- .. -, !( 6;;~ :1 Ii II' I "'e> " Ii .. 'I II . Ii · i! 800 , o 800 1600 Feet N A , e CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 13, 2000 FROM: Mayor and City Council Nancy Randall, Associate P~ TO: SUBJECT: Planning Case #00-15, Variance (Rear Yard Setback) Robert A1eksander, 4453 Old Highway 10 Request, The applicant is requesting approval of a rear yard setback variance (23 feet 6 inches proposed, when 30 feet is required) for a room and deck addition on a single- family lot zoned R-I (Exhibit A). . Background, The proposed porch addition is a 500 square foot addition running along the backside of the home. The home was constructed in 1988 with three patio doors facing out the back of the home.. When the home was built, the Zoning Ordinance required a 30-foot rear yard setback (same as today). The home was placed 35 feet 6 inches from the rear property line. Discussion. The applicant has stated that due to the interior configuration and location of the existing patio doors, this seems the most feasible location for the deck and room addition. The home currently meets all setback requirements. The lot is very wide, allowing for expansion on either side of the home. The rear of the home borders land owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which surrounds Round Lake. The area between the ordinary high-water mark and the rear property line is about 200 feet. Zoning Ordinance Section VI, C, d, requires a 75-foot setback from the ordinary high-water mark. The proposed porch and deck meet the 75- foot setback requirement. Zoning Ordinance Section VI, C, 2, a, allows features which are part of the principal structure, including but not limited to eaves, cantilevered areas, cornices, canopies, awnings, decks, balconies, steps, ramps, fire escapes and chimneys. These may extend three (3) feet into the required front, side, and rear setbacks but in no case shall the setback to these encroachments be less than six (6) feet. This would allow for an 8 foot 6 inch to an II foot 8 inch deck addition across the back without needing a variance. A room addition or porch does not qualify for the three-foot exception. e . Findings - Rear Yard Setback Variance, The Staff would conclude that the following factors relate to the requested variance: e I. Circumstances Unique to the ProDertv: The property borders property owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for protection of Round Lake. There is over 200 feet between the deck and porch area and the ordinary high watermark. 2. Variance not greater than necessary: The proposed structure can be reduced or relocated to either side of the home without needing a variance; however, the proposed room addition would not be allowed and the deck would be very smalL 3. Condition not created bv the landowner: The current homeowner was not the original homeowner of this property. There are no remarks on the original building permit indicating that the builder was told that a deck would not be allowed from the three patio doors. 4. Reasonable develooment: Other properties in the immediate area have decks in the rear of the home however variances were not needed. It does not appear that the neighbors would be impacted by this addition due to the large lot size and no neighbor to the rear of the property. Deadline for Agency Actions, The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on January 31, 2000. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the a City must act on this request by Friday, March 31, 2000 (60 days), unless the City _ provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The additional review period would extend to Monday, May 29, 2000. The City may, with the petitioners consent, extend the review period beyond the Monday, May 29, 2000, date. Lastly, if the City denies the petitioners request, "...it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request." Recommendations, The Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case #00-15, rear yard setback variance for an addition and deck based on the "Findings - Rear Yard Setback Variance" section of this Staff report with the following condition: 1. If the structure is damage in excess of the building code threshold for damage the variance would no longer be valid. Note: Zoning Ordinance Section VIII, E, 4, states no application which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six (6) months from the date of said order of denial. Updates: None e . e APPLICATION FOR V ARlANCE . SUBMITTED BY . ANTOINETTE AND HENRY HALVORSON AND ROBERT ALEKSANDER e DBA: PANELCRAFT CO. HEARING DATE: 03/01/2000 e EXh;b;+ A '//4 e . e 2/1~ This application, for variance of existing codes, is respectively submitted by Robert Aleksander dba Panelcraft of Minnesota. The residents, Henry and Antoinette Halvorson, have asked me to represent them to the city of Arden Hills, in the hope of procuring permission to improve the dwelling and quality of life at their residence located at 4453 Old Highway 10, Arden Hills, Minnesota. I will make no false claims regarding physical ailments requiring extra space or hardships requiring special considerations. Instead, I will state facts regarding errors in judgment on the part of the (original) architect and contractor in the placement of this house on the property lines, and the existing boundaries of the "wet" areas of this lot. The house at the above address, was designed as many newer houses are: windows and door areas specifically placed to avoid direct contact with neighbors, and the openings concentrated to face the front and rear of the lot. In fact the south and north elevations of this home reveal no windows and doors at all! This poses no real problem in itself, as the real appeal of this particular property is the beautiful lake located west of the house. The patio doors were one of the most outstanding features of the home. Providing access to future use ofthe sloping backyard, they seemed perfectly placed: one off the dining area, the other off the (next level down) living room. These doors provide the only access to the backyard now, and the only hope of access, as the south end of the kitchen contains the cupboards and workspace, and the north end of the living room houses a wonderful gas fireplace. The house is Henry and Antoinette's (Toni's) dream house! It is tastefully decorated with Native American art and artifacts reflecting Henry's heritage, and is kept meticulously clean. The only thing missing was a place to sit and really enjoy the view. Henry, a Minneapolis Police officer, felt he needed a place to drain the day's stress. What better place to accomplish this than on the shore of this beautiful lake! I (Robert Aleksander) was asked to solve their construction needs. e e e 3//11 Room Placement: The house at 4453, posed no real problems for me as a designer. The placement of the doors and windows as well as the shape of the house were of no particular issue, but the lack of options for placement of the room and deck left us no choice. The kitchen is "U" shaped, with cabinets and workspace filling the entire south end. The windows are placed above the sink and cabinets to allow a view of the vista while preparing the days repast, and the patio doors in the dining area bay out to reach into the evening sunset. However, access to the yard requires a verticillleap of eight feet, and the landing is sloped away from the house. The builder saw fit to install a long ledger (as per photo) suitable for a deck. Three steps down from the dining area is the family room. A large fireplace is the dominant feature of this room, andit is flanked by two small casement windows, offering a view of the neighbor's overgrowth! There was, you see, no other option for the placement of the three and one half season room. No possible access can be built and no other openings are available. The only choice is the patio doors on the rear. The shape of the house, as you can see, lends itself to this design, and the room and deck flow well into the house. Physically and architecturally there is no other place this room and deck can be. . . e e 4/14 Impact on Neighbor's: The homes around the lake are situated in such a way that none of the newer homes interferes with their neighbor's view oftheJake. The houses surrounding the Halvorson's have all added rooms to enjoy the view as well. The placement of this room on the rear of the house as opposed to either side also affords the passerby on Old Highway 10, a view of the lake. Moving the room or deck to the side of the house would have elongated this house irregularly masked the view from the street. No neighbor's view is interrupted by the room or deck. Impact on Fisheries: I am not an expert on fisheries. Nor will I pretend to have done any complex testing on this subject. The "wet" area behind this house is not water! As you can see in the attached, the area beyond the property line is overgrowth, dead, fallen trees, and extends seventy-five feet to the waters edge. Weare not building in this "zone". Our plan calls for a twenty-six foot set back from the deck's southern most edge, and a twenty-five foot set back from the northern edge of the room. This layout leaves nearly one hundred feet to the waters edge. We are also able to cantilever the deck and room's floor joists by up to three feet. This will allow us to move the footing's even further back from the lake. e . . SkI Closing issues: As you can see, no other room in this house can afford the homeowner's a view of the lake. No other room has multiple windows or doors or space to install windows and doors. Adding a room to the side affords no view of the lake and would impose hardship on the Halvorson's neighbor's, and all the other residents of the lake community. The room will be finished in materials matching the house, and the deck is to be of natural cedar over long lasting treated yellow fir. My company has a long history (since 1958) of building fine rooms and decks, and I have twelve years experience in the industry. No, the Halvorson's life will not cease if the room cannot be built. Residents of Arden Hills will not suffer darkness and despair if their neighbors aren't allowed to build an addition. The lake, however, will also NOT suffer as a result of this additional deck and sunspace. The Halvorson's quality of life WILL drastically improve as a result, as it HAS been proven that we all need sunlight and relaxation. I know from my own experience (I have a room and deck also) how it feels to have a place to escape the rest of the house, and sit in the sun unencumbered by the "Minnesota State Bird", (mosquitoes). We all enjoy the outdoors here in Minnesota. The Halvorson's are asking you to allow them to build their "Dream Room" and deck so that they may enjoy their lives here in Arden Hills. On behalf of the Halvorson's and myself, I thank you. Robert Aleksander Panelcraft of Minnesota 3118 Snelling Ave South Minneapolis, MN 55406 y e 'RJl.C>-r o}' i-tom.Jl.. lc.K:~ N.N,~ f o-s1-, e 7/14 e L.oo I(i f\ ~ Sov\t--. w~+ e ~/J4 e I'So.--'r'-' \>-Jt.St 'S Iel... of ~~"'iNL e 9/!LJ e SD\,t.\r. Eo-si- S-;J.- cf k~ e Ib!tlf e e (I ~ (p -i e! (I I -i m e a OJ -{ ~ m r- (I ~ -i ~ ::r Z z m (p iji () ~ -i ~ )> .. , z , , 0 1361'!--- u_ . ______---, . -~-~- I 'r------- : I . , ! ~ r . ~".,. .~ T,' """'. "'. 't mr- ! . I ~~ I t ?nn~"nl I I I ~ .0 ,r ,C) '''' 'WJ:: ~~~ '..;E , . l> I : :: , l!l , I , , I I I , , I , , I , , I , , '""'-J , , -~ ,..a', !0~'.I?o"1 ... o. e ~ ~ , j 0- l,C '"'" '"', '"', -'"', "-<; ''"'" 7.'11"" '""- '"', ''"', ''"', e ~ U) ~ , 1: J> , (5 ~ () z , J> , J:: m z l> ;0 W ~ ~ 00]'\ ~\p rn~o.-.{ ~TTl- O1mU'l z~~ m()"ll lS'1:llJ_ :rm"ll)>l:> IJ1rar. (J]:I-{-tr~6' ,lrl:> m(J1~()m:;t1J'l t5'~(Por ~;;J~::I{;i~:::; ~j!J::6::g l!lj:;;;o~~C)"'l ';'\"~il!-'- --"~t>1C)~~~~~__~~ t&t.P~~~~~l>.f.>..t:3~ tD ISlDtD ............ .. .. ., .. ., .. .. .. t- "'-C)C)"l)(l>()f:5f:5155.25!:2o e 5!:!:'; ~ eJ ~ ~;o;o:I::{ il15!:o ~ j'(]m-f.-mtp7\7\m m c ;Om ~m~'iillllll ....ffi::I hi< m()"''''J::J::J:: ;001 S(j; C)....Z()Oo~ m 5~ Ol::t ::!ffiffim fA) z...... -<~ 9......--. ~ OJ "-1ffi~ t- m -{jU~ jt] ....."1} (Jl ...... 1\1 m...... ---0 " r ~l> Z (j) ~-1 l>m r- m ~ lVIY . Z E)(m U> , ) .... \p N - ~ .,tl...J-,.~""'_:-- ...._:---. :-~G\ _ :--:--:--::---:--~ .....:--5{Ol}.~m m PgQ\JJm"'}o.~ ;,.,m.....:--.--zm Z ~ 1.1U~8~:;~~~~::~~ 8 ~ ') ",,,,,,,,"'~z'!i;:'z ~~>. ~ J> ~ "TIEQfi:!!Zij;-rl<' r r r n ~lF~lE=~~~~~~ ~g ~:z :J ",016 :x:J.i' cP -1-1 mt:. :z. 0 jjm:r::~}>t:J'" ~~5 o~ (fJ-I Jl ':'~n~h:=~ G;Hlo ~m i'ii m --< ep-tEg;z: (j\,g \ll~ ~ P n~~}>~~~ ,o~ rn6 (fJ g :=of; me G\rt1 <P ~rn_~mm; ~~ r~ ~ TIO~ ~Qm ~ ~S Q _mm()~ ~}> U'z ~ :"l~om~~~ ~ ;1 llJ i{l::!::! lil"" '" li ~ !;;lt5if'~~-< ~ ~ -t~~g n~..... m J .~ )>. & ~ m jO ilmntS 4l;;c ~ :I a.!!: ". _ r-...... $ ~ ~. ~ r.r> m o --l ):> z: ;: (1 o ~ ~ ~ (f> () --l P JlJ ~ ~ 'ii (5 . :z ill :z ::! 0 o --l ;\j m ~ g'l r tJ m '" '" ij; e e t- -n o () () JlJ '-0 ~o 'l> .z ~ e " Ul ~ , :r: l> o < () ill 2 , l> .I>- -,;.' ::\ 12'-0" ~1; ~ ~'" ""fl!x j ",. 'Om~ :t>_ ,,;:-.,r~ G ...... 'Q mlr' ~~ ~~ r----- - 0'" 0-'" : - ---~~------ .-----~lJ------- , , , olu. 8:~ €>fl!'''' ml& @)~:~ 0, n', ", I , , , , u:~ 2,,, ""fl!'''' '0 ," ""'rm", , 'eI 1.?5 61. fill ", I " , , , L_-~-------6~------- ~ -- n : tC\~X I 'Om'" If\Q 1- ~~@--: ~ ~ .o~~I~} I ----=dl J i " ~ '" 0: ~ --! ~ lip;: : , , I , , I , , , , , , I , , , , , I , , I , , , , , , , I , , , I , , , I , I , , I , , , , I , I , , , I ., I , I , , , , I I &:----- -;2' 2X", HE'" E'" ------"- "",' !;'-... G; ~ () -, ~ -< 1) Z en ~ x ." ~~ t1rrt ->> ~ ~ ~ I; " (2) !3~"~v1" L.vL. 6EAJ'1 WRAFPr:.O UJI IX ,KNoTTY PINE I~ x ." ~~ ~iii ~ ";')'XI"HEAD~Q~ ~ /,17 I !1-~" !'o- ' I , -, . l:J.h~ N g~ 1) !' ~[j ~ () .r ill 1)m ,,;8 is om ;\j ",>> I '" <5 * 8 ~ m X ij; -, ~ '" 2 '" m 'l- I I 8 I ~ l II ~ I . I CI ' I III ' 0 I lO tJ m en 5~ S( I c~ "'- 2' "'i!i I I I I , I i' I I , , I I , I , I [I , ~j :s..."S\.~~ e e e 8 z (j> --< ~ () --< m CJ {Jl --< II ~ m r () ~ --< Sri ::I ~ m (.f> () --< }> z o 'l ~ <Jl (l) <Jl , r J> r < o III (.f> ~ , J> IJ1 , ". ",- r m " --< l';m ".r ~m .. < ~J> ,,~ -l 70 qz 1;;"-' III G\ r p;-l ".m or f!lm (;i< ~J> ~-l i<lo 'z r---- L____ r---- L_- r---- L_- '" 6 '" l" ~ '0 '" m)'>.'l>Sl~. " m~~ .." '0 ~~ ~n ~~r.: :t:-.P;X:'1 rn'1 c=~:s,,5r ~O ." eJ> ". n1-l~CL\i'il LDr-Q'-':;oQ 2\)1lJl:t>--l m~mDa . rTl_ ~ '" ~ '0 m r= I r---- L____ _r---- L_- ~2 ~h g; 1:' ;;;: '" ~ 'Z u l> el ~ c= ~ 5;~S -" .."'-< C)::!r ~~!E fii}::.Q ~<S>~ n~ Go m:t ~ n I "'" ~~ nl =! 1:' JS/i~ ~~~ ..@Q Cl;-4'~ ~:c~ ",2" r"'" tnmr ".'" ",'" ,,~ rO 0" ffl~' Q ~~ "'''' c'I :cZ l>2~ lJ>ffim lJl>~ 0",0 ~n:t rn5~ hiffiQ . e e e () o z (J> .... ~ .... m Q \Jl -< II ~ m r () III !ii .... ~ :I ~ m (J> 9 )> z: o ?5 l>_ '" "T1 ~ z l';.... l>m rr !!1m "'< "ll>- "--I ~O -z " t.P \l> t.P , I l>- r 6 ~ ~ , l>- l:S' , I ~ '" ...:o~. ~lJl;: mi~~ m --nO CI :t>~Q m8:....~ i:. o~ j=~(JI1b .......G\rn.... 'I'?!i'";: ~o OJ ~m m r r -><11 ili '" ~ m r---- c_ r- \...---- r-- L___ r c r--- L__._ r--- .. L.....____ r c r--- L___ ~ m l>m;; "'Xz lJUi-{ Cl~r ",:;'", ~("'i5 /l!li;~ m" r(; g" ml> ~ Q E~] ~ i r-_-__ '" ~ m 1":: If;~ "'r ~l> --<~ lJm '0 '" l> il' m m X iji -, i!' 2 '" m ll.{/J~ . e e e MINUTES CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2000 7:30 P,M, - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL DRAFT CALL TO ORDER Chair Steve Erickson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were Chair Steve Erickson, Commissioners Brent Nelson, Marty Rye, and Dave Sand. Absent were Commissioners Stephen Baker, Terri Duchenes, and Therese Galatowitsch. Also present were Councihnember David Grant, Councihnember Lois Rem, Associate Planner Nancy Randall, and Recording Secretary Carla Wirth. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 2. 2000 Commissioner Sand moved, seconded by Chair Erickson to approve the February 2, 2000 minutes. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). PLANNING CASE #00-12 - LAWRENCE ERICKSON -1860 INDIAN PLACE - REAR YARD VARIANCE Ms. Randall explained that the applicant was requesting approval of a rear yard setback variance (20 feet proposed, when 30 feet is required) for a 16 by 32 foot garage addition on a single- family lot zoned R-2. The proposed garage addition is 16 by 32 feet (512 square feet). The applicant currently has a 22 by 24 foot (528 square foot) two car garage. The applicant desires to build a longer garage to allow for a workshop area in the rear of the garage. With regard to circumstances unique to the property, staff found the property in question meets all the minimum dimensional and area standards except the 120 foot depth requirement. The current house and garage meet the required setbacks. The garage addition can be expanded east three more feet, without requiring a variance, allowing for a 19 by 24 foot (456 square foot) garage addition. There is room for an addition to the west; however, the garage addition would not work well with the existing interior configuration. The applicant currently has a 22 by 24 foot (528 square foot) two car garage. The proposed addition is 16 by 32 feet (512 square feet) for a total of 1,040 square feet of garage space. The City Ordinance does not restrict the size of attached garage space. It does, however, restrict detached garages to 728 square feet. Ms. Randall advised that staff recommends denial of Planning Case #00-12, rear yard variance for a garage addition based on the "Findings - Rear Yard Setback Variance" section ofthe staff report dated March I, 2000. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1, 2000 DRAfT 2 . If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this Planning Case, then it would be . heard at the Monday, March 13,2000 regular meeting of the City Council. Larry Erickson, applicant, stated they can build a garage within the regulations but he would like to build the one with the variance because it would be more functional, allowing him to only heat half during the winter and it would be more attractive than a 19 foot garage. Mr. Erickson noted his lot is only 100 feet but if his lot depth was standard, he would be able to have this request. He noted the six foot privacy fence on one lot abutting his and the chain link on the adjoining property. Mr. Erickson stated he did not talk with Mr. Price, one of his neighbors. Mr. Erickson noted that this request would keep the garage three feet farther away than ifhe builds a 19 foot wide garage. In response to Chair Erickson, Ms. Randall advised that this property is zoned R-2 so a five foot setback is allowed. Chair Erickson asked how much of the 32 feet is shop and how much is garage. Ms. Randall presented a diagram. Mr. Erickson stated the shop area would be 10 feet by 16 feet wide. Chair Erickson suggested a configuration that is closer to the side lot line. Ms. Randall diagramed how the garage could be expanded toward the side property line to eliminate the need for the rear setback variance. Commissioner Nelson asked if the 19 x 24 foot area would be an extension toward the side lot . line and only to the back ofthe house. Ms. Randall stated that is correct. Chair Erickson noted that configuration toward the side lot line would provide more square footage. Mr. Erickson stated he believed such a configuration would be more costly to construct due to thc angles and beams needed. Chair Erickson inquired regarding the construction of the current garage. Ms. Randall presented a diagram of the front elevation which identified a gable roofline over the expansion area. Chair Erickson stated he believed that it would be possible to use the same truss configuration with an expansion toward the side lot line. Mr. Erickson stated a car is 20 feet long so a 24 foot garage only allows four feet extra. He explained a rectangular shaped space would be more functional for a workshop. Chair Erickson reviewed the history of other garage variances considered by the Planning Commission and general policy ofthe City that there is a hardship for homes with single car garages since a two car garage is more typical as a result, variances, within reason, have been approved to add a second stall to a single car garage. However, three car garages have not presented specific hardship issues that he can remember. Chair Erickson noted a third stall plus extra square footage can be accomplished in this case without creating the need for a variance. He stated he understands the applicant's desire for additional depth in front of the workshop but explained it is difficult, in this case, for the Planning Commission to identify a specific hardship to qualifY for granting a variance. . f. e . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH I, 2000 DRAFT o ~ Chair Erickson noted staff rational for denial was based on the fact that a third stall could be added without a variance. Ms. Randall stated that is correct. Commissioner Sand stated that based on past experience it is almost assumed that everyone is entitled to a three car garage. Unfortunately, it almost has to be done at the time the home is built because unless you can show the lot creates more hardship than this case; no one has the right to a three car garage. He noted the workspace is about 128 square feet (8' x 16') but there are other configurations that could accomplish the same square footage, such as extending toward the side lot line, without violating any setback standards. Commissioner Sand stated that he believes there are other options that could be explored to accomplish a workshop without the need for a variance. Because of that, he indicated he would not vote in support of this request. Commissioner Nelson clarified that Chair Erickson's suggestion was to build a square shaped expansion toward the side lot line, not an angled wall configuration. Mr. Erickson stated his second option to construct a 19' by 24' third stall is possible but not as preferable. Chair Erickson suggested he explore that option and stated that he does not believe such a configuration would result in additional construction costs. Commissioner Sand moved, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend denial of Planning Case #00-12, Rear Yard Variance (20 feet proposed when 30 feet is required) for a garage addition based on the "Findings - Rear Yard Setback Variance" as contained in the Staffreport dated March 1, 2000. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). This Planning Case will be reviewed at the Monday, March 13, 2000, City Council meeting. PLANNING CASE #00-13 - JULIE SCHUMACHER -1932 WEST COUNTY ROAD E- SPECIAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING Chair Erickson confirmed that the Planning Case was announced in the February 16, 2000 publication ofthe Bulletin and opened the pnblic hearing at 7:48 p.m. Ms. Randall explained that the applicant was requesting approval of a Special Use Permit (Class II Home Occupation) for a personal training studio in a single family lot zoned R-2. The home is located at 1932 West County Road E and was remodeled in 1994 to include a workshop area behind the existing two car garage. The applicant has a purchase agreement on the home and would like to use the workshop area for a training studio. Staff is unaware of any existing Special Use Permits for home occupations. The City has several business permitted as a Class 1 Home Occupation. Ms. Randall reviewed the conditions required for approval of a Class II Home Occupation as contained in Zoning Ordinance Section VI, B, 3, a, which states home occupations are allowed as either accessory uses or special uses depending on the characteristics of the operation. Ms. Randall reviewed Zoning Ordinance Section VI, B, 3, c which states Class II Special Accessory Home Occupations may be allowed by Special Use Permit if they meet the conditions stipulated for all Home Occupations and the following conditions: 1. The primary business activity shall be conducted by an occupant of the residence; ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1,2000 DRAFT 4 t 2. One person not residing in the residence may be employed to assist in the business activity; It does not occupy more than thirty-three percent ofthe floor area of the dwelling; It has a limited number of patrons visiting the premises; Off-street parking for no more than two additional vehicles than those required by the occupants shall be permitted; on-street parking shall not be used to satisfY required parking; It requires delivery of products to the premises no more than once per day. e 3. 4. 5. 6. Ms. Randall advised that the area is sound proofed, however, the nature of the business may require music which should be kept to a minimum as to not disturb neighbors. Staff suggested setting hours of operation. Ms. Randall explained that the applicant plans to occupy the residence and does not plan to have other employees at this time. Clients would be dealt with on a one-on-one basis, however, there could be an overlap, thus causing two clients at the same time for a short period oftime. The clients could also have someone waiting for them, thus causing a third person. The property has ample parking for three patrons along with the applicant's vehicles. The business does not require the delivery of products. The training studio is 24 by 36 feet (864 square feet). The dwelling is 3,516 square feet (including the garage and studio area). The studio would be 24.5 percent of the dwelling, which is below the maximum 33 percent allowed. Ms. Randall advised that staff recommends approval of Planning Case #00-13, Special Use a Permit for a personal training studio with eight conditions. Ifthe Planning Commission makes a ., recommendation on this Planning Case, then it would be heard at the Monday, March 13, 2000 regular meeting of the City Council. Julie Schumacher, applicant, advised that the windows do not open and any music used would be background music, not aerobic type music. She also advised that parking is not allowed on her street. She is licensed in this field. Commissioner Rye asked if special use permits travel with the property. Ms. Randall stated in the case of a home occupation, the SUP goes with the applicant and property together so if the property is sold, the new owner would need to reapply for a SUP to conduct the same type of business. Also, if the applicant's business were to change outside of these parameters (one-on- one arrangement), she would have to reapply for that modification. In response to Chair Erickson, Ms. Randall stated she thinks there are home occupations that should make application for a SUP which are being dealt with by Code Enforcement on a complaint basis. She explained the difference between Class I and Class 11 home occupations. Commissioner Nelson asked how the shop was soundproofed. Ms. Schumacher stated she did not build the home but the person who built the shop said it was soundproofed. Ms. Randall stated that has been verified by the Building Official. Commissioner Nelson noted the hours of operation being recommended by staff. Ms. Schumacher stated her clients like to workout before work hours or during lunch so an earlier start time would be nice but she does have another location to operate from and could see her early hour clients at that location. She stated the earliest time she sees a client is 5 :30 a.m. . f e e e ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1,2000 DRAFT 5 Chair Erickson noted the applicant's home is located on a comer across from an open space and a business. Otherwise, he may feel differently about earlier hours. Ms. Randall stated one of the neighbors called with questions but voiced no comments. She noted that all Arden Hills property owners within 350 feet were notified. Commissioner Rye stated it may make sense to approve hours of operation earlier so a modification is not needed later. In response to Commissioner Sand, Ms. Schumacher stated her other location is the "Sweat Shop" in St. Paul. Chair Erickson closed the public hearing at 8:03 p.m., as no one else wished to address the Planning Commission. Commissioner Sand stated that the addition was built within the last five years and he remembers it was fairly well insulated. He asked if it meets all setback requirements since it did not come before the Planning Commission for a variance. Ms. Randall stated it does meet all setback requirements. Commissioner Rye moved, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to recommend approval of Planning Case #00-13, Special Use Permit for a personal training studio with the following conditions: I. Music be kept to a minimum as to not disturb neighbors and windows shall remain closed during sessions. 2. Applicant must reside in the house. 3. No more than one person can assist with the business. 4. No more than three patrons visiting the premises at a time 5. Hours of operation be between 5:30 a.m. and 9 p.m. 6. No street parking of patrons. 7. Review of Special Use Permit by City Council every two years. 8. All required permits be obtained. 9. No business signs shall be allowed on the premises. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). Tills Planning Case will be reviewed at the Monday, March 13, 2000, City Council meeting. PLANNING CASE #00-14 - CHUCK MERTENSOTTO - 3491 LAKE JOHANNA BOULEVARD - CORNER SIDE YARD VARIANCE Ms. Randall explained that the applicant was requesting approval of a comer side yard setback variance (7 feet proposed, when 40 feet is required) for a porch addition on a single family lot zoned R-2. The proposed porch addition is 183 square feet running along the front and side ofthe home. The applicant currently has an 8 by 30 foot (240 square foot) porch on the rear of the home. The ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1, 2000 DRAFT 6 t applicant desires to build a porch on the street side to enhance the property. This is currently a .. rental property. .. To date, little information has been compiled regarding historic sites or buildings in Arden Hills having architectural/visual interest. Investigation with the Minnesota Historical Society and Ramsey County Historical Society has identified only one site. This house, known as the Charles Perry house, has been designated as a possible nominee for the National Register of Historic Places. Further research, as well as community interest, is required before actual placement on the National Register of Historic Places is pursued. The home currently does not have any historic restrictions or reviews for modifications. Ms. Randall noted the property is not square to the road and explained that the shorter side of the property is considered the front, noting both the front and sides of a comer lot require a 40 foot setback so the front setback is not currently being met. With regard to circumstances unique to the property, staff found the house currently is 15.37 feet (where 40 feet is required) from the easement line. The house was built (moved) prior to the current setback restriction. Ms. Randall eXplained that the variance can be reduced by eliminating the 8 by l4-foot section on the northeast. She presented an overview diagram of the house structure and how a porch could be configured which would not present as much of an impact. She advised that it appears at one time (due to some existing footings) there was a porch approximately 5 by 5 feet in front of the door. Any front entryway will require a variance. Because ofthat, staff felt the porch could be placed in that location but not wrapped around the building. Ms. Randall stated Lake Johanna Boulevard may be reconstructed to meet today's standards so it e may shift somewhat but the exact alignment is not yet known. She asked the Planning Commission to keep that in mind when considering locating anything closer to Lake Johanna Boulevard. Ms. Randall advised that Staffrecommends approval of Planning Case #00-14, comer side yard variance for a porch addition, based on the "Findings - Corner Side Yard Setback Variance" section of the staff report dated March 1, 2000, and with the following modification: 1. Eliminate the 8 by l4-foot section on the northeast side thus only needing a l2-foot setback where a 40 foot setback is required. Ms. Randall advised that the applicant does not agree with the modification being recommended by staff and would like to make comment on that aspect. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this Planning Case, then it would be heard at the Monday, March 13, 2000, regular meeting ofthe City Council. Chair Erickson stated that judging by the plan and elevation, it appears that everything proposed on the front except the side deck falls more in the nature of a front entry with solar screening over the window. However, the house is already non-conforming. He asked the applicant if he wished to speak to this issue. e Chuck Mertensotto, applicant, stated the house was for sale and if there was any historical interest, the City or County should have taken some action because the price was lowered. He stated he called the Ramsey County Highway Department and they said nothing would be done with Lake Johanna Boulevard until it deteriorates and that it is not within their plans for the next ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH I, 2000 DRAfT 7 e five years unless the City does something. He stated he is not aware of any task force being formed to look at the road. Mr. Mertensotto stated the sidewalks on either side of Lake Johanna Boulevard are deteriorated and he is trying to determine who owns the sidewalks. He estimated the sidewalks were constructed before 1975. Mr. Mertensotto stated this house needs something and he has received permission to make the inside improvements. He stated that his other house has a mansard roof but he has not yet determined if this structure should have a mansard roof due to the noise considerations. He stated he selected this style with the side porch area so the occupants could have a sitting area to view the lake or be able to watch their children at play on the beach across the roadway. He stated if you are on the beach, the roadway elevation is quite high so it is difficult to see the other side ofthe road when viewing from the beach. Mr. Mertensotto stated Mayor Probst is his next door neighbor but he has not talked to him about the suggested design. He stated he has attempted to create a design off to the side that does not impact the road and break up the appearance ofthe structure. He stated he is trying to tie the new porch into the porch located at the back of the house. Mr. Mertensotto stated that many in the neighborhood have probably hoped something would be done to improve the appearance and increase the value of the house. Chair Erickson asked how far the opposite (southwest) comer of the house is to the street. Ms. Randall stated it is 31 feet. e Chair Erickson stated he finds this consideration to be similar to the garage shop variance request considered earlier tonight. He noted any work will be difficult since the house is nonconforming. Mr. Mertensotto stated he is trying to create a front entrance to the house. Chair Erickson agreed that some type of improvement will create better curb appeal but the side deck becomes a functional deck and cuts the existing setbaek in half. He posed the option as to whether a more functional solution could be created with the porch on the opposite (southwest) side of the house. Mr. Mertensotto noted that option would not improve the aesthetic of the home when viewed from Tony Schmidt Park. Chair Erickson stated small awnings or roof overhangs could be considered to enhance the aesthetics of that elevation. Mr. Mertensotto asked how that configuration would allow a view of the lake. Chair Erickson noted it would actually provide a better private viewing of the lake by taking it away from the road and beach area. Mr. Mertensotto pointed out that a door opening would be needed for a deck on the opposite side of the home. He noted that there already is an on-grade patio on that side of the house as well. Chair Erickson stated he is having a difficult time supporting this request given the extreme nature of the variance. e Commissioner Rye noted a unique feature is that there are no residents to the north, east, or northeast, and the western property neighbor would be completely shielded from the porch as well as the southern neighbor due to the topography. He suggested the purpose of setbacks is to minimize impact to neighbors and allow for utilities and access. Commissioner Rye asked what type of impact this encroachment would have on any future roadway construction. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1,2000 DRAFT 8 Chair Erickson asked if the proposed porch, once the variance is granted, could be changed into an enclosed living space. Ms. Randall stated that is correct unless a condition of approval e prohibits the deck from being enclosed. She added that conditions could also include the roof type, etc. Commissioner Sand stated he sympathizes that the exposure to the lake is rather stark but the addition of architectural features such as awnings could provide architectural character to the house without the need for a variance. He stated a deck could be created along the front of the house and remain within the setback requirements which would accomplish what the petitioner desires and improve the facade of the home. Commissioner Sand stated he supports staffs recommendations and finds this request similar to the earlier rear yard variance request which was recommended for denial. Commissioner Sand stated that he would support the staff recommended modification which would minimize the impact. He asked if the applicant would consider the deck functional without the side deck. Commissioner Nelson asked if another variance would be needed to construe! the deck as suggested by Chair Erickson on the west side of the house. Ms. Randall stated that is correct unless it is indicated within the motion. Or, the applicant could develop alternatives before the Council consideration on what would work. Mr. Mertensotto stated that having to add another door to the house would create a hardship a situation and it would also be at a different elevation, needing a step down. .. Commissioner Rye inquired regarding the topography of the property. Mr. Mertensotto pointed out where the hill starts and stated he would prefer action be taken by the Planning Commission to provide direction to the Council so he can proceed with his plans. He stated the location he is proposing is in the area of the existing driveway and he would like to tie this to the rear porch. Chair Erickson stated there are architectural features that can be designed which would not require a variance. Ms. Randall advised that a three foot overhang is allowed over the setback line but, in this case, the setback line is in the middle of the house. However, a variance option could be considered. Commissioner Sand stated he does not want to exacerbate the setback impact which would occur with this request. He suggested rethinking along the diagonal area in front of the house and to work within that triangular space. Commissioner Sand stated that may be looked at more favorably as long as it does not impact more than the existing structure. Chair Erickson explained that the Planning Commission would have to see the proposal m writing. Commissioner Sand asked if it is unlikely the applicant would utilize the porch area in the front which staff suggests is allowable if the side deck is not allowed. Mr. Mertensotto stated he planned to talk with the tenant who lives in the house to see what they think. e Chair Erickson suggested thinking about placing a door on the other side since the cost would not be exorbitant compared to the structure proposed to be built. e . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1,2000 DRAt 9 Commissioner Sand moved to recommend denial of Planning Case #00-14, comer side yard variance for a porch addition so that other design options can be considered and a formal presentation made to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Sand stated that he thinks trying to redesign the porch configuration tonight may actually result in "hamstringing" the applicant in what he can design and construct. Commissioner Nelson seconded the motion. Commissioner Nelson asked if the staff recommendation would provide a benefit. Mr. Mertensotto stated it would allow a front entrance to be constructed which would be of benefit to him. The motion failed (2 ayes, Erickson and Sand - 2 nays, Nelson and Rye). Commissioner Nelson moved, seconded by Commissioner Rye to recommend approval of Planning Case #00-14, comer side yard variance for a porch addition based on the "Findings-Comer Side Yard Setback Variance" section of the staff report dated March 1, 2000, with the following modification: 1. Eliminate the 8 by l4-foot section on the northeast side thus only needing a 12- foot setback where a 40 foot setback is required. The motion carried (3-1 Sand). This Planning Case will be reviewed at the Monday, March 13, 2000, City Council meeting. PLANNING CASE #00-15 - ROBERT ALEKSANDER - 4453 OLD HIGHWAY 10- REAR YARD VARIANCE Ms. Randall explained that the applicant was requesting approval of a rear yard setback variance (23 feet 6 inches proposed when 30 feet is required) for a room and deck addition on a single- family lot zoned R-1. The proposed porch addition is a 500 square foot addition running along the back side of the home. The home was constructed in 1988 with three patio doors facing out the back of the home. When the home was built, the Zoning Ordinance required a 30-foot rear yard setback which is the same as required today. The home was placed 35 feet 6 inches from the rear property line. The applicant has stated that due to the interior configuration and location of the existing patio doors, this seems the most feasible location for a deck and room addition. The home currently meets all setback requirements. The lot is very wide, allowing for expansion on either side of the home. The rear of the home borders land owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which surrounds Round Lake. The area between the ordinary high water mark and the rear property line is about 200 feet. Zoning Ordinance Section VI, C, d, requires a 75-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark. The proposed porch and deck meet the 75-foot setback requirement. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH I, 2000 DRAFT 10 Zoning Ordinance Section VI, C, 2, a, allows features which are part of the principal structure, including but not limited to eaves, cantilevered areas, cornices, canopies, awnings, decks, e balconies, steps, ramps, fire escapes, and chimneys. These may extend three feet into the required front, side, and rear setbacks but in no case shall the setback to these encroachments be less than six feet. This would allow for an 8 foot 6 inch to an 11 foot 8 inch deck addition across the back without needing a variance. A room addition or porch does not qualify for the three- foot exception. With regard to circumstances unique to the property, staff found the property borders property owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for protection of Round Lake. There is over 200 feet between the deck and porch area and the ordinary high water mark. The structure can be reduced or relocated to either side of the home without needing a variance, however, the proposed room addition would not be allowed and the deck would be very small. The current homeowner was not the original homeowner of this property. There are no remarks on the original building permit indicating that the builder was told that a deck would not be allowed from the three patio doors. Other properties in the immediate area have decks in the rear of the home, however, variances were not needed. It does not appear that the neighbors would be impacted by this addition due to the large lot size and no neighbor to the rear of the property. Ms. Randall advised that Staff recommends approval of Planning Case #00-15, rear yard variance for an addition of deck, based on the "Findings - Rear Yard Setback Variance" section of the staff report dated March I, 2000, and with the following condition: 1. If the structure is damaged in excess of the building code threshold for damage, the variance e would no longer be valid. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this Planning Case, then it would be heard at the Monday, March 13, 2000, regular meeting of the City Council. Commissioner Sand asked if the neighboring home to the north with a deck does not present the same setback issue as this request Mr. Randall advised that it does not since that lot is a little longer so the setbacks are met. She stated the only way the builder could have done better would have been to locate the house ten feet closer to the eastern lot line since the depth on that side of the lot is a little longer. Commissioner Nelson asked if any other home in this neighborhood does not meet the 30 foot rear setback requirement. Ms. Randall pointed out one house that may not meet the setback but explained she is not familiar with that house or when it was constructed. She stated the City files contain no variances for any homes along this street in this area. Commissioner Nelson asked about the allowance of a three foot cantilevered section and if the three-season porch could be switched to the other side. Ms. Randall stated the applicant prefers the proposed location based on the living areas that would access it. Rob Aleksander, Panelcraft, explained there is a bump-out bay from the kitchen which is about 24 inches higher than the patio door. Also, from the dining area, the applicant prefers a view over the deck rather than into the three-season porch. He explained that the kitchen is a U- shaped arrangement with cabinets on that wall so it would be difficult to remove the kitchen cabinets and insert a patio door. Mr. Aleksander stated the north side would only provide a view e e e e DRAFT ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1,2000 11 of the neighbor and garage, not the scenic area. Also, there is a fireplace on the north side. He noted that with the proposed design, it cannot be viewed from the street and would not restrict the view of the scenic area from the porch. Also, it would not impact the view from either neighbor. Chair Erickson asked if the rear wall of the home, to the right of tbe kitchen bay window, contains a small casement window. Toni Halverson, the home owner, stated that window looks over the kitchen sink and the other window is the dining area. Mr. Aleksander corrected his mistaken statement and explained that it is not all kitchen cabinets and the southerly end of the house has a dining room. Commissioner Sand asked how this application is distinguishable from previous considerations. Chair Erickson stated the only difference is there are no neighbors to the rear of the house but that was not discussed as a condition for denial on the previous application. He noted that to a certain extent, in this case, the hardship was created by the builder who located the house and left options open that were not realistic for the home owner. Ms. Halverson stated because the area behind the house is owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, they cannot do anything with the trees and the location to the north of the house has a large tree. Commissioner Rye stated this would meet the setback requirements if not for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service easement, which creates an additional hardship and is unique to this property. Chair Erickson asked if the 75 foot setback is from a recreational lake. Ms. Randall stated this is classified as a recreational lake with no access since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service owns the entire perimeter. Chair Erickson stated the Planning Commission needs to find a difference between this application and the first one considered tonight. Mr. Aleksander noted that with the first case, the applicant already had a two car garage and a third stall was being requested. He noted that in this neighborhood, all ofthe homes have a porch except this house. Chair Erickson stated that with the garage consideration, the City has a policy that a two car garage is a reasonable expectation but that is not the case with a three-season porch. Also, there are other options for placement with this property. However, he stated he does not find it would be a detriment to the area. Chair Erickson stated he finds an extenuating circumstance related to the DNR setback from the lake versus the setback from the property line. Commissioner Sand noted the porch has no other location to go that accommodates the interior layout of the house. Chair Erickson noted the three-season porch could be constructed off the dining room as opposed to the Jiving room. Ms. Randall stated the DNR requirement is 75 feet so it does not even touch this property. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1, 2000 DRAF 12 Commissioner Sand noted you could generate a six foot deck extension from the living room sliding patio door and fall within the setback requirement and still use the step up to the main -- deck with a slight adjustment and construct the three-season porch on the south side from the .. dining room. Ms. Randall stated the neighbor to the north called with basic questions and expressed no concern. Commissioner Nelson stated that due to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service area impact and distance to the lake, he is inclined to accept this proposal. Chair Erickson asked about variances around Karth Lake. Ms. Randall stated property lines around Karth Lake run into the lake. Chair Erickson noted that this type of restriction on the petitioner's property is unique to Arden Hills. Mr. Randall agreed and stated she notified the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service but they did not submit comments. Commissioner Rye moved, seconded by Commissioner Sand to recommend approval of Planning Case #00-15, rear yard variance (23 feet 6 inches where 30 feet is required) for an addition of deck based on the "Findings - Rear Yard Setback Variance" section of the staff report dated March 1, 2000, and with the following condition: I. Ifthe structure is damaged in excess of the building code threshold for damage, the variance would no longer be valid. e The motion carried unanimously (4-0). This Planning Case will be reviewed at the Monday, March 13, 2000, City Council meeting. Mr. Aleksander advised of the option to move the footings back toward the house if that helps with the request. Ms. Randall stated a variance would still be needed. Chair Erickson recessed the meeting at 9:20 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:25 p.m. PLANNING CASE #00-11 - CITY OF ARDEN HILLS - VARIANCE PROCEDURE - DISCUSSION ONLY Ms. Randall explained that staff is requesting that the Planning Commission commence the review and discussion of the existing variance procedure and determine if any changes should be made to the ordinance. At the last meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the City of Roseville's administrative permit process for variances along with the language used by the City of Hopkins. Staff was asked to bring further information on past variances, and incorporate a location and language similar to Hopkins in the current Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Randall presented the table of variances from 1995 to date along with a map of each site. She pointed out the sites that would not have needed a variance with the proposed language, noting a few variances that were denied would be approved under the suggested language change. e e e e ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH I, 2000 DRAFT 13 Ms. Randall advised that none of the applications considered tonight would have qualified for the administrative process. All would have been heard by the Planning Commission. She read the language being proposed indicating that "the setback for additions to any existing residential dwelling shall be the same or greater than the existing structure. . ." Ms. Randall noted that the Planning Commission would need to determine minimum setback distances to complete that section ofthe ordinance. Ms. Randall reviewed past considerations on several variances that would have been impacted by the proposed language change. She noted that people with large lots could conform with this modification. Commissioner Rye stated he would support language that captures more variance requests and would maximize time and efficiency of staff, the Planning Commission, and Council. He asked if the permitted encroachments have a "primary gatekeeper" and "secondary gatekeeper" to be determined by staff and an opportunity for appeal through the normal process. Ms. Randall stated it will be difficult for staff to determine which applications should go through the process and which should not unless it is more closely defined which would result in ordinance discretion rather than staff discretion. Commissioner Rye stated that criteria could be established and ifmet, the variance could be granted by staff. However, if the criteria is not met, then the normal process would have to be followed. Ms. Randall advised that Commissioner Baker asked ifthere was availability for staff discretion whether it would be brought forward or not, and if a section were to be added where a percent of the exiting structure would have to be within the buildable setback area (slightly non-conforming versus a whole house that is non-conforming). She noted in that case, most of the variances contained in the staff report would still have been approved. Commissioner Sand raised several definitional questions. Ms. Randall stated all of the language proposed is within the City's ordinance with the exception ofthe underlined words. Commissioner Sand read Section C, 2, a, (I) and asked how the line being described is determined. Ms. Randall drew a diagram showing a house with a five foot (R-2) setback and allowance of an encroachment to be three feet, which would be less than six feet so in that situation, it would not be allowed. Ifthe house is at ten feet (R -I) then going to a three foot encroachment would not encroach into the minimum six foot setback and would be allowed. In response to Commissioner Sand, Ms. Randall noted the consideration of Building Codes which requires six feet between buildings and no more than a three-foot overhang. Commissioner Sand asked the intent of the language addressing traffic visibility and how it is measured. Ms. Randall explained that with a comer lot, it is measured from the property line. She created a diagram of how the triangle is measured and the height restriction within the triangular space to assure adequate traffic visibility. Commissioner Rye asked if the reason for this consideration is to assure that it is acceptable with the neighbors, the neighbors are notified, all the issues are identified, the request has a minimized impact, and City interests are protected. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1,2000 DRAFT 14 Chair Erickson noted that by removing it from the public process and allowing staff consideration, the neighbors are not notified and it is more of a building permit process. He noted that if notification was mailed out, it would be difficult for staff to determine how to handle obj ections. e Ms. Randall stated that with variances, only the abutting property owners are notified. She noted that with the City of Rose vi lie, the application is presented to a Design Review Committee and, if approved, then goes to their Council as a consent agenda consideration. Ms. Randall commented on the concern with a polling process depending on who is providing the information. She stated if the information to neighbors is provided by neighbors, then it may not be as accurate as if provided by the City. Commissioner Sand noted that with this process, 30 of the applications contained on the schedule provided by staff would not have been approved. Commissioner Rye stated he wished it would have addressed more than 30. He noted that by establishing criteria, it will not be that onerous. He suggested a percentage requirement be established. Commissioner Sand noted that in terms of workload, it is still a Council consideration on the consent agenda and increases staff work since they would be involved with more than the application process. He noted this is the process for the Planning Commission and why they were created. e Commissioner Rye stated he does not know that it would take more staff time but agreed that may take about the same amount of time. Commissioner Sand noted the Hopkins model. Ms. Randall stated it only allows for a side yard consideration but she added all four of the setbacks to the draft ordinance in case the Planning Commission wanted to consider that option. She noted the need for the Planning Commission to determine minimum setback distances so parameters are provided within the ordinance language. Ms. Randall stated Roseville went with this procedure to encourage older bungalow owners to do front elevation remodeling because the new process made it easier for those homeowners. Chair Erickson stated that reasoning is different than the consideration in Arden Hills. Commissioner Rye asked what staff preference is. Ms. Randall stated when it is a permitted encroachment, it is a smoother process because they are not submitting a lot of documents. She advised that the three foot encroachment with cantilevered structures goes on all the time and makes the process more smooth since it is handled by the building official. However, the proposed ordinance amendment could "open the door" to some applications the Planning Commission does not want approved. Chair Erickson asked how this process would impact the applications considered tonight. Ms. Randall stated all applications would have had to come before the Planning Commission. e Chair Erickson asked about a house that is three feet from the property line and if that would always be an acceptable situation. He pointed out that it is probably not always acceptable depending on what is on the other side of the property line. e e ~ ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1,2000 15 Commissioner Rye stated he supports allowing City staff the ability for some discretionary interpretation. With regard to the side yard minimum, Chair Erickson stated he may support the minimum R-2 setback of five feet but he questioned if that would provide protection. With the comer and front yard, he suggested an average of others along the street, however, he noted that could be considered arbitrary if a definite number is not established. Ms. Randall explained how the average setback is determined, commenting that sometimes it is difficult to administer. Chair Erickson noted that Hopkins is an older and smaller community with similar lot sizes, as is Roseville. However, in Arden Hills the lot sizes are very different from each other. Commissioner Nelson noted that the R-2 setback is five feet and asked why Zoning Ordinance Section VI, C, 2, a, (1) indicates six feet rather than five feet. Ms. Randall explained the ordinance originally was five feet but changed to six feet by the Planning Commission several years ago. Commissioner Rye asked if a three-foot cantilever is still allowed if the structure is three feet from the lot line. Ms. Randall stated the three foot cantilever is not always allowed in that case. Ms. Randall stated there is not a timeline on this consideration and noted that several Commissioners are absent tonight. Commissioner Nelson asked staff to present a recommendation at the next meeting. Chair Erickson suggested research of additional cities beyond Roseville and Hopkins. Commissioner Rye stated he believes the process is as important as the standards and asked that those issues also be clarified. Chair Erickson stated another consideration is what the setback requirement was when the house was constructed. He stated that may be another consideration and asked staffto include that in their recommendation. Ms. Randall stated Commissioner Baker's suggestion was to consider non-conformity so if 50% of the existing structure was in the buildable area, it would be acceptable to construct an addition within the buildable area. If more than 50% is not within the buildable area, then an addition would not be allowed and it would be a Planning Commission consideration. The proposed percentage is just a number for discussion purposes. Commissioner Rye stated if the new language only impacts several applications each year, he does not believe it would be worth the implementation of a new process. Commissioner Nelson asked about restricting the size by a percentage. Ms. Randall stated the ordinance only contains a percentage on home occupations to assure the property's primary purpose remains a house and not the business. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1,2000 DRAFT 16 Commissioner Sand noted that some garages are getting very large. Ms. Randall stated there is A only a restriction on detached garages but once it is attached, there is no restriction on the size. ., Chair Erickson asked staff to conduct as much research with other cities (similar to Arden Hills) as is reasonable, research the history of the Zoning Ordinance and how many times it has changed, and what those changes have been. Ms. Randall commented on the older houses that were set at 20 feet for the comer side setback. She stated many have been found to actually be at 19.5 feet due to survey inaccuracies. Ms. Randall recommended that also be taken into consideration when determining the minimum setback distances. Commissioner Nelson asked staff to also research the six foot number in Section VI, C, 2, a, (1). Commissioner Sand noted that the Planning Commission hears from applicants who are trying to abide by the City's requirements and stated his support for enforcement of existing nonconforming properties. He commented on the dumpster screening at Arden Plaza that blocks traffic visibility and is a safety hazard. Ms. Randall stated she will check to see if that is covered under the business regulations. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Grant reported on the Council's action on the Bethel College special use permit amendment and site plan approval for recreational areas which was approved with some changes from the original Planning Commission recommendation. He advised of the modifications made and rationale for each. e Commissioner Sand asked if Bethel College will go ahead with the project with these added conditions. Councilmember Grant stated they need to raise $1.8 million and he expects they will move forward with the project this summer. Ms. Randall stated that was her impression as well. Chair Erickson asked, if given the course this proposal has taken, the College will allow use of their fields by another organization. Councilmember Grant stated initially there was a joint use option raised but that went by the wayside prior to his being on the Council. He stated he has the sense from Bethel's presentation that there may be some use by the City but no fIrm commitment or formal agreement has been reached. Councilmember Grant stated three other cases were approved by the Council including the State of Minnesota special use permit to allow for the installation of a temporary materials training laboratory building, the Howard Bloom comer side yard variance, and the site plan review for Tony Schmidt Park. He reported the Council met for a work session with the Planning Commission to discuss TCAAP and the intersection of Highways 10 and 96 and how to maintain access points He stated the options put forth are still under review by BRW. Ms. Randall noted that roadway considerations usually do not come before the Planning Commission. Councilmember Grant advised of the number of houses impacted with each proposal. All three proposals have Highway 96 as an underpass arrangement. ~ , ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1,2000 DRAFT 17 e COMMISSION COMMENTS Councilmember Rem announced that the Ingerson Road Improvement Review Group will be meeting on March 21, 2000, for their first meeting. Councilmember Grant explained that the Ingerson neighborhood was proposed for reconstruction and lengthy discussions were held at Council meetings. A review group was established consisting of residents, two Councilmembers (Grant and Larson), one Planning Commissioner, and one Finance Committee member. He asked for one volunteer to serve on this review group and advised that it is anticipated this group will last for six months. Commissioner Sand nominated Planning Commissioner Steve Baker to serve on the Ingerson Road Improvement Review Group. Chair Erickson seconded the nomination which was unanimously approved. Councilmember Grant stated that it is hoped to ceremonially break ground on the City Hall project during the Town Hall meeting of April I, 2000. He stated there was redesign on the initial plan to excavate part ofthe lower level and access the lower level so it is being recosted at this time. It was noted the ground breaking date will be determined by the City Council at their next meeting. ADJOURNMENT e Commissioner Sand moved, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to adjourn the meeting at 10:41 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). e ... , " I' .. . . . MEMORANDUM March 8, 2000 TO: FROM: City Council V I~ City Administrator <1~'~ CC: Lake Josephine East file RE: Lake Josephine East road Back~round Enclosed within are copies of the minutes from the June 28 and August 9, 1999 City Council meetings at which the Council discussed and clarified it's position with regard to the Lake Josephine East development. I have also enclosed copies of the Temporary Road Easement and construction plans of the cul-de-sac, a memorandum from the Planner to the Planning commission outlining the conditions for approval, and recent correspondence with the parties involved in this conflict. My basic understanding is that Mr. Evertz and Mr. Rekuski were given a 24 month time period in which to negotiate with Ms. Dee Rushenberg( 3168 Shoreline Lane) and Mr. & Mrs. Wesslund(3l67 Shoreline Lane) foraccquisition of their property, to the city of Arden Hills, for the extension of Shoreline Lane. The road would then extend across the Evertz/Rekuski development and end at their northern boundary. A cul-de-sac was allowed on the Evertz/Rekuski property until such time that the road would be punched through to the north. The City has money in escrow to convert the cul-de-sac to the through street. The official map of the City of Arden Hills shows that this road would eventually be extended to the north across the Bachman property and linked to an existing road section of Shoreline Lane. The further development of the Evertz/Rekuski property was conditioned on reaching agreement with Rushenberg and Wesslund parties so that public access could be constructed and the two western parcels of the proposed development had adequate and proper access. Current 18 months have passed since the developers were required to obtain the easement and record it. Mr. Evertz and Mr. Rekuski approached the city wanting to go to the Council and have you condemn the property for the r-o-w. They claimed that the neighbors had not responded to their offer and felt that . . . '\ Lake Josephine East road City Council Page 2 the neighbors were deliberately dragging their feet. After being brought up to speed by the Planner, we decided to try to get the parties together to see if there was a way to mediate this conflict before going to the Council. We invited Ms. Rushenberg and Mr. Wesslund to City Hall to discuss their position. We indicated that we would be meeting with the developers and going through the same scenario. We asked Rushenberg and Wesslund ifthey had responded to the offer from Evertz and Wesslund. They indicated they had not. We asked them if they had any counter offer and they did not. We then asked them to determine a value, by whatever means they thought appropriate so that the discussion could move along. We gave them a month to determine a value and set up another meeting with them. We then met with the developer to hear their "side" of the story. They indicated that they had not been able to get the neighbors to respond and wanted to move ahead with their development. They indicated that the City and the neighbors had "cost" them a lot of money and they were not happy. We then told them what we had expressed to Rushenberg and Wesslund. We also indicated that we would meet with them in a month to review what we had learned from the other parties and mediate with them. We directed the City Engineer go out to the site and measure the distance from the edge of the existing road( across Rushenberg and Wesslund property) east and west to a width of 60 feet (for a right of way acquisition) and between the end of the road north to the adjoining property line with the developers. Given these measurements, we would then be able to calculate a cost for acquisition of property outside a given public access point (the neighbors did acknowledge that this short piece of road had been in place for some time and was recognized as their access to their property). This would give us some reference point for discussions with Rushenberg and Wesslund should they come back with a cost for acquisition. It would also tell us whether or not the previous offer made by the developers was reasonable. After a month, we meet with Wesslund, Rushenberg was ill that day. He did not have a value for the area to be acquired. He indicated that they did not know how to determine that value. We told Mr. Wesslund that we had calculated that area outside of the road surface and placed a $2/per square foot cost, based on what we were offering in other, similar acquisitions. The value we had determined was $6,000, $3,000 each for the acquisition of the property for r-o-w. Wesslund did not know how to respond and told us he would be seeing Ms.Rushenberg and would pass along the information. After the meeting, Ms.Rushenberg called to tell me that she was not in agreement with our calculation. She inquired as to why we seemed to be negotiating for the developers. I told her we were not negotiating for the developer, we were trying to move this process ahead and get the parties to agree. . . . ~ Lake Josephine East road City Council Page 3 We then met with the developers and went through the same explanation. They were hesitant to pay more than they had originally offered( $2,000) and indicated they would have to get back to the city. They later responded with agreement in writing. We indicated to both parties that we would bring this issue to you at this time if we felt that we couldn't help to resolve this. Action The parties will appear before you on March 13, 2000 wanting to know what to do about this situation. We offer the following as options for you consideration: . Do nothing-let them continue to try to work things out for the remaining 6 months . Consider condemning the area across Wesslund and Rushenberg property for road purposes . Consider condemning not only the area for r-o-w across Rushenberg and Wesslund property, but also across the Bachman property to complete the connection of Shoreline Lane as shown on the official map . Consider an independent appraisal of the value of the property needed for the road, the cost of which should be borne by the developers-the agreement would still be in place requiring the developers to pay the value determined by the appraisal . Require both parties to obtain independent appraisals which will then be reviewed and a value determined by a third appraiser appointed by the city- make this binding arbitration . ~ 1/.gJrrz> v.. { l=n.-~ ~ ~ ~ ~oz-.R. $-z., = ~.7- wVL{ ~ ~~-h I~~ ~ ww- L.(2~ ~~ y><4>' ~ u--rt_"ue. ~-J, I J I 0/ "" wI \:ok-; ~ . _~ ~.J-o k ~ ~ ___ ~ ~ wU- l/~ j; ~a.. Pf6() . _'7 ~:f(,~ff- 1k +- F% D ~ ~~4J u~....,-..,f- JA.-U lJlv~fM~~~ ; ___ 1>7.,""" wr ~ ~ j;'.. f"'7" ~' 01- ~t-U d.eJ.~ Is- ~ ~ /AM+ ~ --'. Vv~ J I?I - -z-} If-- j~~ ~ __ d./-;t - ~.d- ~ rtr,~~ () lA..J.. .l-4~ 10 ~ (j(L (JL ~ - v..e...... ~ "'t v'-" ~. -Y ~J~ ,.C~~ ~ _ d. ~ v~ lP<-sff~ ~& _ ~J \t~~ ~ Ii "'" ~ j;;... <> I~ ~ if"- CM...:r p""'<J2 ~(V~ 7 _'7 ~. Pr-~f;- IrS" /,o.-/' ,. ~ -7 .do ..f ~ I ~ ~..ft. "b ,I>;! /c- .4 ~ . / . June 8, 1999 Jr~ ~~ /fJ ~r. . Mr. and Mrs. Rush Mr. and Mrs. Wessland Re: road easement on Shoreline Lane Dear Neighbors, We have tried to work on an arrangement with you to access our proposed temporary cul-de-sac. Our intent is to offer you both $2000.00 and to pay the cost to lJle your easements once they have been signed. If tl lis does not meet with your approval, then we will let the city and you work it out. Thank you. Sincerely, . Josephine East LLC) I. I)' - f) .. e~J... I~J: DPE ~ 1 t:l. .I:~ dJW./v-U...J. I" 1.,uuL , ~ __I )'~ ~ ,.,..,j ~:-.. (&{~t C''''- "'- :tv.f- . , y.u.... i, .AilJ ,~/' /"1., ,., !1 rJ.", ,_; . l or f jy....." .-'1/....( ~U2.A..(.-__ r t~.c.W.. ) 0-"~- ,~ .'-~' ~_. NvV)' 0. J ..;- . . . . Fcbruary 28, 2000 City of Arden Hills Nancy Randle Reference: Josephine East LLC. On June 8, ] 999 Josephine East LLC Delivered a letter to Mr_ & Mrs. Rushenberg and Mr. & Mrs_ Wessland offering $2,000 as well as the cost to file their road easements so we could gain access to our proposed temporary culdesac. Both the Wesslands and Rushenbergs told us they would not accept our offer as they felt it was not a fair offer. Josephine East LLC. Then asked that both land owners get together and come back to us with what they considered to be an acceptable offer and they said they would. We checked back numerous times and were informed each time that because offamily matters and travel, they hadn't come up with a dollar figure_ In November of 1999 Dee Rushenberg informed Don Evertz of Josephine East LLC That they were not going to give us a dollar amount and they felt they didn't have to because,"the ball was in our court". The city staff of Arden Hills met with Jos. East LLC And informed us they would meet with W & R and inform them that the staff thought that an offer of$3,000 and filing fees was a fair compensation for their easement Although Jos. East LLC thought this dollar amount was high we agreed to it in the spirit of compromise and in tbe hope that the W & R's would be reasonable. The city staff informed los. East LLC. In Feb. 2000 that both land owners said $3000 was not enough money and that they would not give the easement to the cily. Donald Evertz 8~~ RECr::iV" 'ED . i !.,._. ~ _ FEB 2 8 1'000 eHY Of A(U!;:',i . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS 4364 WEST ROUND LAKE ROAD ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112-5794 SEND TO: Charlie Carpenteur FAX #: 612-338-3857 PHONE #: 612-338-0115 MESSAGE FROM: Nancy Randall, Associate Planner DATE: 9-16-99 NO. OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS PAGE: TIME: NOTES: . ***IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL*** PHONE: (651) 633-5676 FAX: (651) 633-7839 . RC(" i ". . C~.\-_:" " . MEMO 'FEB 1 4 }"nl1 .. ,Ll,:...."..,. Oft Of TO: Joe Lynch City Administrator CC:~ancy Randall, Associate Planner Bob Wesslund, 3167 Shoreline Lane FROM: Dee Rushenberg 3168 Shoreline Lane DATE: February 14,2000 SUBJECT: Access to Josephine East Development Joe, as I've been working on this real estate issue, I've been rereading various notes, documents, letters and minutes of meetings: I don't know how much of this you've already read but I'm attaching copies of several things for you to look over. - 1. Nancy Randall memo to the Mayor and Council, dated 5/24/99, specifically page 4, recommendation #11. 2. City council meeting minutes of 6/28/99 meeting, pages 11,12 and 13 3. Council meetings minutes of 8/9/99. I'll be out of town for several days but will try to be in touch with you later this week. ~ . N, Randall Memo May 24, 1999 . . . . . . ~ Page 4 Deadline for Al!encv Actions The City of Arden Hills received the complete application for this (Preliminary Plat) request on April 14, 1999. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue the City must act on this request by Friday, June II, 1999. (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day review period. The additional review period would extend to Tuesday, August 10, 1999. The City may with the petitioner's consent extend the review period beyond the Tuesday, August 10, 1999 date. Lastly, if the City denies the petitioner's request, "... it must state in writing the reason for the denial at the time that it denies the request." Options 1. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3. Recommend denial with reasons for denial. 4. Table for additional information. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case 99-03, preliminary and final plat including the variances for: lot width 80 feet is provided where 85 feet is required for Block I, Lots 1,2, and Block 2, Lots 1,2; be approved, based on the finding of the variance section of the Staff report dated May 5, 1999 with the following conditions: I. Title information be submitted to the City for review by the City Attorney. 2. Extension of Shoreline Lane through the subject property be deeded to the City. 3. Provide staff with proposed grading and sediment and erosion control measures that are proposed to be used on this project for staff approval. 4. Payment of appropriate Park Dedication as determined by City Council as provided for by the Subdivision Ordinance in Section 22-9 of the City Code. 5. Payment of Escrow for future extension of Shoreline Lane to the north property line. 6. Approval by Rice Creek Watershed District. 7. Basement elevations not be below 887.8 feet 8. Utility and drainage easements be provided per Subdivision Ordinance Section 22-8 (17)(e). 9. Construction specifications for street and utilities be submitted with the final plat submittal. 10. Easements in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and City Attorney be granted to the City for the temporary cul-de-sac, and the documents be submitted with the final plat application. 11. Right-of-way from the south (Rushenberg and Wessland Property) be acquired prior to fmal plat for access to the property. 12. Outstanding fee for attorney fees in the amount of $1,118.80 be paid in full prior to final plat approval. ~ ~- . City Council Meeting Minutes June 28, 1999 . . , ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 28, 1999 ,tfv (' <.-.,;<"j- '\ .-' .,,' 11"4-:/,",7 /.~::~';'" Mayor Probst stated that the City Council would not be taking action on this issue this evening. "(/" /."t- He indicated that the City will have to take some position as a community in the near future and 4! the City will keep the residents informed as the process moves forward. Councilmember Rem asked if it would be possible to have the Minnesota Department of Transportation represented the next time this issue is discussed at a Council meeting. Mayor Probst stated that a State representative would most likely attend a meeting if asked to do so. Councilmember Aplikowski asked that those residents present at the meeting take the time to think about this issue and let the City know how they feel, particularly those residents whose homes would be eventually moved. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. June 14, 1999 Regular Council Meeting B. June 21, 1999 Council Worksession MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a motion to approve the meeting minutes of the June 14, 1999 Regular Council Meeting, and the June 21,1999 Council Worksession, as submitted. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). ;. CONSENT CALENDAR . \. A. Claims and Payroll B. Business License Application MOTION: Councilmember Malone moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar and authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Probst invited those present to come forward and address the Council on any items not already on the agenda. Mr. Frank Rekuski, 3170 Hamline Avenue, wished to address the Council regarding the Josephine East, LLC development in the Shoreline Lane area. He indicated that he had received a letter from the City staff and he wished to clarify a few items. He had hoped to have the developer's agreement ready for this evening's meeting, however, he did not receive the agreement until this evening. Mr. Rekuski stated that, upon the approval of tile plat for this development, the construction of the two front lots has begun. The two rear lots were to be held until the access situation is resolved. He had received a copy of the minutes from the City Council meeting and he was concerned that the minutes did not reflect what he had understood. The minutes indicated that, . ~ () " l1 F~h '. "'- ".l '} d>p~ .:0 ,', . ~ ~~~ l-'" with regard to the two rear lots being held until the access situation is resolved, this must be '....):: rectified within 24 months. To him this meant that, if the situation is not rectified within 24 \., :" months he would have to walk away from the two lots and he was not willing to do this. He hoped tllat tile wording could be changed to say that, if the situation were not resolved within 20 months, he would have to come back to the City Council in order to strive for a solution. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 28, 1999 . Mr. Rekuski stated that he has worked with the two neighbors for three weeks and has still not come to an agreement with them. He indicated that the neighbor to the east, Ms. Rushenburg, is very upset with the City Council. He believes that the only way to ease her mind would be if the City Council spoke witll her and explain that she would not be losing anything by allowing the needed easement. It was his understanding that Ms. Rushenburg is concerned that, if she gives up the easement, she will be left with a non-conforming lot. Mayor Probst stated that if there were a request from Ms. Rushenburg to clarify what an easement means, the City would certainly be willing to do this. Mr. Rekuski stated that he had spoken with staff and received clarification of easements. He had attempted to explain this to Ms. Rushenburg; however, she is still very uncomfortable. He suggested that he bring Ms. Rushenburg to the City staff in order for them to sit down and explain the situation to her. Mayor Probst stated that if Ms. Rushenburg has questions, the City staff would provide answers. . Mr. Fritsinger stated that one issue from the staff s point of view was that, it is one thing for staff to answer questions with regard to Code requirements and expectations of the City. However, staff is trying to avoid having to negotiate what had become a part of Mr. Rekuski's development process. j Councilmember Malone stated that the condition for approval of the plat was correct as it appears in the minutes. The intent of the City Council was to find a way to approve the plat and the problem was that there were two westerly lots that, in order for them to actually be lots, they had to have public access. The easterly lots were acceptable because they have public right-of- way access. The condition for approval was to allow two years to settle the access issue. If, after the two years, the access situation were not resolved, the plat approval would become null. Mr. Rekuski stated that the four lots could have access to Lexington A venue at this time. He had wanted to eliminate this access due to the agreement with Mr. Bachman for access to the cul-de- sac. Councilmember Malone reiterated that the City Council couldn't automatically approve a plat that includes two lots without access. . Mayor Probst stated that the City Council would not have approved the four lots if the current access situation were permanent. The Council has given approval for the four-lot configuration under the assumption that the final platting process would be expedited. The two-year time frame was intended to ensure action was taken to rectify the access situation. Mayor Probst stated that the minutes of the meeting were accurate. Mr. Rekuski stated that the City is asking for something he has no control over. Councilmember Malone expressed his understanding of Mr. Rekuski's predicament. He pointed out, however, that the only alternative would have been to deny the plat. ) ! 1 .:;e \. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 28,1999 13 .'\ "J~ ;~" , Ms. Diane Rushenburg, 3168 Shoreline Lane, stated that she has made a few calls to the City in order to gain an wlderstanding of the easement and find out what her options are. She indicated that she is not trying to hold up the development and she is not being unrealistic. She felt that she would be foolish to sign an agreement allowing access across her property without having a full understanding of the situation and what her options are. Ms. lody Hilgers, 1532 Briarknoll Drive, stated that she came to the meeting to hear the proposal regarding the US Highway 10 and Highway 96 intersection. She indicated tlmt she lives at the southeast portion of this intersection and she was interested in the Council's strategy on how tile Minnesota Department of Transportation's objective to handle tile traffic volume on US Highway 10 will affect the neighboring residential properties. Ms. Hilgers agreed with Councilmember Malone's comment that perhaps the City should be challenging tile Minnesota Department of Transportation to do something to improve the interchange at Highway 694 and 135-W. She was concerned by the comments that the Minnesota Department of Transportation plans to do something with the Highway 694 and US Highway 10 interchange, however, no one really knows what these plans are. Consideration should be given to how much money the Minnesota Department of Transportation plans to spend on the Highway 694 and US Highway 10 interchange, the Highway 96 and US Highway 10 interchange, and the Highway 96 and 135- W interchange. The City should take a look at why it would want to encourage continued volumes oftraIfic through residential Arden Hills, which would decrease property values, rather than challenging the Minnesota Department of Transportation to improve the Highway 694 and 135-W interchange. Mayor Probst stated that this is what the City has been attempting to do. Within the Transportation Improvement Program, there is a process by which projects must get into this program in order to be funded and scheduled for construction. The latest document indicates that the first work scheduled for the Arden Hills area is the Highway 694 overlay. All other projects are more than 10 years out. The City has challenged the Minnesota Department of Transportation to give the City some options; however, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has not looked at this situation in this level of detail. The City took on some advanced engineering work to try to understand what could happen. Mayor Probst stated that there is a lot more work which needs to be done, however, the City is not convinced at this time that it wants to spend General Fund dollars for these projects. One other vehicle which may provide help to the City of Arden Hills is the 1-35W Corridor Coalition which is currently looking at I-35W and its related transportation issues. Mayor Probst stated that the people who are in the most difficult position at this time are those residents in the Mobile Home Park who were told two years ago that they may lose their homes. Councilmember Malone offered to provide Ms. Hilgers with a copy of the Transportation Improvement Program for her to review. He noted that the problem with this program is that, according to Federal regulations, the State cannot plan more than three years out. Since the . improvements in Arden Hills are beyond this limit, there is no formal plan for these projects. He I - , ~ . r) -t ) D .",. . () n .,.,,- ~ ~' ~ [Jrn M ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ >->0 I-I----T"l X " , ~ ~ m 7 - I S~R o , > z SHORELINE ->~:.> LANE ~ ~ ~ EX SAN SEW -> - -:;0.... I 0. 6" wATERMA1N I rrl,..,x , m " ~~, :--;:;: ~~ . ill em -, I ~> ilI~ e iS~ -~ i ... . -i ;&~ "0 ~ ~~ a i . lii\~ i VI Z. I... I"l o ~ . ~ E mi " ~ ~ , > ~ o c al ~ ~ . z o g i 7'\[}]r -" ..... N LEXINGTON AVENUE m :D )> Z CJ :E ~ 0 g] 0 Z CJ) en g ~ ~ m - C -0 () ~~m~() fft Jf) :::I m ~ 0 ~ 0 Z :D -U ~ r CJ) )> ~ Z m 00 :D )> Z o ~ :D m EJf~~"a..) ~, TEMPORARY ROADWAY EASEMENT S89'38'1 rW 30 30 I ----- , I I , 0 0 I 2 0 0 2 ci III ci \ II) Z I II) I 3=- "L .... , III 3= ~III . I') -- / ~IIC Z -t- S89'38'178W / j ixl o !\~ - gO N -- TEMPORA~Y I 0 S89'38'178W ZZ 0 TEMPORARY ROADWAY ~ z 0 .~ ~ II ROADWAY EASEMENT I 0 EASEMENT ci \ II) /1' IX) I 1 1 ~~ '40 \y-" 1')'0 ~/ .....10 IX) . SCALE: 1 INCH = 40 FEET "- NO /L 0,10 0 30 z 30 ----- S89'38'1 rw SOUTH LINE OF JOSEPHINE EAST LLC 1 n 19QO ,I,. k .._"';;; An Easement for Temporary Roadway Purposes That part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, JOSEPHINE EAST LLC, Ramsey County, Minnesota lying within the circumference of a circle having a radius of 50.00 feet; the center point of said circle being a point on the centerline of Shoreline Lane which is 50,00 feet northerly of the South line of said JOSEPHINE EAST LLC, as measured along said centerline. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PlAN, PLAT OR REPORT WK5 PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I I>JA A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. COMSTOCK & DAVIS, INC. BY r~~sGN' Ml NESOTA REGI NO. DATE '1/J?L!J .s/I 4., " , ClMElTClCK AVIS, INC 1446 COUNTY ROAD J MINNEAPOUS, UN 55432 PHON~ 612-784-9346 FAX: 612-784-9395 CONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS v PROJECT NO. 980599 . . . . ~ City Council Meeting Minutes August 9, 1999 'l ),_ ,0,- j I ! ;a. ,~ -- III ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 9, 1999 3 Additional corrections included, Page 5, correct "Bruce" to "Brian" Humphries; and on the same page, fourth paragraph from bottom, third sentence, "... he did not believe that the City SHOULD permit this."; page 8, top paragraph, spelling correction to "withdrawal"; page 16, last paragraph, first sentence, revise to read, "Mayor Probst stated that he had pursued a number of alternatives with Mr. Woodhouse, including ideas such as starting work without authorized right- of-entry"; page 19, fourth paragraph, remove punctuation after "Mayor"; and the third sentence in sixth paragraph, identify the "organization" as the 'I-35W Corridor Coalition." MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Conncilmember Malone seconded a motion to approve the meeting minutes of the June 12 and July 26, 1999 regular Council meetings, as amended. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). CONSENT CALENDAR A. Claims and Payroll B. Accept Resignation, City Administrator, Brian Fritsinger C. Appoint Interim City Administrator, Terrance R. Post D. Res. #99-24, Resolution Changing Corporate Authorization E. Res. #99-25, Resolution for Transfer of Funds by Telephonic Instructions F. Hazelnut Park, Resurface of the Hardcourt Play Areas G. Maintenance Facility Fence MOTION: Councilmember Malone moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar and authorize execution of all necessary documents contained tllerein. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Probst invited those present to come forward and address the Council on any items not already on the agenda. There were no public comments. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A, Planning Cases 1. Case #99-03, Josephine East LLC, Development Agreement Ms. Randall explained that the applicant was requesting approval of the Developers Agreement for the final plat (Josephine East) on a 2.47 acre parcel zoned R-2, Single Family Residential District. At the May 31,1999, Regular City Conncil meeting, the applicant was granted Final Plat approval, including the variances for: lot width 80 feet where 85 feet is required for Block 1, lots 1,2 Block 2, lots 1,2; based on the findings of tile variance section of the May 31, 1999, staff memo. Ms. Randall reviewed the status of those conditions, as outlined in her staff .- , .. .. . - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 9, 1999 4 memorandum of August 5,1999. Ms. Randall stated the following condition have not been fully resolved: ~ 1. Title information. 2. Construction specification for street utilities must be approved. 3. Right-of-way from the south be required. Councilmember Malone suggested that, in reference to Condition 11, the City Council might wish to consider an incentive to the developer by stipulating a willingness by the City Council to consider condemnation at the end of the 24 month period, were the condition not met. John Miller, City Attorney representing the City for this planning case, reviewed the status of the last conditions to be met for Council approval ofthe Developer's Agreement, stating the appropriate process to be followed by the developer with respect to the title and easements, and the need to include those revisions on the final plat, with actual indication of the County's recording document number, prior to its approval by the City Council. Mr. Frank Rekuski, developer representing Josephine East, LLC, expressed his concern with the City requiring the l2-inch stormsewer pipe, when the I O-inch had already been installed, and requested that the City waive this construction standard requirement. Councilmember Malone asked for clarification as to why the pipe had already been installed. , \. Councilmember Larson expressed his concerns regarding Councilmember Malone's suggestion for an additional clause in the developer's agreement regarding initiation of condemnation proceedings if the developer did not meet the 24 month stipulation. Mr. Rekuski replied that the Rice Creek Watershed District had approved the 10 inch pipe, and he was unaware at the time of installation, that the City had a more stringent pipe size requirement. Mr. Rekuski intimated that there was a delay in response time between the City Engineer, staff and the developer on plan approval. Councilmember Aplikowski expressed her desire to work with the developer, but stated that the Council had been more than patient and lenient with the requests ofthe developer, and she was not interested in entertaining any additional waivers from City process or construction standards. Councilmember Rem stated she was still wavering on the size of the pipe, and agreed with Councilmember Larson's concerns regarding negotiations between property owners being unduly influenced were the City to require a clause in the developer's agreement regarding condemnation proceedings being initiated if the developer did not meet the 24 month stipulation. Councilmember Malone clarified that his intent was not that the proposed condemnation be part of the motion, only that the Council stipulate, for the public record, that discussions had taken place regarding the possibility of condemnation as a possible legal option if needed, not that it would be the only recourse available, but in order to motivate the developer to finalize property negotiations for the required easements. ! . ( , l" ! J ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 9 1999 , 5 i~ Mr. Greg Brown, the City's consulting engineer with BRW, reviewed the City's construction standards for storm sewer drainage and orifices several times during the discussion. Mr. Brown also addressed grading of the cul-de-sac, and the existing swale. Mr. Brown stated that a l2-inch pipe is usually used in order to reduce clogging. MOTION: Councilmember Malone moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve the developer's agreement for Planning Case #99-03, Josephine East LLC as presented by staff, subject to any last revisions to the agreement by the City Attorney, and subject to the outstanding conditions as set forth in the staff memorandum dated August 5, 1999 regarding the infrastructure construction specifications being met, with the exception that the requirement for a standard 12 inch drainage pipe be waived, to accept a non-standard 10 inch drainage pipe stormwater drainage. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). B, Planning Case #99-10, Bethel College, East Gate Ms. Randall explained that the Petitioner was requesting approval of a site plan for Bethel College, located at 3900 Bethel Drive, to allow a gate at the east entrance (STH 51). The City Council, at their July 26,1999 regular meeting, approved construction of the west entrance monument and sign portion of Planning Case 99-10, Site Plan Review, subject to compliance with the lighting standards of the Zoning Ordinance, and tabled tile east entrance e gate portion of Planning Case 99-10, to allow the applicant to modifY the plan. Ms. Randall reviewed the revised plan submitted by Bethel College, which showed the access further to the north with an angled entrance. She stated this resolved some ofthe concerns; however, it did not deal with potential stacking of cars, nor did it align itself with Hwy. 51 South. Ms. Randall introduced an alternative plan, designed by staff, that showed the entrance at a 90- degree angle to Snelling Avenue, with a 24-foot width. Staff recommends approval of Planning Case 99-10, Site Plan Review, for the construction of the east entrance gate as presented by staff in their memorandum dated August 9, 1999, Exhibit D, with one (l) condition allowing for construction of a second entrance into the existing parking lot off the service drive. Mr, Bruce Kunkel, 3452 Glenarden Road, and Facilities Director for Betllel College, stated that the college preferred Plan C to Plan 0, due to the significant impact of the road grade and mature tree stand. Mr. Kunkel stated that, it would be Bethel's desire to have the Council approve Plan C, provided it accomplished those concerns of staff, yet providing for the grove of trees to remain, and without a significant grade change. Mr. Marly Weber, Stanley Consultants, Bethel Consulting Engineer, stated that with Plan 0, more contours would be lost, thus requiring more costly and invasive earthwork, as well as temporary or permanent re-siting of an existing power pole. ~