The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-02-07-PC Chair David Sand Commissioners Andrew Holewa Clayton Larson Liz Modeselte Janet Stodola Roberta Thompson Clayton Zimmerman 1245 W. Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 651.792.7800 www.ci.arden-hills.mn.U5 Arden Hills Planning Commission May 2, 2007 City Vision A strong community that values our unique environment, our fiscal soundness, and our tradition as a desirable cit in which to live, work, and la . Agenda Planning Commission Convenes 7:00 PM Cali to Order 1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 2. MINUTES A. April 4, 2007 Meeting 3. PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 07-010; Conditional Use Permit Amendment; Celestica; 4300 West Round Lake Road - Public Hearing B. Planning Case 07-011; Site Plan Review; Rob & Jennifer Scott; 4518 Pleasant Drive - Not a Public Hearing C. Planning Case 07-012; Variance: Barbara Muller; 1486 Arden Oaks Drive - Not a Public Hearing 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. RV Storage Location Interpretation B. Proposed RV Ordinance Updates 5. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests 6. ADJOURNMENT A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Planning Cases are available online at: http://www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us ~ ~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: May 2, 2007 PC Agenda Item 3.A TO: Planning Commission FROM: James Lehnhoff, City Plannr SUBJECT: Planning Case #: 07-010 Conditional Use Permit Amendment Celestica, Inc (Charles Patterson) 4300 West Round Lake Road Requested Action Motion to table Planning Case 07-010 for a Conditional Use Permit at 4300 West Round Lake Road to the June 6, 2007, meeting at the request of the applicant. Requested Action The applicants are in the process of completing some minor revisions to their application and enhancements to their stormwater management plan. Therefore, they have requested the Planning Commission table their application to the June 6, 2007, meeting. Deadline for Ae;encv Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on March 23, 2007. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes, the City must act on this request by May 23,2007 (60 days), unless the city provides the petitioner with written reasons for and additional 60 day review period. Since the applicants have requested the application be tabled, the City review period can go beyond the initial 60 day review period. The City may, with the consent ofthe applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor May 2, 2007 \\Metro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases12007\07-010 Celestica CUP Amendment (PENDING)\050207 - PC Report - Celestica CUP. doc Page 1 ofl ~ ~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: May 2, 2007 PC Agenda Item 3.B TO: Planning Commission James Lehnhoff, City Planne~ Planning Case #: 07-011 Rob & Jennifer Scott 4518 Pleasant Drive Site Plan Review FROM: SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS: 3B-l Application and Supporting Documents 3B-2 Maps and Photographs Requested Action. The applicants have requested a site plan review to construct an eight foot high fence along their eastern (rear) property line adjacent to Lexington Avenue. Backe:round 1. Overview of Request: The applicant's property, 4518 Pleasant Drive, is located approximately 575 feet south of the Highway 96 and Lexington Avenue intersection. Their eastern (rear) property line is adjacent to the Lexington Avenue right-of-way. To increase privacy and decrease noise from Lexington Avenue, the applicants are proposing to construct an eight foot fence along the eastern (rear) side of the property facing Lexington Avenue. A six foot high fence would be constructed along the southern and northern property lines; however, that does not require a site plan review. The applicants have submitted a letter fully explaining their request along with a picture of the proposed fence (Attachment 3B-1). The Zoning Code typically limits fence height to six feet; however, the average elevation of the house and proposed location of the fence are approximately five feet below the elevation City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 2, 2007 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhil/slPlanning\Planning Cases\2007\07-011 Scott Site Plan Review (PENDING)\050207 - PC report - Scott Site Plan Review.doc Page 1 of7 of Lexington Avenue. Since the elevation of the road would be almost even with the top of the fence, the applicant's are concerned that a six foot high fence would provide little privacy or noise protection from Lexington Avenue. The Lexington Avenue right-of-way begins approximately seventy feet from the rear of the house, and the road surface beings approximately 110 feet from the rear of the house. The slope up to Lexington Avenue is almost entirely within the right-of-way, The applicant's did contact Ramsey County to determine if a fence could be built on the hillside in the right-of-way going up to Lexington Avenue. A fence in the right-of-way would provide significantly more privacy and likely negate the need for an eight foot high fence. Unfortunately, Ramsey County does not permit private fences within their right-of- way. The Zoning Code has a provision to allow deviations from the fence regulations through the site plan review process in unusual circumstances (Section 1325.05 Subd 4.M): Deviations from [the] requirements for fences, walls and landscape screening may be permitted after Planning Commission review and Council approval of a site plan with documentation showing the unusual circumstances justifying the proposed deviation and plans for the proposed fence, wall or landscape screening. This provision is intended to allow flexibility in meeting the purpose and intent of this subdivision without the necessity of proving a hardship as is required in the variance procedure. The objective of this provision is to improve the livability, appearance and security of properties and their relationships to one another. Since the Zoning Code has specific prOVISIOns for deviations from the normal fence regulations, the variance evaluation criteria do not apply. 2. Surrounding Area: North Low Density Residential R- t: Singte Family Residential Single F amity Residential South Low Density Residential R-l: Singte Family Residentiat Single Family Residentiat East Lexington Avenue Right -of-Way Single Family Residential West Low Density Residential R-l: Single Famity Residential Singte Family Residential City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor May 2, 2007 IIMetro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanningIPlanning Cases\2007\07-011 Scott Site Plan Review (PENDING)\050207 - PC report - Scott Site Plan Review.doc Page 2 of7 3. Site Data: Low Density Residential Single Family Residential R-l: Single Family Residential .32 acres (13,939.2) The property is generally flat near the dwelling but increase approximately five feet in elevation in the ri ht-of-way near Lexin ton Avenue. Plan Evaluation: Ordinances 1. Applicable Fence Regulations (Section 1325.05 Subd 4) b. Height ofFences, Solid Walls, and Hedges in Front yards - Subd 4.A Regulation: Fences in side or rear yards may not exceed six (6) feet in height in all residential districts. Proposal: The proposed fence would be eight feet in high along the eastern (rear) property line. The increased fence height is intended to compensate for the fact that Lexington Avenue is approximately five feet higher than the average elevation of the subject property. Fence height between the residential properties to the north and south would still be limited to six feet. f. Direction ofFence Facing - Subd 4.E Regulation: The side of the fence considered to be the face (facing as applied to fence posts) shall face toward adjoining property. Proposal: The proposed fence will need to have the improved face of the fence on the Lexington Avenue side of the posts. Both sides ofthe fence could have an improved face if the applicants so desire. g. Fences in Public Rights-of-way - Subd 4.F Regulation: No fence, wall or hedge may be placed in a public right-of-way. Proposal: The proposed fence will be located outside of the Ramsey County public right- of-way. There is not any City right-of-way on the Lexington Avenue side of the subject property. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor May 2, 2007 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\PlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-01 J Scott Site Plan Review (PENDING)\050207 - PC report - Scott Site Plan Review.doc Page 3 of7 I. Traffic Visibility - Subd. 4.K Regulation: On all lots, nothing shall be placed or allowed to grow in such a manner as to materially impede vision between a height oftwo and one-half (2-112) and ten (10) feet in the clear vision area. Proposal: The proposed fence is not near an intersection and would not impede traffic VISIOn. Additional Information: The six properties that are adjacent to the Lexington Avenue right-of-way and north of Pleasant Drive have a wider right-of-way than those properties south of Pleasant Drive (Attachment 3B-l). The narrower right-of-way and higher elevation for the properties south of Pleasant Drive permit them to construct fences that are closer to the Lexington Avenue pavement, which provides more effective screening. In fact, most of the residential properties south of Pleasant Drive have fences. The properties north of Pleasant Drive, however, cannot construct fences as close to Lexington Avenue because the right-of-way extends farther from the edge of the road and the fencing is less effective because of the lower elevation from the road. 2. Conditional Use Permit Evaluation Section 1355.04 Subd 3 ofthe Arden Hills Zoning Code lists the criteria for evaluating a Conditional Use Permit, which is also used to evaluate Site Plan Reviews. The Planning Commission and City Council shall consider the effect ofthe proposed use upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare ofthe owners and occupants ofthe surrounding land, in particular, and the community as a whole, in general, including but not limited to the following factors: I. Existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions; 2. Noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics; 3. Drainage; 4. Population density; 5. Visual and land use compatibility with uses and structures on surrounding land; adjoining land values; 6. Park dedications where applicable; and the 7. Orderly development of the neighborhood and the City within the general purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor May 2, 2007 \lMetro-inet.uslardenhi/ls\PlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-011 Scott Site Plan Review (PENDING)\050207 - PC report - Scott Site Plan Review.doc Page 4 of7 Findine:s of Fact Staff offers the following thirteen findings of fact: 1. The proposed fence is eight feet high, which would exceed the normal six foot height limit. An approved site plan review is required to construct the fence. 2. The average elevation of the subject property is approximately five feet below the elevation of Lexington Avenue. 3. The slope up to Lexington Avenue is primarily located within the Ramsey County right-of-way. Ramsey County does not permit private fences within their rights-of- way. 4. Due to the elevation change between the property and Lexington Avenue, a six foot high fence would not be as effective at decreasing noise and pollution from Lexington Avenue. 5. The proposed fence could meet all other requirements of the fence regulations in Section 1325.05 Subd 4 of the Zoning Code. 6. The proposed fence would not impact traffic or parking conditions. 7. The proposed fence would likely reduce noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, and air pollution for the subject property without impacting Lexington Avenue or neighboring properties. 8. The proposed fence will not impact drainage or population density. 9. Given the proposed elevation ofthe fence and the existing elevation of the road, the increased fence height is unlikely to have a negative visual impact on Lexington Avenue or adj acent properties. The proposed fence would be compatible with other fences along Lexington Avenue that are used for privacy purposes. 10. The park dedication fee does not apply. 11. The proposed fence would not impede the orderly development of the neighborhood or the City within the general purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. 12. Due to the high traffic, noise, and pollution on Lexington Avenue as well as the decrease in elevation from Lexington A venue to the proposed location of the fence, this is an unusual situation that may warrant a deviation from the fence regulations. 13. The proposed fence would likely improve the livability, appearance and security of the subject property without harming adjacent properties or Lexington Avenue, Resident Comments Staff has not received any letters, e-mails, or telephone calls from property owners or occupants in regard to this planning case. However, site plan reviews are not public hearings and do not require public notice. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor May 2, 2007 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\PlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-011 Scott Site Plan Review (PENDING) \050207 - PC report - Scott Site Plan Review.doc Page 5 of7 Staff Recommendation To approve this application, the Planning Commission and City Council must only find that this situation is unusual and the proposed deviation will enhance the property without harming the adj acent properties, the City, or Lexington Avenue. This is not a variance application, and the applicant does not need to demonstrate "undue hardship" for the City to approve this application. As noted in the findings of fact, Staff believes that this is an unusual situation and the fence would increase the livability of the property without harming Lexington Avenue or the adjacent properties. Therefore, based on the submitted plans and the thirteen findings of fact, Staff recommends approval of Planning Case #07-011 subject to the following four conditions: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. The applicant shall locate the utilities near the proposed fence before the fence permit is issued. The applicant shall comply with any setbacks set by the utility company. 3. The fence shall not encroach on the Ramsey County right-of-way without prior written permission from Ramsey County. The applicant shall be responsible for locating the lot lines prior to the issuance ofthe fence permit. 4. The applicant shall keep the fence maintained and promptly repaired if any damage occurs to the fence, including graffiti. Options & Proposed Motion Lane:uae:e 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend armroval of Planning Case 07-011 for a Site Plan Review at 4518 Pleasant Drive based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, and the four conditions in the May 2,2007, planning case memo. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend armroval of Planning Case 07- 011 for a Site Plan Review at 4518 Pleasant Drive based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the May 2,2007, planning case memo. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 07-011 for a Site Plan Review at 4518 Pleasant Drive based on the following findings: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 07-011 for a Site Plan Review at 4518 Pleasant Drive: a specific reason and information request should be included with a motion to table. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor May 2, 2007 \\Metro-inet.uslardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2007\07-011 Scott Site Plan Review (PENDING) \050207 - PC report - Scott Site Plan Review.doc Page 60f7 Deadline for Ae;encv Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 2, 2007. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes, the City must act on this request by June 2, 2007 (60 days), unless the city provides the petitioner with written reasons for and additional 60 day review period. The City may, with the consent ofthe applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Attachments 3B- I Application and Supporting Documents 3B-2 Maps and Photographs City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meefingfor May 2, 2007 \\Metro-inet.uslardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2007\07-011 Scott Site Plan Review (PENDING)\050207 - PC report - Scott Site Plan Review.doc Page 70f7 Attachment 3 B-1 Application and Supporting Documents ~ ~H1LLS May 2,2007, Planning Commission Meeting ~ ~HlLLS 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 Telephone (651) 634-5120 Fax (651) 634-5137 www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us For Office Use Only Planning Case No. Submittal Date Application Completed Date Accepted by Receipt Number Council Decision Council Decision Date 2007 LAND USE APPLICATION A::licant Information Ap lican!: Kola "..jefl(\I'0 S~"'tt- Address: 4 \ P\~ Q O^\ \J.r~ J.\r;. ~_Iephone No.: l; IV - 0 Fax No.: ,5;<""'" (10M ,,-"\ Email Address: j \ ~ S ( ",+1-- \ 0_ tYltf), {.C)JV"o... Property Information Property Owner: Sr, "^---'--' Owner Address: S,,~ Owner Telephone No. ~a~ I Other: Address of Property Involved: c.,,,, ~ Legal Description: \r\ 0J.$,G UA-.-l 'i (> ,--n Property ID No.: CAt Y'5\\! plY-<\S<lnJ b(\'~ Type of Use: Zone: r\o\)..'"~ - Dv--'V---</ ()( lU.\,'''-~ I Property Acreage: \/2 0.<,.-'- Type of ReQuest' o Apportionment of Assessments ($30) o Comprehensive Plan Amendment ($400) o Conditional Use Permit or Amended CUP ($300) o Final Plat ($200 + $25 per lot) o Final Planned Unit Development ($200) o Master Planned Unit Development ($600 + escrow) o Minor Subdivision (lot splitlconsolidation) ($300) o Preliminary Plat ($400 + $25 per lot + escrow) o Rezoning ($400) o Site Plan Review ($400) I!l Site Plan Review (Sign or Fence) ($250) o Vacation of Easement or Right-of-Way ($250 + escrow) o Variance (Zoning Code) ($300) o Zoning Code Amendment ($300 + escrow) Revised: 12-12-2006 Page t on 'Applicants are responsible for reimbursement of consultant fees associated with filing, reviewing, and processing of this application. Such fees are to be paid in escrow up front or upon receipt of statement from the City of Arden Hills_ Fees include costs for consultants retained by the City and include consultant planning services, attorney, and engineer. 'Payment of park dedication fees are required with the approval of most subdivision applications. 'The land use application fees do not cover building, sign, or other permil fees that may be required upon approval of a land use application. 'Certain applications are subject to review and approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Contact RCWD directly at 763-398- 3070 for additional information. Brief Description of Request (olease also include a tvoed. detailed letter exolainina the oroiect): ~ '"'"\d w. ~:;:i t _0-\ 4(. vf n",r ~<<>~ ~, tClo ~q~ l~ l~- 0, : ~. eM Ok" ~ I i,,,;~_ f;iP- . ~ Filinq & Information Requirements The City requests that you make a pre-application meeting with the City Planner to discuss the application process, requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the City Planner or Planning Commission, a certified survey of the property is required for all applications. The Planning Commission and/or City Council may still require a certified survey. A checklist for other required information is also available. Complete/lncomplete Applications An incomplete application will delay the processing of land use requests. The application approval time commences and an application is considered officially filed when the City Planner has received and examined the application and determined that the application is complete. A decision on whether the application is complete or incomplete shall be made within fifteen (15) working days following the submittal of the application. When the application is deemed to be "complete" it shall be placed on the agenda of the first possible Planning Commission meeting provided that all required public notices have been sent and published. Payment of Fees The undersigned acknowledges that she/he understands that before a land use application can be deemed complete, all required information and fees (including all deposits) must be paid to the City. If additional fees are required to cover costs incurred by the City, the City Planner has the right to require additional payment from one or more of the undersigned, who shall be jointly liable for such fees. Such expenses may include (but are not limited to) direct city payroll and overhead costs, fees paid to consultants and other professionals, and the cost of printing, mailing, and supplies. The City may withhold final action on a land use application, withhold building permits, and/or rescind prior action until all miscellaneous fees have been paid. Applicants are advised that an escrow deposit is required at the time of the submittal of the land use application to offset costs associated with the proposed project. Unused portions of an escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. Notice of Meetinq Attendance In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a designated representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the next available agenda. Revised: t2-12-2006 Page20f3 ';/ Aljenda Deadline and MeetinQ Schedule The deadline for submittal of land use applications is required according to the schedule outlined below. There are no exceptions. Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the first Wednesday of each month at 7:00 PM, though please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. City Council meetings are held typically the last Monday of the same month at 7:00 PM. Meetings are heid in the Council Chambers at the City of Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112, unless otherwise stated. Applicants are advised that additional meetings andlor workshops are scheduled when necessary upon approval of the Planning Commission. 2007 SCHEDULE ('subject to change) APPLICATION DEADLINE DATE' December 4 2006 Janua 8 Februa 5 March 5 A ril2 May7 June 4 Jul 2 Au ust6 Se tember 4 OctQ/il!lr 6 November 5 December 3 TENTATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING' (Generally held on the first Wednesda at 7:00 .m. Jantiil.." /to)l!-..Wl;!dnesda Februa 7 October 3 TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE' (Generally held on the last Monda at 7:00 .m. Janua . 29 Februa 26 March 26 A ril30 Ma 29 June 25 Jul 30 Au ust 27 Se tember 24 October 29 Novenmer-2u December 10 Janua 28 2008 AcknowledQement and SiQnature I acknowledge that I have read all of the information listed in the City of Arden Hills Land Use Application d fully understand that I am responsible for all <;psts in urred by the City related to the processing of t i application Z" 7 .I/'. ::..../ "j/~ i;1O.Cf), ture (Required) Date Applicant Signature (If different than the property owner) Date Please contact the City Planner at (651) 634-5134 or by email atiames.lehnhoff@ci.arden-hills.mn.usif you have any questions regarding this application. Additional copies of this application form are available on the City's website: httD://www.cLarden-hills.mn.us Revised: t2-12-2006 Page 3 of3 . Jennifer and Rob Scott 4518 Pleasant Drive Arden Hills, MN 55112 651-765-0809 651-808-8936 (cell) James Lenhoff-City Planner and the Arden Hills Site Plan Commission 1245 West Highway 96 ArdenHiIIs, MN 55112 To Whom It May Concern: When we bought our home in November 2005, the crews were just wrapping up their construction on Lexington Avenue. Property owners south of Pleasant Circle were busy putting up fences right along Lexington. We asked the realtor selling the home if a fence could go up to the road, and he said, "01, I'm sure you can." Our mistake was not following up that question with proper authorities before we bought the house. The answer would have changed our decision to buy the home. Long story short: the Ramsey county commissioner said there was no way we could put a fence up behind our property right by Lexington. This is why we are requesting an 8-foot fence through the site plan review. The traffic on Lexington is constant, and the filet that we are close to a.stoplight makes it feel like we are really in a fishbowl. Having an 8-foot fence would at least allow us some privacy while we're in our back yard. We believe this will not only help us to enjoy our house but will help us in the future real estate value of our home. Enclosed you'll see an example of the cedar fence we would like to install. Given Arden Hills approval, we will likely do an 8-foot fence across the back and a 6-foot fence along the sides by our neighbors. Thank you for your consideratiolL ~~.~~ . er and Rob Scott 2::~ - !&.:'-' ii~-:, --.-.,- ------c-----__________,_ atTIFICATrOF SURVEY t:-. ~ . For: p IT 1-b-~ COH.'llIltJ !KILl)) . Co. koo./e,.r;.IJ. .tl u /Loi~ ~ FILE COpy I .LJo//7":.-?Cc' .'~ 1:;/~ ~ ? 1",- f ::: II ,-- - .- - -'-l'f-: -:. ~ "-'.. c:s Ib ... bO I --? g I LO_'~-::;.'//.:?<.-..c:.p.'~r'.f . ~ /& . " -- --- -~11 ., - , ,. , -- I ,~ 0' f-----.. eX ~ "( Je i VJ j ~ 'l..J ~ ~ 11 ~ .r ~ "" L lN~ ! 00 N Vco./e . 1" -= 40' o Deno res Z/-'on I r idOl 1-0 v.;/dJI1 10 \) ~ <::) <{ ~'; 0\ 110.' i l ~ CJ ~ ~ < .......... ~ "-.J "-.J Lot 13, Block 5, KARTH LAKE ESTATES, Ramsey County, Minnesota. We hereby certify that Ihis is a Irue and Correct repr..entatian of a survey of the boundari... of the above described land ond of Ihe location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, jf any f !-'om Or on said Inntf E. G. RUD a SONS, INC f ^~In ......~_~.._~.__ The Home Uepot - Store Browsing: Product Information Page I of I ---- Not registered yet? Register today_ You are here:> Home:> Shop:> Browse Store'" Fencing:> Wooden'" Panels:> Pressure Treated '" Dog Eared Shadow Box Heavy Duty Pressure Treated Wood Fence Panel Add your local store here t ---'-~.~-----sright~n Rd -'"Map & Driving DireCtionSI' 1520 New Brighton Blvd Change Store Minneapolis_ MN 55413 Shopping List I (612) 782-9594 I 1 ! , , , I , , , i Browse Store: Brighton Rd Search This Store: IKeyword or Item # CEIi1iD Dog Eared Shadow Box Heavy Duty Pressure Treated Wood Fence Panel r f1Ii'OOtKTlMAGf. "- ~'ECIf'KAll0NS '"" WARIWfl'Y Dog Eared Shadow Box Heavy Duty Pressure Treated Wood Fence Panel Model700224Z Fence panels are now a way of life. As lot sizes get smaller and privacy more desirable, we find fencing becoming an intricate part of our landscape. Wolmanized Natural Select treatment gives our pre- assembled fence panels protection against fungal decay and termite attack. Constructed of treated pine boards and fastened with coated ring shank nails. this renewable building material is widely available and relatively economical. Natural Select Wood Fencing is made from a renewable resource grown and harvested from managed forests. Backed by a limited lifetime Warranty. I~ r EN.LARGE 0.. . Heavy Duty 5/8 In. Thick Picket . Ring Shank Nails . Environmentally . Umited Lifetime Warranty Store SKU #647550 Store Price: $47.97 QlyP ... ADO TO SHOPPING usr Products and prices shown online may vary from those at The Home Depot store near you. Enter your e-mail address to receive special offers and promotions -- - , i ---l r--'--'." CUSTOMER SERVICE Return Policy Shipping and Delivery Product Recalls Privacy & Security Contact Us California Privacy Rights CORPORATE INFO About The Home Depot Investor Relations Careers Eco Options BUSINESS CUSTOMERS Business ToolBox Just for Contractors Government Customers Supplier Center HD Supply Advertise with Us OTHER SITES .. Home Depot Canada Home Depot en Espanol The Home Depot Mexico EXPO Design Center HomeDecorators.com ________Local store p!ices may vary fro~~~~_ose displayed Products shown as available are normally stocke_?_ but inventol'{ levels cannot be r:luaranteed @2000-2007 Homer TLC. Inc_ All Rights Reserved_ Use of this site is subject 10 certain terms of use which constitute a legal agreement between you and Home Depot U.S,A., lnc http://homedepot.bighammersoftware.comiProductInfo.aspx?cid=833980&pid= I ebf2028-563b-43... 3/26/2007 Attachment 3B-2 Maps and Photographs ~ ~HlLLS May 2,2007, Planning Commission Meeting ~ ;;. .- .. ~ ..... = ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ QO ..... l() "'" ~ ::;s oj " < ~ 8 -!l e]. ..i ~~j.~ in~;t ~iH E.%d_~_~_.il~. l!1lt! ~~:~8.1tA&~til~s: ~ ~ ~\',\\.",D . " o iJ o < o .~ .. 'C ~ ~ ] "8 . " a .<8 '-g~:g 6a~ ~~~ ... 0...: -1j'~. ~ o..'td "0'" ~~] ~~'5 .9 e:g ~.B~ 8']] 0" " <.l::loa ~lq~ '~.8 S a:; 8 :.aa~ E-< i:::l~<S <1.ii3:r- a~~ ~<<l=a ",0 ~~< ~-B i:f '" "'" 00'" -oa-1j ~ ~~ ~ e ~ .E 8 'Ol;j<Ll .00 .~ ~ ... "Oll"'d lie Ii >>",- o~ 0 8 "" "" "0 " " 5~ !3 0_ 0 g.E!u 8].s ]~8 1100 0.", "0 . eE~ >-rn,c ~6< .!IS" ~8e ll6D -'5"G 8 0" 0 OIl 6 e '&-'~~ e~~ :E:;~ E-< ~ ~ 6::~8 ~..so ::is.gl N~ <~~ .., 'C &; -< i5 '" tJ ~ o '" '" c ~ ~ ~ l(l ~Ar~ jr~]l~ !I':E~ i-"s",h. p~~ 1Il...~...~. ~l<p~ ~ t.I ~ ~,~ ~~&<8.sla ;:: ~ D.. s: III \.'\'\\1110 Qj ~ .- ... ~ .. . ~.< ~:f!~~r.~~ - = ~ ~ ~ Qj - ~ 00 .... lfl ...,. " o -g :;;: o .~ I :a o . " o 'd '0 c " . " a <S .~b:g Eag; 'E~:C .- 0< .a !j'. is o..~ "O'd ~ g<;; '0 ~.'E c~ Oll .S ~~ ;@.Eie "''d'd 8 ~ ~ <.l::lc;:; :]"8 ... 0 <I) 1?"';;; s a.- a .~18 ~d'.E vtl;t- g,gg .oM ~~:c ~~< ~,.5 g -" "'. OC'd :g]"8 'd ",0 ~ee .S ~ o~o ; s; 8 .- " 11]] <'<1-0", ~-g~ e.B "0. 00 c<l~ i5'tg C_ 0 ~E!u e~ 15 "'O~<.,::. "'d <- ~1a~ g 2._ "S"' .!:>"':C ].~< 23' .0" l:J One :B.E'~ o " Co C 0" 0 '-.g ~ ~~j a C " :E:;~ f-<" ~rs8 i'J-"o ;;iSM ~.g~ d 'C 00 ., " . o E . '" Ui '" u !3 o 00 ~ ~ d~~ ~:.5:' . ~ 6 155 ~ ~li~"I n8~z !~d~Hj~UJ \&_B.s.IIl. III ~ .. .- ;.. Q '"' = ~ '" ~ ~ - ~ 00 ,.., l() ':I' o .~ g 0' >-. <l) ~ (/) o - o z " " ~ ::;: " " .5 '@ 'C ~ " o '0 ] ~ " >2 '~i-;g Eg~ ~i3:e "" ..... 0< 4~" 8 ~~ ~g"@ 4-< 'I)'.J:l ~JH~ .sn~] ~""Cl.l ;;::<8~ S'"Efil 8;g"@ :.8'B ';88 e~ ~ .~ a ~ ~ d~<S ~~s o~~ ~o:l'a ",e ~:< ~.;: 2f .<> "'" o,s; :';'"8'"8 ~ ~o i:H~ e 1::~ .- 0 o~o " 0 0 .~ : .... ]lh:1 co -0 a >'''d~ ~ C o,l ~ ~ ~ " 0 s~ S "- 0 g<~,;: 8-g,s "E~8 ]a~ 0" . fs~ >'''''1: ~~< ~a .~ ~8~ ..s.~~ .~ ~ g " 0 " --.g ~ !ij-c<:lCO a~~ .;:;;;~ ~2 . 6::~S ~,.go ;l"'" ::;:~::: ..., .C ~ -< Ci Vi '" u 8 ~ >, .," Ol ;::l CY >, " i:: ;::l <:Il 0 ~ ~ ~ ... 0 ... Z ... ~ , '" ..... ~ = ~ ~ "-' 0 ~ U ~ 0 - ~ 0 ~ QO 0 """' :s If) f-< -.:r 1f ::s C) :E g- .... OJ) 0 0- 0 f-< ~ ~i 4!.g.E, ~J _"Ji liil! ~ ~ 8 -"' . ];:.8'2 j; .JI:!"2 :f8a8.s~& ~~~'<JI~m ~. ..'~] ~-"l . ]! ~ ~.c.fr6 J!!.2~z . jj 1'< · ~ 42~Efii;g.b :>.In<l..........III '0 ctl 0::: ..... o IJ.) OJ '0 W , , v v ~--..... " ~ ;;: " " g '@ '0 ~ " o 'd '0 o 0 " " a <B '~i>;g Eg~ ~~:-e ....~ 0< .tJ ~ Od~ 8 e-~ ~g"@ 't5 e'fl ~<E ~ .~ 23:! ~.s~ 8<"2] o. " u:="@ :2'e .... 0 <L> g.-;;; 8 ao;; ~ .~ a U ~I::r.s a.i[::;t- 000 0.00 ""N ~~'2 ~~< ~.;3 $~ .0 00" .e.5~ ]]""8 ], ~8 <l:I .... e .58 '0;:; Cl) ;;; 5; 8 ,- " ]-5] " 0 " "'d_ ~ ~ ~ " " o:l~ 'x 8'5 S -0 g-E!u a~ ~ "'O~~ "'d~ ]a~ g d) ~ ..sV) b"':C i.i< -" S ,. " 0 . a u^ 8 :E.~~ " 0 .~ g ~ g<'~ ~ a>..J ",.E] ~~f--~ ~i3b ~.Qo ~~N., <"'O~ ..J '0 ~ '" i5 Vi OJ U ~ o '" Q) .c I- "C <I:! e: Q) ro Q) CD .c en - >- e: ro 0 CJi ~ .!!2 Q) .c Q) e! .2' :J - I e: Q) e: Q).c Q) 0 >- .c .- <1:- -1:) 0 "E Q) e:q::: en .9 Q) ro ~ ~.E:l Ol- e: Q) o e: .- .c - .- x_ - Q) Q) 0 en ro :J ....1- Q) e: .Q) .c Q) .c ..0 t:: > - 0<1: :J"C 0- e: e: en :J 01.9 0 Ol~ e: 01 e: :i: .~ 32 Q) o x 0 " o Q) e: o Q) ....1....1 ....1- ';: :c en Q) Q) e! .c - - Q) - .c 0 l- e. .9 Q) Q) :J .c e: - Q) E ~ e e: - 0 Q) - en 01 :J e: 0 'x .c Q) Q) ....I Q) .c Q) "E " - :J e: "E e: ~~ Q) ro > 0 Q) ~<I: -.c -- _ e: en_ _0 ro 0 en- Q) Q) Q) 01 ~ .5 0l"C Ol~ e: .- ._ en -'" e: .5....1 o .- -'" E 0 Q) 0 ....1..0 o e ....1- ~ ~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: May 2, 2007 PC Agenda Item 3. C TO: Planning Commission FROM: James Lehnhoff, CitYPlanne~ SUBJECT: Planning Case #07-012 Variance Barbara Muller 1486 Ardeu Oaks Drive ATTACHMENTS: 3C-1 3C-2 3C-3 Application and Supporting Materials City Engineer Review and RCWD Review Air Photo and Photographs of the Site Reqncstcd Action The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a new attached garage in front of the existing garage that will extend 20 feet into the 40 foot front yard setback. Backe:ronnd 1. Overview of Request The applicant is proposing to construct a new garage in front of the existing garage at 1486 Arden Oaks Drive. The proposed garage would be 30 feet by 20 feet 3 inches for a total area of 607.5 square feet, and would encroach 20 feet into the front yard setback. The applicant has submitted a letter explaining the reasons for the variance request and addressing the variance evaluation criteria (Attachment 3C-1). In summary, the applicant states that the existing driveway up to the garage is a hazard due to its steepness, particularly during the winter months. In order to eliminate the steep driveway, the applicant is proposing to dig out the existing driveway and construct a new garage at a lower elevation. The new garage would be two to three feet higher than the elevation of the street with a significantly moderated slope. The existing garage and dwelling meets the required 40 foot setback from the front property line. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor May 2,2007 \lMetro-inet.us\ardenhillsIPlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-012 Muller Variance (PENDING)1050207 - PC Report - Muller Variance. doc Page 1 of8 If the variance is approved, the old garage would be remodeled and incorporated into the dwelling since it would no longer be able to access the street. Retaining walls would be constructed on both sides ofthe driveway. According to the applicant, the new garage would have a flat roof, and the roof would be a few feet higher than floor of the existing garage. Although the application does not explicitly state this, it appears that the top ofthe roof on the new garage could be used as a deck. Submitted Information The applicant has submitted a survey, a site plan of the proposed addition with contours line, a hand drawn cross section ofthe property, and a rendering of what the front of the house may look like from the street should the variance be approved. It should be noted that the contour lines on the site plan were not prepared by a surveyor. The contour lines were obtained from Ramsey County elevation data and drawn onto the site plan. While the contour lines represent the general topography for the site, the data is not considered survey quality. The applicant has stated that she is willing to have a topographic survey completed ifthe Planning Commission determines it is necessary. However, since a topographic survey can be costly to prepare, the applicant wanted to gauge the Planning Commission's interest in the data and determine if there is a possibility ofthe variance being approved. If the Planning Commission would consider approving the variance but requests a full topographic survey, the application can be tabled. The applicant has also submitted hand drawn cross section of the front portion ofthe property. AccorcIing to the drawing, the driveway has a 16.2 percent slope. Removing much of the slope for a new garage would significantly reduce the steepness of the slope. The City does not have any standards regulating driveway slope or other features. Finally, there is one change to the rendering of the proposed garage. The drawing currently shows a single garage door on what appears to be a wide two stall garage. The applicant has since informed Staff that the proposed garage would reuse the two garage doors from the existing garage--a single garage door and a two-stall garage door (Attachment 3C-I and 3C- 2). The proposed garage would be a three stall garage instead of a two stall garage shown in the drawing. 2. Site Data Low Density Residential Singte Family Home R-t: Single Famity Residentiat .32 Acres (13,939 square feet) The property decreases in elevation toward Arden Oaks Drive. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor May 2, 2007 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhillslP/anninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-012 Muller Variance (PENDING)1050207 - PC Report - Muller Variance.doc Page 2 of8 3. Surrounding Area North Low Density Residential R-I: Single Family Residential Singte Family Detached Residentiat South Low Density Residential R-t: Singte Family Residentiat Single Famity Detached Residential East Low Density Residentiat R-l: Single Family Residential Single Famity Detached Residential West Low Density Residential R-I: Singte Famity Residential Singte Family Detached Residentiat Plan Evaluation 1. Applicable Zoning Regulations The applicable R-l Zoning Requirements are as follows: 1. Minimum Lot Area s 2. Minimum Lot Size (ft, width/de th 3. Hei ht ft. 4. Lot Covered b Structure 5. Min. Landsca e Lot Area 6. Minimum Bnilding Setbacks ft Front ard Rear Yard rinei Ie Rear Yard Accesso Side Yard Interior - Principal (Minltotal both ards on lot) Side Yard Interior - Accessory Side Yard Comer 95/130 35 25% 65% 40 30 10 10/25 10 40 Lot Size & Dimensions According to the Ramsey County website, the lot size is 13,939 square feet. The applicant's calculations, however, suggest a lot size of 14,057 square feet. The different numbers do not have any impact on the application; however, if the lot is less than 14,000 square feet it would technically be a nonconforming lot. The dimensions of the lot conform to the R-l Zone. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor May 2, 2007 \\Metro-inet.uslardenhil/slPlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-012 Muller Variance (PENDING)\050207 -PC Report -Muller Variance.doc Page 3 of 8 Lot Coverage Since the new garage would be constructed on existing impervious surface, the overall total lot coverage would not significantly change. For the purposes of these calculations, Staff used the 13,939 square foot number for the lot size. The current lot coverage is at 34 percent. Lot Coverage Existing Proposed SQuare feet % snuare feet % Structure 2206 15.8% 2814 20.2% Driveway 1280 9.2% 673 4.8% Patios 842 6.0% 842 6.0% Other Impervious Surfaces 408.7 2.9% 408.7 2.9% Total Non-structure Impervious Surfaces 2,530.7 18.2% 1,923.2 13.8% Total Impervious Surface 4,736.7 34.0% 4,736.7 34.0% Lot Size 13,939 13,939 Setbacks The existing structure does not encroach on any setbacks. As noted above, the proposed garage would encroach 20 feet into the front yard setback ifthe variance is approved. Structure Height The existing dwelling does not exceed the 35 foot height limit, and the proposed garage addition would not cause the structure to exceed the 35 foot height limit. 2. Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements The proposed garage addition is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, and easements. 3. Additional Review The City Engineer reviewed the proposal and noted that standard engineering practice for new residential developments would limit driveways to no more than a ten percent grade wherever feasible. The City Engineer and I visited the neighborhood, and there are a few other driveways along Arden Oaks Drive that appear to exceed a ten percent grade change. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor May 2, 2007 \lMetro-inet.us\ardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases\2007107-012 Muller Variance (PENDING) \050207 - PC Report - Muller Variance.doc Page40f8 As noted earlier, the applicant has estimated the grade of the drive to be approximately 16.2 percent. The Rice Creek Watershed District has reviewed the proposal and granted a waiver to the applicant since there is no significant increase in impervious surface and no impact on wetlands. The applicant will be required to control erosion during construction if the variance is approved. 4. Variance Evalnation Criteria The criteria listed below must be used to evaluate the variance request. Staff has provided suggested findings offact in the following section. A. Variance Review Criteria- Section 1355.04 Subd. 4.C: Variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code may be granted in instances where the strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Variances shall only be granted when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Code. "Undue hardship," as used in connection with the granting of a vanance, means: . The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under conditions permitted by the Zoning Code; . The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; . The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character ofthe locality; and, . Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms ofthe Code. B. Additional Review Information: Although State Statutes include guidelines for evaluating variances, the interpretation and meaning of those Statutes have been impacted by various court decisions. A somewhat common, though apparently incorrect, interpretation of the written Statutes is that a property owner must show that they do not have reasonable use of their property without an approved variance. The difficulty with this standard is what counts as "reasonable use" of the property? Since most properties could be construed to have "reasonable use" without a variance, this standard was declared virtually insurmountable by the Court of Appeals. A revised interpretation of the "reasonable use" evaluation criteria has emerged from the Minnesota Court of Appeals. According to the City Attorney, a property City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor May 2, 2007 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\PlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-0J2 Muller Variance (PENDING) \050207 -PC Report -Muller Variance.doc Page 5 of8 owner does not need to show that reasonable use for a property only exists with an approved variance. Instead, the landowner must only demonstrate that the proposed variation is reasonable for a particular property in a given zone. For example, the property owner must only demonstrate that an addition that encroaches into a particular setback is reasonable as opposed to showing that the property would only have reasonable use with the addition. While this is a much softer interpretation of reasonable use, the applicant must still address all four variance criteria listed above. Findine:s of Fact Staff offers the following fourteen findings of fact for review: I. The lot size is between 13,939 and 14,057 square feet. A certified survey will be needed to determine if the lot is conforming or nonconforming. The status of the lot does not impact this variance application. 2. The lot meets all other dimension requirements for the R-l Zone. 3. The existing dwelling and attached garage conform to all setback and coverage requirements. 4. According to the applicant, the existing driveway up to the garage has a 16.2 percent grade. The proposed driveway would have a significantly reduced grade change. 5. The proposed garage would encroach 20 feet into the front yard setback. 6. The proposed garage would be 30 feet by 20 feet 3 inches for a total area of 607.5 square feet. 7. The proposed garage would not significantly change the impervious coverage on the lot. The structure coverage would increase from 15.8 percent to 20.2 percent, but the driveway size would be reduced. The overall impervious coverage would remain unchanged at approximately 34 percent. 8. The proposed addition along with the existing structure would not exceed the structure or overall impervious limits. 9. The existing dwelling and proposed garage are permitted uses in the R-l Zone. 10. The existing dwelling and the proposed garage are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. 11. The proposed garage itself is a reasonable use within the R - I Zone as compared to other single family homes in the City. 12. The proposed addition is unlikely to significantly impact the character of the neighborhood or the City. The larger structure would still be comparable in size to other structures in the adjacent neighborhood. 13. The topography ofthe lot is somewhat unique and it does appear to make it difficult to access the existing garage on the property. The slope up to the garage is steeper than most properties in the City, and new driveways with a similar slope would be discouraged on other properties in the City. 14. The proposed addition is not based on economic considerations alone. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor May 2, 2007 IlMetro-inet.us\ardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-012 Muller Variance (PENDING)\050207 - PC Report -Muller Variance.doc Page 6 of8 Staff Analvsis Based on the variance criteria, the proposed garage could be considered a reasonable use for a single family home in the R-1 Zone. Although no other homes in the immediate vicinity encroach on the front yard setback, it is unlikely that the proposed garage would cause any significant negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. As noted above, there are a handful of other homes in the neighborhood with driveways that have similar driveway challenges. Due to the topography, the proposed garage would not have a large visual impact. While approving this variance may trigger future variance applications of a similar nature, approving or denying this variance would not set a legal precedent since each variance application is evaluated on its own merits and circumstances. Finally, the remaining variance criterion asks if the undue hardship is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. This property was platted in 1982; however, the basic zoning and subdivision requirements for the R-1 Zone have not changed significantly since that time. Nevertheless, plats that meet the subdivision requirements can have unforeseen future difficulties. Topographic challenges are often the basis for legitimate variance requests. In this planning case, the consequences of a north facing steep driveway may not have been considered when the plat was approved. These circumstances do create somewhat of a unique situation as compared to most other properties in the R-l Zone. If the Planning Commission recommends approval on this variance, Staff recommends the following four conditions: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission. 2. The applicant shall use best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion at all times during construction. 3. Retaining walls greater than four feet in height shall be engineered and shall require a building permit. 4. Unless deemed necessary by the City Engineer, the applicant shall not extend the retaining walls into the public right-of-way. Options The findings in this report are not specific enough to fully support approval or denial ofthe variance. With a motion to approve or deny, the findings or the reasons for the motion must be stated. The following three criteria must be addressed: . The proposed garage is/is not a reasonable use in the R -1 Zone because ... . The proposed garage will/will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or the City because... . The circumstances in this planning case are/are not unique to the property because... City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor May 2, 2007 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\PlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07~012 Muller Variance (PENDING) \050207 - PC Report - Muller Variance.doc Page 7 of 8 Once the findings are stated, a full motion to approve or deny can be made. If there is a motion to table, it is not necessary to state the findings. 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 07-012 for a Variance at 1486 Arden Oaks Drive based on the stated findings offact, the submitted plans, and the four conditions in the May 2,2007, planning case memo. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 07- 012 for a Variance at 1486 Arden Oaks Drive based on the stated findings offact and the submitted plans in the May 2,2007, planning case memo. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of]>lanning Case 07-012 for a Variance at 1486 Arden Oaks Drive based on the stated fmdings offact. 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 07-012 for a Variance at 1486 Arden Oaks Drive: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Notice Although a variance does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within three-hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property. Resident Comment The City has not received any comments regarding this application. Deadline for Ae:encv Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 15, 2007. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by June 15,2007 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day review period. The City may with the petitioners' consent extend the review period beyond the 120 days. Attachments 3C-l Application and Supporting Materials 3C-2 City Engineer and RCWD Review 3C-3 Air Photo and Photographs ofthe Site City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor May 2, 2007 IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanningIP/anning Cases\2007\07-012 Muller Variance (PENDING)\050207 - PC Report - Muller Variance.doc Page 8 of 8 Attachment 3 C-l Application and Supporting Documents ~ ~HILLS May 2,2007, Planning Commission Meeting ~ ~HILLS 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 Telephone (651) 634-5120 Fax (651) 634-5137 www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us For Office Use Only Planning Case No. Submittal Date Application Completed Date Accepted by Receipt Number Council Decision Council Decision Date 2007 LAND USE APPLICATION Applicant Information Applicant: Address: Barbara Muller 1486 Arden Oaks Drive, Arden Hills MN Tele hone No.: 612.492 7050 (office) Fax No.: 612.492 7077 Other: 55112 651. 638 Email Address:bmuller@fredlaw.com Property Information Property Owner: Barbara Muller Owner Address: as above Owner Telephone No. see above lather: Address of Property Involved: 1486 Arden Oaks Drive, Arden Hills MN 55112 Legal Description: Lot 2 Blk 3 Property 10 No.: 27.30.23.33.0008 T e of Use: Residential Zone: Residential 0.32 Type of Reauest* o Apportionment of Assessments ($30) o Comprehensive Plan Amendment ($400) o Conditional Use Permit or Amended CUP ($300) o Final Plat ($200 + $25 per lot) o Final Planned Unit Development ($200) o Master Planned Unit Development ($600 + escrow) o Minor Subdivision (lot spliUconsolidation) ($300) o Preliminary Plat ($400 + $25 per lot + escrow) o Rezoning ($400) o Site Plan Review ($400) o Site Plan Review (Sign or Fence) ($250) o Vacation of Easement or Right-of-Way ($250 + escrow) (]I Variance (Zoning Code) ($300) o Zoning Code Amendment ($300 + escrow) Revised: t2-t2-2006 Page I 00 'Applicanls are responsible for reimbursement of consultant fees associated with filing, reviewing, and processing of this application. Such fees are to be paid in escrow up front or upon receipt of statement from the City of Arden Hills. Fees include costs for consultants retained by the City and include consultant planning services, attorney, and engineer. 'Payment of park dedication fees are required with the approval of most subdivision applications. 'The land use application fees do not cover building, sign, or other permit fees that may be required upon approval of a land use application. 'Certain applications are subject to review and approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Contact RCWD directly at 763-398- 3070 for additional information. from the border of the property. See theattached explanation for my request. Brief Description of Request (please also include a typed. detailed letter explaininq the proiect): I am applying for a variance from the setback requirements so that I can have my driveway lowered and a new garage built that would be set back only 20' Filina & Information Reauirements The City requests that you make a pre-application meeting with the City Planner to discuss the application process, requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the City Planner or Planning Commission, a certified survey of the property is required for all applications. The Planning Commission and/or City Council may still require a certified survey, A checklist for other required information is also available. Complete/Incomplete Applications An incomplete application will delay the processing of land use requests. The application approval time commences and an application is considered officially filed when the City Planner has received and examined the application and determined that the application is complete. A decision on whether the application is complete or incomplete shall be made within fifteen (15) working days following the submittal of the application. When the application is deemed to be "complete" it shall be placed on the agenda of the first possible Planning Commission meeting provided that all required public notices have been sent and published. Payment of Fees The undersigned acknowledges that she/he understands that before a land use application can be deemed complete, all required information and fees (including all deposits) must be paid to the City. If additional fees are required to cover costs incurred by the City, the City Planner has the right to require additional payment from one or more of the undersigned, who shall be jointly liable for such fees. Such expenses may include (but are not limited to) direct city payroll and overhead costs, fees paid to consultants and other professionals, and the cost of printing, mailing, and supplies. The City may withhold final action on a land use application, withhold building permits, and/or rescind prior action until all miscellaneous fees have been paid. Applicants are advised that an escrow deposit is required at the time of the submittal of the land use application to offset costs associated with the proposed project Unused portions of an escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. Notice of Meetina Attendance In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a designated representative must be present at the scheduled meeting, If not, the matter may be tabled until the next available agenda. Revised: 12-12-2006 Page 2 of 3 } Aaenda Deadline and Meetina Schedule The deadline for submittal of land use applications is required according to the schedule outlined below. There are no exceptions. Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the first Wednesday of each month at 7:00 PM, though please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. City Council meetings are held typically the last Monday of the same month at 7:00 PM. Meetings are held in the Council Chambers at the City of Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112, unless otherwise stated. Applicants are advised that additional meetings andlor workshops are scheduled when necessary upon approval of the Planning Commission. 2007 SCHEDULE (*subject to change) APPLICATION DEADLINE DATE" TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE* (Generally held on the last Monda at 7:00 .m. Acknowledaement and Sianature I acknowledge that I have read all of the information listed in the City of Arden Hills Land Use Application and fully understand that I am sponsible fo~,111 costs incurred by the City related to the processing of e};iSjapPlicatio, . I ,,' C,. Property Owner Signature (Required) t(Z(07 Date Applicant Signature (If different than the property owner) Date Please contact the City Planner at (651) 634-5134 or by em ail atiames.lehnhoff@ci.arden-hills.mn.usif you have any questions regarding this application. Additional caples of this application form are available on the City's website: htto://www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us Revised: 12-12-2006 Page 3 00 1486 Arden Oaks Drive Arden Hills, MN 55112 Calculation of Total BuiIdine; Coverae;e and of Impervious / Hard Surface Covera2e Size of Property: 139.32' x 101.34' x 138.16' x 101.30' = approximately 14,057.125 sq. ft. Current Total Building Coverage: 2,206 sq. ft. or approximately 15.69% of the Property Total Building Coverage including suggested addition: 2,806 sq. ft or approximately 19.96% of the Property Impervious / Hard Surface Coverage: Asphalt Drivewav: 32' x 40' = 1,280 sq. ft. or approximately 9. I 1% of the Property; The suggested addition would reduce the driveway to 30' x 20' = 600 sq. ft or approximately 4.27% of the Property. Patios (paver stones on sand and gravel foundation): Patios of 14' x 9', 38' x 11', 6' x 18' and 20' x 10', totaling 842 sq. ft or approximately 5.99% of the Property Cement steps, landing. walkway and front sten: Steps: 4' x 40' = 160 sq. ft Landing: 12'3" x 9' 10" = 120.5 sq. ft Walkway: 4' x 18'9" = 75 sq. ft. Front step: 4'10" xli' = 53.2 sq. ft Total: 408.7 sq. ft or approximately 2.91 % of the Property Total Building and Impervious / Hard Surface Coverage: 4,736.7 sq. ft or approximately 33.7% (would not change due to the suggested addition) \ , \ '\\ ~\ ~1 ,~ 1 y. :S () , 151iJ J .> h~ "j-- -----'- r JJ --S in ~ V) 5 6 -II .A l <$ J , '3 ~ i , ) ; '-r~ .I I " ... , , '> " , u ..- I\~ -\i' -f; r -" -r ~t ~rT1 l' ~",,,,,'b r:n~""?1 ~~~ '-' N '" '-- (:,) . ~ ...... )-~ c_ ---~ '.~- , :.s --- " -,; j J'~->''''1 ------ d ;; .j ') ~ ';' ~'o <i :t 1 . i\1 L_ ~ '! I r I I , 1 i , I I I I ! I i l j i , ! , I I i 1 i I ~ i 1 i , , l \ \ V\ <'I, \ ~ '. \ ~ '~ ,_ .i \~ \ ~, ';}\ \ --' .1 ;:1 \ \ ~ \ J i I 1 I J , , i I j i I ' I I i,\ i \ \ I i " ~ j '\ ,\ '\ ~11 \\ \\ r \ \ . ~ \ \ \ '\ \ \ \\.','1 . \ ,\ \ \ .~\\. '< \ ' i \ \'\ \ \ i\ \ , \ \. \\ \ \.Vt \ \, --;''''q ~r\?(klcb Ii ~ ql"">? CERTIFICATE Of SURVEY " I qfI{:" .tl-rd~V1 CBk.. 'Pr For: ROYAL OAKS REALTY " ARDEN /j"J7L9Z .4, 4"'PJ'5.r 30.09 OAKS DRIVE AI 8'10 J5'42"E. 7/. .;5 ...., I ,g_ ;g UI.j'll/ : ~ Df"'a l7o.~e.1 EQS~""'eni.-s,.f :'--- -- ---- -I; 1-1>. l~~ f Ii . -;/.<;; . I '" '" "'N . '" "'"~ "'"", . - () \J1 I f; \rl--- -Jl __,n:,,',pj " ... ~ N ~ --'-~ I~ 1" .... ; I i -.~I': I I I SLC-~_ I I j I I ___J s ~ . '" !'l ..J ," _._-~ .:;\ ". a I-\;- ," ..b "," -'" ro' ,.,.... -.. N Vol ," . <:> tI\ .' , .", 10130 5 89" '5' 28 ~ w . . Lot 2, BL'ck _3, ARDeN OAKS, Ramsev C,'unty, Minnes'ta. j i ;cALE.:llJ1!;h=~Feet I OOenotes Iron I Beortngs shown ore On an ossumed dotum.' Job Na.~gJ~llBook_ r- ,~_.t.tly ce1"1.ify- thot 'hit i'. (I 'rue Gnd correct representation of a s\.Irvey 0-1 the ,~ ...fidoriesof. thecibove dftctibed kind Gnd of the locotion of aU buildiltga, if any. fhei.on,o,t1d' all vi,ibft .'nc-roGChment', if any. from or on said land. E. G. RUD a SONS. INC. f> -...'; "/'J -? by C/~ '".~. ~~An. Reg. No. 9"k ,."T-'" ./ OQt.td thi....LZ:.:.day of NR/G<',....-:r 19~. Poge ~ E. G. RUD a SONS, INC. LAND SURVEYORS 9560 Lexington AvenueN. New Brighton (Lexington). Minnesota , 55112 t-p.feohcn-r;> 7~h _ "",,r:;,&: Request for Variance from Setback Requirements for Property 1486 Arden Oaks Drive, Arden Hills, MN I (. For my property on 1486 Arden Oaks Drive, Arden Hills, MN, I hereby apply for a variance that would allow me to build a garage on the property that is set back 20'. This variance would allow me to build a garage in front of the existing garage. The plan is to dig out the driveway so that the new driveway and the new garage would be only about one or two feet above street level. The roof of the new garage would be flat and only two to three feet higher than the existing "landing" in front of the garage, thereby blending in with the existing property and its front yard and reducing any potential impact on the overall "look" of the individual property and the street in its entirety. According to the contractor I intend to work with, a new garage should be put in front of the existing one, not underneath the existing one, because the back wall of the existing garage is at the same time the outside wall of the basement, first and second floor of the house - the closer the back wall of a lower level garage is to this existing outside wall, the more the structural integrity of the entire house is endangered. Putting a new garage 20' in front ofthe existing garage would reduce potential problems for the building structure itself to a minimum and would still leave a driveway that would be long enough for visitors to park in front of the new garage instead of on the street. Reasons underlving my request for a variance (numbers in brackets refer to the hardship criteria set forth in the Arden Hills Zoning Ordinance, Section VIII, 4, and Minn. Stat. 462.357 Subd.6): My current garage is built exactly on the setback line of 40'. The North-facing driveway (including the city property bordering the street) is approximately 52' long. With the exception of a small flat "landing" of a few feet immediately in front of the garage entrance, the entire driveway has a steep incline of just over 8' (i.e. an incline of approximately 16%), which makes a reasonable and safe use of the driveway at temperatures around 32 degrees and below impossible [1, 2]. I acquired the property in the summer of2003. In Fall of2003, in order to mitigate any problems that the driveway posed for visitors to the house, I had a contractor build a concrete staircase (with railing) from the street to a landing next to the garage, with a walkway to the house, which has ensured a safe access to the house for pedestrians ever since. We inquired into the possibility of installing a heated driveway, but had to realize that due to the slope of the property, this would result in additional/new problems such as the build-up of ice dams at the curb and in the street. Thus, after three (mostly mild) winters, we still have not been able to find a satisfactory and safe solution for using the driveway itself: We use a lot of salt, combined with traction grit, and clean the driveway even if less than half an inch of snow has fallen. While cleaning the driveway, we have to wear shoes with metal spikes to prevent us from falling and to give us the necessary traction on the driveway (once a neighbor whose shoes did not have such spikes helped me clean the driveway; he was sliding up and down the driveway to an extent that made him rather uncomfortable and probably regret his &.~f offer to help). After a heavy snowfall, the driveway can be cleaned only with a track-driven snow blower (other snow blowers cannot make it up the driveway), which is too heavy for me to operate. Due to the Northern exposure, ice forms easily on the driveway, remains on there quite long and sometimes proves to be quite treacherous. If there is even the smallest layer of ice on the driveway, it is nearly impossible for me to get up the driveway and into the garage with my Honda Civic. Before I leave the garage with my car, I have to ensure that no pedestrian or car is anywhere close, because I am not able to control the car from sliding down the driveway and into the street once I leave the "landing" in front ofthe garage. One day last winter, while the air temperature was 36 degrees, the ground was still frozen, which I (unfortunately) did not realize when I stepped on the driveway - I immediately lost my balance on the thin layer of ice that still existed and slid the entire driveway down on my stomach. With the exception of some abrasions on my legs, I was lucky enough not to hurt myself. Neighbors told us, however, that one ofthe previous owners broke an arm when she fell on the icy driveway in one winter. [1,2] I believe that the variance would not just keep with the spirit and intent of the Arden Hills Zoning Ordinance, but would even enhance such intent because it would allow a use of the property that is safer for anybody living there, as well as for the general public (i.e. people passing by the property as well as visitors to the property). The design of the new garage intends to make the new garage blend in with the existing structure and landscape, thereby reducing any potential negative aesthetical impact on my property and/or the entire street. [3] I am applying for the variance for safety, not for economic reasons. The house at 1486 Arden Oaks Drive provides with approximately 2,500 square feet more than enough living space for my partner and myself; if we ever felt that additional living space was needed, we could create such space in the basement at a far lesser cost. However, I hope that a level driveway will enable us to stay in the house for years to come, without concerns about being in the necessary physical condition to tackle the driveway in winter. [6] The variance would not create a land use not permitted in the area which is zoned as residential and would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. [4, 51 The proposed use of the additional building as a garage is permitted within the zone. [7] \ ~ -..,; "" ~ ct D U) ~ () :z: UJ D ~ i:I '" , , , , , \ , , , .. i=___......_ ~ <> , N " "\ \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ ' \ \ , \ \ \ t - \ '''\ iJb~l--\ \ ~ I ' \ --, ----.- \ : \ \:1' ,I ' \ ,!!} \' \ i \ \ , ) :0.: G=_~ .. \ , , \ " , \ I , , \ t , , , \ , , , , , , .o-{oz , :!: , , , , ...- -- '. , \ , , \J , , , I I , , ~ I I I I , I , I , I , I , , I I , , I , , I I , , , , I I , I , I I ... ii' " I' , ~ " I, ~ " l i ~ 11 1 _ II "j ~~~iH i /liS","':I I' II I U 'i I , i' I /: I I I /' t ,I " , I I' , ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I : I , I I I I I ~ f r I I " I " / 1 I f 1/ I l I n ~f / 61 ""L" ~ &!: . G" L -- i , If I". I II a I , , I , I , I I I I I I I I I ./ 'j ,Ji> I , I , I , I , , I , I , , , , , I , , I , I I , , I / , I , , , / N' &! I I , I I I I / , , I I , I I I "Efj l~tlS~ .,.~.. @~~ S> "" .~. ('",': -.: ~ II . '}- N ':' ----..::"------- -----, , I \ , , , , , , , , , , I , , , I , , , , , I , I , \ , \ , , , , , I , , , , , , , \ , I , , , , , I , , , , , , , , , , , I , I '" ,< [J[:i][][j[]r:lJlldlW CICJIDC[J[J[J[J [d[J[J[J[J]CCi][J [J.ICJ [J [] [] [J [:J [] oc:Jt:11CCD[jD[J ., .' CD ~~?!OSED STREET ELEVATION Attachment 3C-2 City Engineer and RCWD Review ~ ~HILLS May 2,2007, Planning Commission Meeting ~ ~~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: April 24, 2007 TO: James Lehnhoff, City Planner FROM: Kristine Giga, Civil Engineer Greg Hoag, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Planning Case #07-O121486 Arden Oaks Drive The following are comments based upon a review of the submitted variance request: General . The proposed project will require permits which may include, but is not limited to Rice Creek Watershed District and City Erosion Control permits. . Standard engineering practice is to construct driveways at a maximum grade of 10% whenever feasible. \\RYNASl \AHdata$\PR&PW\Engineering\2001\PlanninK- Cases\()7 -012 _1486ArdenOaks.doc James Lehnhoff From: Sent: To: cc: Subject: Maria Perez [MPerez@ricecreek.org] Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:46 PM Muller, Barbara James Lehnhoff; David Bauer 07-028 R RE: 1486 Arden Oaks Drive, Arden Hills - I&J SDOC1276.pdf (90 KB) Ms. Muller, I have reviewed the attached Plan and since you are not adding any significant amount of impervious area and are not impacting wetlands or floodplains, you do not require a RCWD permit. This project needs to comply with sediment and erosion control requirements and it is subject to inspection. Please contact Dave Bauer, District Inspector, if you need recommendations/guidance in erosion control. Please contact me if you have any questions or if the scope of your project changes. Regards, Maria F. Perez Engineer Technician Rice Creek Watershed District 4325 Pheasant Ridge Dr., Suite 611 Blaine, MN 55449 Ph, 763-398-3079 Fax, 763-398-3088 mperez@ricecreek.org c: City of Arden Hills District Inspector ReND File 07-028 R -----Original Message----- From: Muller, Barbara [mailto:bmuller@fredlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 2:49 PM To: Maria Perez Subject: 1486 Arden Oaks Drive, Arden Hills Dear Ms. Perez: as discussed on the phone, I am currently in the process of applying for a variance from the City of Arden Hills for my property at 1486 Arden Oaks Drive, Arden Hills. If the variance is granted, I would put a new garage in front of the existing garage; the current driveway is quite steep - I want to dig out the driveway and have a new garage put in that 1 is only about 1 1/2 foot over street level (instead of 8 1/2 feet, as the current garage) . The current driveway is made out of asphalti the new garage would sit on top of part of the existing driveway. Please call me in this comments or questions. office at 612.492 7050 or e-mail with any Thank you for your help! Yours sincerely, Barbara Muller 1486 Arden Oaks Drive Arden Hills, MN 55112 2 Maps and Photographs Attachment 3C-3 ~ ~HlLLS May 2,2007, Planning Commission Meeting z: ~ hl~h ~nl ~h~~.H~H! ;ji".l!ils~.l!;::~~,,~ lIit~ \'\'\\IiI!lD If i 1 ~ f; I " . -s o ;;: I . . E ~ . . " o 1 ~ s ..s '~i>~ Eg~ ..s ~:a .s~ ~ <( ~~ ~ o..~ 00'0 ego; 'S e'.g c~ Q;> ,9 e:g ~,a~ S'--g] 8:g~ ~lq~ .- 0 Q;> ~-; 8 e:; ~ .~ a U ~ c~.s ~~b 0",,0 ..'" ~~:a ~~< ~.s is """'.a g.::: "1 -g]"E '8 ~8 2"'e .S 3 o~<O ;;;~e .- " ],s] .0. ~]~ ? . B 3." .0 ~iE g~ g g.~u e~ EJ "1;1~""" ~]b 8~~ 1:lEV1 .Q"':C ;;~< ~s . .0" " 0 8 01) bCl ;E"G <l) o 0 ;;; :g 5 '-.g ~ g<~j 5" 0 .~:;~ F:2 ~rsb ~.Qo ;;:B'" :;::~1,f) d 1:: GO '" a o E OJ en '" u ~ o GO S e @. 'lO. .,!!!'" IDe ~ ...'ii ~ 'Ii liX .!! 'll 'l t.llt~ ~.ill~ '00". f ~l'8l;J!! g1i,s~'ijjfl ~il;ijl:t! ~1l8!i~1l..1i8"'.s III .3: ii)Q...-N:r:-1Il ClJ i> ..... l-o ~ '" ..:.::: C':l o = ClJ 'C l-o -< '" QO ...,. ,...; " . -a o ~ . . E ] ~ " o ] '8 . " E <8 ',g1S;G 6a~ 'E~:C ._~ ~< ~ ~.. ~ Q.~ 0.-0 ,;l:;l-a o e',::: c~ 5 ..8 e:5! . " < :;::..se S'-o"O o ~ a 00_ ed <1J.::! .~.c e g.~ e s.- 8 .~] 8 "'...s ...... 000 0.00 <<'" ..- "0 <1J"C .~~ ~.~ <l.l-= :f ~ "". $.5"0 -g~-E -0 ",,0 !3 e ~ .s ~.. 8~o .l!a :: 8: ]]"d :. 0 a .-0- Hj~ g~cd .0 ~!E d 000 g."28 s~ 5 "O~'<=' ~"Ot- sag 0.'" e:E .....~ .b"':C 'i~< -"3" .00 " 0 0 JL~o "i:) a ~ ~ ~ 5 .~.g ~ . . . s>"" ~~~ .. ~ ~ ~~ g8 -0 Jl'" <.aVl ~ :c ~ is . ! <lJ ~ ... .. ~ '" ~ ~ o = <lJ 'e .. -< \0 00 -.:I' ..... ~ o ;;: s ~ ~ ~ ilm~" ~ ..il ~,E;;il]i 1iS:f a ~_.5 ~U~~~I ~H~ ~~aHHHIHi 1!i!1.~\ \\\.\111I0 .q '" ;:l ." CI ~i. >> i~ ~ .~. ~~I - i , ~ ;:l .s ,:; o U - o o ~ o :;: E-< o " . .3 " 'C g " o ] '0 . 0 15 .2 .~ >.~ """~ i~~ - . "~< -11"'.. "0" - 8 ~~ eo .....o"'@ o e'.::: E~ ~ 'P ....:'S! " " . ~<8 e 5'"0] o~Ctl rHl ~ 8-8 .~] 8 ","" f-< .::-<8 (~----......" ~~~ ..<.._..-..--~. CtlCtl- rU~ .0 "'" .s.S"=' / /llU '0",0 o e 0 .~ ~ e -2 g::l Cl) .~ @ 8 'O~ a.g] ~"O~ ~:;~ ",i1'" " 0 s!S c 00" g."E8 e.g .... "!;I~<S "'0" ]g8 ~8~ ""~ .!:'>"'12 ~lS< ~ $ .~ .0" " 0 0 , .s6c5 : .~.~ 8 .~ g e g.'~ ~ e:>j :E~~ d E-< E 6:: l3 l:'"'"-~ ",00 ~gf: @l <.g~~ d 12 ~ -< Cl '" J Oi "' u f'5 o en 'E CIl :s: .9 ~ '" CIl a.> .r: ~ ::> o '" OJ c: 32 o o ....I a.> > 'C o ~ CIl o c: a.> 'E <t: CD CO '<t ...... '0 .r: ~ ::> o '" >- .$ .~ -0 a.> E .~ a.> '" ::> o I ~ 'C o '" ..>:: CIl o c: a.> 'E <t: CD CO '<t 'E ~ o ~ ~ '" 1 ~ ::> o '" OJ c: 32 o .3 Q) > 'C 0 '" "0 -'< C ro ro 0 Q) c > Q) 'C "E 0 <( '" -'< CD ro CO 0 '<t ~ c - Q) 0 "E - ro <( Q) - <.l 0 ro .... '" Q) , c Q) .... "0 0 ...!. <.l Q) => Q) => <.l .J:: C Q) - Q) .J:: .... ro > - Q) <( .!: c OJ Q) Q) .!: '" '" CD => => 0 0 c I Ic/) oj > '" 'C -'< 0 ro 0 '" -'< c ro Q) 0 "E c <( Q) CD "E CO <( '<t ~ CD - CO 0 '<t - ~ '" - ro 0 Q) .J:: <.l t ro 0 '" c . Q) >> "0 CD ...!. - => .5!l <.l "0 Q) Q) .J:: E - c .5 Q) Q) '" Q) '" => .<:: => 0 .... 0 IO I ~ ~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: May 2, 2007 PC Agenda Item 4.A TO: Planning Commission FROM: James Lehnhoff, City Plannerr SUBJECT: Recreational Vehicle Regulations Interpretation ATTACHMENTS: Resident Letter, Air Photo, Chatham Neighborhood Setback Regulations, and Existing RV Regulations Requested Action Mr. Lunzer of 1795 Chatham Avenue has requested an interpretation of the minimum setbacks for R V s and utility trailers in Section 1325.10 of the Zoning Code. Backe;ronnd The graphic summaries in the RV storage regulations in Section 1325.10 Subd 4 of the Zoning Code show a minimum setback for RVs of 40 feet from the front property line. Although the graphics clearly show a minimum 40 foot front yard setback for RVs, the text does not specify a 40 foot front yard setback. The only textual reference that would seem to apply to the front yard setback is in Subd 4.E which permits storing RVs in the "buildable" portion of the lot. While a 40 foot front yard setback for structures is standard throughout most of the City, at least two neighborhoods were built using 30 foot front yard setbacks. When the Chatham neighborhood was first platted, the minimum setback for houses was set at 30 feet in the plat documents (Attachment 4A-2). The City recently received a complaint regarding a utility trailer being stored at 1795 Chatham Avenue. Staff has traditionally applied the RV regulations to utility trailers because the trailers could be used to haul recreational vehicles (ATVs, motorcycles, etc). In this case, the trailer was not being stored forward of the dwelling, which is 30 feet from the front property line at its closest. However, the trailer was not at least 40 feet from the front property line. Since the Chatham neighborhood is subject to a 30 foot front yard setback, it does seem reasonable to assume that the "buildable" portion of the lot starts 30 feet from the front property line. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor May 2, 2007 IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-013 Zoning Code Amendment - RV Regulations\050207 - PC Report - RV Interpretation.doc Page I of3 However, as noted above, the graphic summaries in the RV regulations require a 40 foot setback. The property owner, Mr. Lunzer, has requested a clarification from the Planning Commission and City Council regarding this somewhat confusing aspect ofthe Code. Item 4.B on the May 2,2007, Planning Commission agenda includes a draft revision of the RV regulations. In the draft revision, the minimum setback for a storing RVs or utility trailers outside would be changed from 40 feet to "not forward of the principle structure." If that provision is adopted as written in the draft regulations, this property owner would potentially not be in violation of the Zoning Code. However, the revised RV regulations do not take into consideration accessory structures that may be stepped back from the principle structure. At 1795 Chatham, the accessory structure is about 50 feet from the front property line and the trailer would be parked forward of the accessory structure but behind the principle structure. City Staff has not issued a citation to the property owner. Further action will depend on the results of the Zoning Code interpretation or changes to the Zoning Code and the property owner's compliance with the interpretation or revised regulations. Options The Planning Commission can make an interpretation regarding this one particular issue, or the final interpretation could be incorporated into a revised and clarified set of R V regulations, which would be a longer term solution. Given recent events regarding the RV storage regulations, Staff strongly recommends adopting a revised and clarified RV storage code to deal with this issue and other confusing aspects of the RV regulations. However, ifthe Planning Commission believes that an RV should not be stored closer than 40 feet to the front property line regardless of the location ofthe dwelling, then that interpretation should be stated and the property owner will be expected to comply. The RV'regulations can then be modified to specifically require a 40 foot setback in all areas of the City. Ultimately, the R V storage regulations do not have to be tied to the "buildable" portion of the lot or any other existing setbacks. If the Planning Commission chooses to make an interpretation regarding this one particular setback issue, a motion recommending a particular interpretation should be made. That recommendation would be sent to the City Council for [mal action, A final interpretation would apply to all residential properties. If the Planning Commission wants to revise the RV regulations to deal with this and other issues, this particular interpretation request can be tabled pending review and adoption of a revised set ofRV storage regulations. The property owner would then be expected to comply with any revised regulations that are adopted. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 2, 2007 \\Metro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-013 Zoning Code Amendment - RV Regulations\050207 - PC Report - RV Interpretation.doc Page 2 of3 Recommendation Except in the most extreme circumstances, Staff would not recommend permitting the storage of R V s forward of the principle structure. As noted above, Staff recommends dealing with this issue by clarifying the R V regulations. Additional research and discussion will be needed to determine if a 30 foot, 40 foot, or "not closer than the principle structure" is a sufficient front yard setback for RVs. Attachments Resident Letter Chatham Neighborhood Setback Regulations and Existing RV Regulations City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetlngfor May 2,2007 IlMetro-inet.us\ardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-013 Zoning Code Amendment - RV Regulations\050207 - PC Report - RV Interpretation.doc Page 3 of3 Vernon M. Lunzer 1795 Chatham Ave Arden Hills, MN 55 I 12 April 15,2007 James Lehnhoff, City Planner City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 ArdenHills,MN 55112 Received APR 1 (32007 "'. \..Ity of 1\ .-.rden Hills Dear Mr. Lehnhoff, During my phone conversations with John Mennenga and you, 1 spoke about a recent letter 1 received from the City of Arden Hills regarding violations of the local property maintenance regulations at my property. More specifically these regarded the improper storage of an RV in a residential district and refuse containers not property screened or kept in an enclosed building 1 have moved my refuse containers and will continue to store them in a less conspicuous location. I explained that my licensed utility trailer has been stored on a paved parking area next to my attached garage. This area is behind a line designated as front yard in the present zoning code. This area also complies with proper clearance of side yard area in the code. It is clearly on the shaded area of the diagrams, which is the buildable portion of the lot provided in the code. We have asked you to clarify the definition of front yard as I have used it. The present code defmes this as a forty foot set back from the street right-of-way line by an illustration intended for many Arden Hills building sites. As we discussed, in my particular situation in the Chatham Avenue subdivision of Arden Hills. the buildable oortion of the lot and front yard were allowed a thirty foot set back from the street ril!bt-of-wav line. Due to this previous defmition of buildable site and mv oarticular lot. I have no access for a wheeled vehicle in the back vard area. This situation exists for other residents as well. We all want a beautiful neighborhood and our home investment protected. In S\lmmary, we would ask vou to discuss the previous allowed setback and buildable portion on the lot as it relates to the zouiu!!: code in our soecific area of Arden Hills. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, N~ 11\. ~~ Vemon M. Lunzer Cc: John Mennenga, Building Inspector ~ :> -< = eo:: -= ~ -= U In 0\ t-- .... Z' ~ d~~ ~ ~ ~';jj~ Hp ~;l'~~z ihH~JJH~1 "^Ii. 13 s ~~ - ~ :;;: " " ^s ] " " ~ ] "8 " - c <8 .~ >.;;g e~~ ~i8:C c" ..... 0< ~~'" 8 ~:@ ~gca '"'0 ~'-g c~ tV .9 ~~ ~~ e 0..-0] ~ ~ ~ """ ::;Z'B 'AS 8 e~ ~ .::2 a ~ ~ l'l~<S <l.i~b g~~ ~"':a 'de ""<: :g~ .~ "~ " -""'-::I B.5", "31] Ee~ E~ .- " 'Os tV ; Sl 8 ]~"O " 0 Ii >-"00 ~ la 8 3" " "" "" .....IE c 8~ [5 "'Su " " - S-g,s 'd~~ .g]o 8",~ "" . eg~ ;>'''''C ~~< ~ g ~~ " " 8 ll~o '13'08 c ~ c ".g ~ "'''" e~-;; :B:;~ E-<~ " ~gS ~5~~ -"~ <:'d_ ..l ^C ii <: is .:t OJ ;:l CI >, 0) ~ r/) B - o Z Ui ~ o 00 ~. . :..-- STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY Of RAMSEY CITY Of ARDEN HillS r~ \~ If) y.()\J.r ZOO\~ Cco~ Q~ ~ otlQ,m'd- \11{w~b C}w- r- t f\ Sedion 6 F: ~ SPECIAL USE PERMIT -- Case no. 76-41 The undersigned, Clerk-Adminls1T61"or of the City ot ~"rden flills. does hereby certify "thai" this Special Use PenDJt is granted pur-suan1- "to the provisions of Ordinance No. 99, as amanded, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Arden tHUs. in accordcRce with a public hearing duly held by tbe Planning Commission t-toarsof on February 15. 1977 and subsequent approval by "the Arden Hills Cf ty Council Ort February 28. 1971. Perm~5!:olon is accordIngly given "the applicant, BAN CON, ,NC., a Minnesota corporzl'tlon. hereinafTer referred to as "Permittee", to develop and construct upon tha tracts of land hereinafter des- cribed a residential planned unit development consist-Ing of ona hundred fifTy (150) single family lots. publlc stree1"s and utIlities. and open spaCe and pedestrl~nways to be usad for public recreatronat purposes. a11 iil accordance wIth 'the revised preliminary pian of the Permittee, da'ted March 9. 1977. except as otherwise modified herein. The. revised prelimInary plan. and all of 'ts components. ara on file with "the Clerk-Admtnistra"tor in the City Hall. The tracts of land which are the subject of this Specfal Use Permit are apparently owned of reconJ by "the Permittee. and thel r 1<';).9'" descriptIons lu'e as sat forth on Exhlbi"t "A" attached herei"o and made a part horaof. Th.ls Special Use Permit is ISsued not only subject to PermItTee's compliance with the g6neral c~ndl1"lons and docua~nts mentIoned hereinabove. but also subjact to all of the applicable naQuirarrtents of Ordlnl.lRCe No~ 99. as amended. the 20n(ng Ordinance. and Ordinance Un. 98. 8S amended, the SUbdivisIon o,.,d Platting Ordinance; subject to Permittoe's obtaining proper Building Per.m1ts; arul subject to the following special cond;tions: I. Permittee shall dedicato to City. In its plat. Out- lots A. B. C and E. and shall convey Outlot 0 by Warranty Deed to School Dls"trict 621. 2. Slgnage and landscaplny at all entrances to tbe planned unIt dave'opmenT shall be submitTed to end approved by i'he Council before inSTallation. or: 'construction. The slgna~e treatment proposed by i'hl3l 'PermiT"te6 In the Entrance Slgfl- Concepts, dated January 24. '971. is unacceptable and shall not be used by the Permittee. 3. Developer shall perform grading and prapare initial foundation for the pedostrIan way 6T a cost not TO exceed $15.000. CIty Council shedl determlnt90 location of pedestrian wl'ly in Gl.ltiot C. -4. Cost" j ocurred by the Ci ty for feas i bi 1 j ty study of proposed streets and utllltl65 snail b-e paid by Permi i"te.e I f project is not consumated. ~. Minimum setbacks for ai' houses in Cha1'ham will be as lollows: ~ Front setback r- Side ysr-d..dweIHng Si de yard. garage AggregaTe s I de y.ar-d. 30' lOr 5.1 1.5--1 Da.red this &Til day of March. 1977. CITY OF AROEN HillS BY~~~ Charlotte McNiesh Clerk-AdminIstrator City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code ~~-Fv;J t+p l cJ\<:-Yl-7 ~0v- C. RV's less than twenty-eight (28) feet in length may be stored outside anywhere in the area where RV's less than seven (7) feet in height are allowed as in the above Section 1325.10 Subd 2.A.2. D. RV's less than thirty-four (34) feet in length may be allowed by conditional use permit in a rear or side yard, with a minimum side and rear yard setback often (10) feet, except when such a yard abuts a street, where no parking is allowed. This conditional use permit procedure will allow the unique circumstances of each lot to be considered and the most appropriate storage location determined. E. RV's over seven (7) feet in height may be stored anywhere in the buildable portion of a residential lot. F. The owner or occupant of any shoreline lot is permitted to store up to three (3) boats or watercraft, in addition to other permitted RV's, provided that such boats or watercraft: I. Do not exceed the size limitations for other RV's as regulated above. 2. Are stored in locations permitted for other R V's as regulated above, except that permitted boats or watercraft may also be stored in the required lakeshore setback area but not within fifty (50) feet of the water's edge. Lesser lakeshore setbacks are permitted when topographic conditions, lot configuration and/or the size and bulk of the watercraft do not allow the normal fifty (50) foot setback to be met. For purposes of this provision, this permitted lakeshore setback encroachment shall be treated as part of the buildable portion of the lot. Watercraft shall include, but, shall not be limited to, power boats, cruisers, canoes, jet skis, fishing/hunting boats, pontoon boats and sail boats. Subd. 3 Parking Permits. All RV's may be parked in driveways for the sole expressed purpose of loading and unloading for a period not to exceed seventy-two (72) hours. Permits for a period of up to seven (7) days, renewable once during a twelve (12) month period ma be obtained from City Hall. Graphic Summary ofRV Storage Regulations. A. RV's of any length or height may be stored in enclosed structures, providing the structure conforms to Zoning Ordinance requirements. Section 1325 - General Regutations Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 3 t of33 City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code B. A maximum of three (3) RV's may be stored outside on a residential lot. One of the three (3) RV's may be either a self-propelled motor home or a travel trailer, C. RV's less than twenty-eight (28) feet in length may be stored outside in the locations described below. A conditional use permit may be granted to allow storage of RV's up to a maximum length of thirty-four (34) feet. This conditional use permit procedure will allow the unique circumstances of each lot to be considered and the most appropriate storage location to be determined. D. RV's under seven (7) feet in height may be stored outside anywhere in shaded area. E. RV's over seven (7) feet in height may be stored outside anywhere in shaded area (the buildable portion of a lot). \ Watercraft shall include, but shall not be limited to power boats, cruisers, canoes, jet skis, fishing/hunting boats, pontoon boats and sail boats. Section 1325 - General Regulations Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 32 of33 F. Winter Storage of Watercraft on Lakeshore Lots: LAKE FRONT YARD STREET RfGHT.QF-WAY UNE ~ ~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: May 2, 2007 PC Agenda Item 4.B TO: Planning Commission FROM: James Lehnhoff, City Plann~ SUBJECT: Recreational Vehicle Regnlations Section 1325.10 ATTACHMENTS: 4B-l Current RV Regulations 4B-2 Draft RV Regulations Requested Action Please review the draft RV regulations and provide comments, thoughts, and questions. The draft RV regulations are meant to start the discussion and determine what, if any, changes may be needed. No formal action can be taken into a public hearing is scheduled. Draft RV Ree;ulations In the attached draft RV regulations, the sections in italics are clarified or new text. Since these proposed revisions are still in an early draft phase, the City Attorney has not reviewed this document. Definitions The Zoning Code currently has a definition for "Recreational Vehicle," however the definition does not explicitly include special purpose trailers that may not be used to haul recreational vehicles (e.g. trailers to haul yard waste or other materials). In the past, special purpose trailers (SPT) have typically been required to follow the recreational vehicle regulations; however, Staff would suggest specifically including special purpose trailers with the R V regulations to avoid any future confusion. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 2, 2007 \\Metro-inet.uslardenhillsIPlanning\Planning Cases\2007107-013 Zoning Code Amendment - RV Regulationsl050207 - PC Report - RV Regu/ations.doc Page I on RVISPT Regulations Subd. I.D - This revised section just includes more detail regarding the general storage conditions for an RV/SPT. The primary focus of the first draft of these regulations was to clarify certain sections and to use consistent language throughout the regulations. To help aid the discussion, the remaining portion of this section summarizes the potential changes: Subd. l.E - This section may not be necessary, but this section was added because the Zoning Code currently requires all off-street parking areas to be an improves surface. Subd. 2.C.3 - The current Code requires RVs to be parked at least 40 feet from the front property line; however, the building setback in at least two neighborhoods in the City is only 30 feet. This provision would require RV s to be parked no closer to the front property line than the front ofthe dwelling. Subd. 2.C.4 - The Code currently states that an RV cannot be parked adjacent to a rear or side lot that is also adjacent to a street; however, it does not say where one could then park a RV. Staff has proposed a minimum 40 foot setback in such situations. Subd 2.C.S - This section includes revised graphics to help illustrate the setback regulations. Subd 2.D.1.c - In some instances, it is not possible for someone to access their rear or side yard to park an RV /SPT. In those cases, a person could potentially receive a conditional use permit to park an RV in a portion of the front yard. This would be a new provision and it is not required; however, this has come a handful of times in the past and may be worth discussing. Subd 2.D.2.b - This is similar to Subd. 2.C.4 regarding parking an RV in the front yard. Subd 2.D.2.c - This is related to Subd 2.D.1.c regarding parking an RV in the front yard. This provision would limit R V s to no closer than 20 feet to the front property line under any circumstance. Subd 2.D.2.h - This subdivision provides new graphic summarIes to illustrate the setback regulations. Subd 2.E - This section specifically prohibits RVs longer than 34 feet. Although the existing Code does not permit storing RVs greater than 34 feet outside, this statement is more explicit than the existing implied prohibition. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor May 2, 2007 \lMetro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanning\Planning Cases\2007\07-013 Zoning Code Amendment - RV Regulations\050207 - PC Report - RV Regulations.doc Page 2 of3 Subd 5 - This is an entirely new section that is meant to clarify the City's RV/SPT measurement procedures. Although the graphics and text in Subd. 5.B suggest not including the hitch portion of an RV or SPT, it may be prudent (and easier to enforce) to measure from complete end to end including the hitch. RV Length At this time, the draft regulations do not change the permitted RV lengths or the lengths permitted through the conditional use permit process. Before Staff researches the lengths permitted by other communities in the metropolitan area, it would be helpful to know if there is interest in changing the regulations regarding RV lengths. The Commission could also consider eliminating the conditional use permit aspect of the regulations that currently allow RVs between 28 feet and 34 feet in length. For example, the regulations could be modified to remove the provisions for RVs/SPTs greater than 28 feet in length entirely. It may be difficult to reduce the generally permitted RV length to less than 28 feet because it would not be difficult to grandfather existing R V s that may become illegal; however, that could be considered as well. Options No formal action to amend the Zoning Code can be taken at this time. A public hearing must be held before the Zoning Code can be amended. Notice When a public hearing is scheduled, a public notice will be published in the Shoreview-Arden Hills Bulletin. Deadline for Ae;encv Actions There is no deadline for action at this time. Attachments 4B-l Current RV Regulations 4B-2 Draft RV Regulations City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 2, 2007 \lMetro-inet.us\ardenhillslPlanning\Planning Cases\2007\07-013 Zoning Code Amendment - RV Regulations\050207 - PC Report - RV Regulations.doc Page 3 of3 Attachment 4B-l Current RV Regulations ~ ~HILLS May 2,2007, Planning Commission Meeting City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code 1325.10 Recreational Vehicles (RV's). The restrictions set out in this section on the outdoor parking and storage of recreational vehicles are necessary for the peace, health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Arden Hills. Yet it is recognized that there are so many kinds of recreational vehicles and so many shapes and sizes of lots and land parcels within the City, that no matter what restrictions are placed upon their outdoor parking and storage, hardships will result to some owners of recreational vehicles and nuisances will result to some non-owners. Therefore in an attempt to avoid such hardships and nuisances, a system for regulating the storage of RV's is hereby established. Subd. 1 General Regulations for RV's in All Districts. A. Storage in an Enclosed Structure. RV's of any height or length may be kept within an enclosed structure which otherwise conforms to the zoning requirements ofthe district. B. Attachment to Ground Not Permitted. RV's shall be mobile and shall not be permanently affixed to the ground in a manner that would prevent removal. C. Use ofRV. No RV shall be used for living, sleeping or housekeeping purposes in the City. D. RV Condition While Stored. No such equipment shall be stored or parked unless it is in condition for safe and effective performance and is currently licensed. E. Ownership. Permitted storage shall only be allowed for RV's owned by the owner or occupant ofthe property on which the RV is stored. Subd. 2 General Regulations for the Exterior Storage of RV's in Residential Districts. A. No more than three (3) RV's may be stored outside on a residential lot. No more than one of the 3 RV's may be either a self-propelled motorhome or a travel trailer. B. Exterior storage of RV's less than seven (7) feet in height shall be permitted in the rear or side yard, with a minimum of five (5) feet from any property line, except when such yard is adj acent to a street where no RV storage is allowed. If both side and rear yards are available for parking or storage, then the location with the least visibility from streets and neighboring property, as determined by the Zoning Administrator, shall be used for such storage. Section 1325 - Generat Regolations Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 30 of34 City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code C. R V'S less than twenty-eight (28) feet in length may be stored outside anywhere in the area where RV's less than seven (7) feet in height are allowed as in the above Section 1325.10 Subd 2.A.2. D. RV's less than thirty-four (34) feet in length may be allowed by conditional use permit in a rear or side yard, with a minimum side and rear yard setback often (10) feet, except when such a yard abuts a street, where no parking is allowed. This conditional use pertuit procedure will allow the unique circumstances of each lot to be considered and the most appropriate storage location determined. E. RV's over seven (7) feet in height may be stored anywhere in the buildable portion of a residential lot. F. The owner or occupant of any shoreline lot is permitted to store up to three (3) boats or watercraft, in addition to other permitted RV's, provided that such boats or watercraft: 1. Do not exceed the size limitations for other R V's as regulated above. 2. Are stored in locations permitted for other RV's as regulated above, except that permitted boats or watercraft may also be stored in the required lakeshore setback area but not within fifty (50) feet of the water's edge. Lesser lakeshore setbacks are permitted when topographic conditions, lot configuration and/or the size and bulk of the watercraft do not allow the normal fifty (50) foot setback to be met. For purposes of this provision, this permitted lakeshore setback encroachment shall be treated as part of the buildable portion of the lot. Watercraft shall include, but, shall not be limited to, power boats, cruisers, canoes, jet skis, fishinglhunting boats, pontoon boats and sail boats. Subd. 3 Parking Permits. All RV's may be parked in driveways for the sole expressed purpose of loading and unloading for a period not to exceed seventy-two (72) hours. Permits for a period of up to seven (7) days, renewable once during a twelve (12) month period may be obtained from City Hall. Subd.4 Graphic Sunnnary ofRV Storage Regulations. A. RV's of any length or height may be stored in enclosed structures, providing the structure conforms to Zoning Ordinance requirements. Section 1325 - General Regutations Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page3 t of34 City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code B. A maximum of three (3) RV's may be stored outside on a residential lot. One of the three (3) RV's may be either a self-propelled motor home or a travel trailer. C. RV's less than twenty-eight (28) feet in length may be stored outside in the locations described below. A conditional use permit may be granted to allow storage of RV's up to a maximum length of thirty-four (34) feet. This conditional use permit procedure will allow the unique circumstances of each lot to be considered and the most appropriate storage location to be determined. STREETRIGHT;;CW~WAY.UNE D. RV's under seven (7) feet in height may be stored outside anywhere in shaded area. E. RV's over seven (7) feet in height may be stored outside anywhere in shaded area (the buildable portion of a lot). REAR'Y'AAD STREET.RIGHT..()f.WAV.tJE F. Winter Storage of Watercraft on Lakeshore Lots: Watercraft shall include, but shall not be limited to power boats, cruisers, canoes, jet skis, fishinglhunting boats, pontoon boats and sail boats. Section 1325 - General Regutations Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 32 of34 LAKE 7S'OR 100. STANDARD I~E 5' I FRONT YARD 40' STREET RIGHT -oF.WAY LINE City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code G. Up to three (3) boats are permitted to be stored on a shoreline lot in a residential district, in addition to other permitted RV storage. H. Watercraft less than seven (7) feet in height may be stored outside anywhere in the shaded area. The required setback from the shoreline shall be fifty (50) feet. However, lesser setbacks are permitted when restricted by lot configuration, topography or size and bulk of the water craft. 1. Watercraft over seven (7) feet in height may be stored anywhere in the shaded area. Section t325 - General Regutations Adopted: November t3, 2006 Page 33 of34 Attachment 4B-2 Draft R V Regulations ~ ~HILLS May 2,2007, Planning Commission Meeting Words in italics are new potential language or provisions. Definitions: Recreational vehicles (RVs). Vehicles for recreational use that can be driven, towed or hauled. These vehicles may be designed to be temporary living space for camping/travel use. RVs shall include: -travel trailers -camping trailers -truck campers -self-propelled motor homes boats and watercraft up to 4 snowmobiles on a trailer all terrain vehicles (ATV's) Special Purpose Trailer (SPT). Special purpose trailers include utility trailers and trailers used to transport boats, snowmobiles, ATVs, or other types of materials. 1325.10 Recreational Vehicles and Special Purpose Trailers (RVs/SPTs). Subd.l General Regulations for RVs/SPTs in All Districts. The following provisions shall apply to all RVs and SPTs in all zoning districts: A. Storage in an Enclosed Structure. RVs/SPTs of any height or length may be kept within an enclosed structure provided the structure conforms to the zoning requirements of the underlying district. 1:4 J Q B. Attachment to Ground Not Permitted. RVs/SPTs shall be mobile and shall not be permanently affixed to the ground in a manner that would prevent removal. C. Use of RV/SPT. In all districts, no RV/SPT shall be used for temporary or permanent living, sleeping or housekeeping purposes while stored in the City. D. RV/SPT Condition While Stored. All RVs/SPTs shall be stored or parked in a secure, safe, orderly, and well-maintained condition that does not inhibit emergency vehicle access to any property. All RVs/SPTs shall be licensed and operable at all times. E. Storage Surface (NEEDED?) RVs/SPTs shall only be stored on improved surfaces, which shall count toward the overall impervious coverage of a lot and shall not cause the lot to exceed the impervious coverage limits of the underlying zone. The improved surface may be concrete, pavers, pavement. t:: ~ Q Snbd.2 General Regulations for the Exterior Storage of RVs/SPTs in Residential Districts. A. No more than three (3) RVs/SPTs may be stored outside on a residential lot. No more than one (1) of the three (3) RVs/SPTs may be a self-propelled motor home, a travel trailer, camper, or other similar type of RV. B. Ownership. RVs/SPTs stored on a residential lot shall be owned or leased by the owner or occupant of the property on which the RV/SPT is stored. C. RV/SPT Exterior Storage Locations for Residential Lots. The owner or occupant of any residential lot is permitted to store RVs/SPTs without a permit provided the RV/SPT: 1. Does not exceed seven (7) feet in height. 2. Does not exceed twenty-eight (28) feet in length. 3. Is not parked closer to the front property line than the principle structure. 4. Is at least five (5) feet from any side or rear property line unless the side or rear property line is adjacent to a public street. A RV/SPT shall be at least forty (40) feet from side or rear property lines that are adjacent to a public street (i.e. corner or through lots). If both side and rear yards are available for parking or storage, the location with the least visibility from the public street( s) and neighboring properties, as determined by the Zoning Administrator, shall be used for storing the RV/SPT. \if 5'" !!\ 5. Graphic Storage Location Summary. No part of the RV/SPT shall be outside of the permitted RV/SPT storage area described in the above section and displayed in the below graphics. ,*1"" '>15'1/ \V '" ~I 40' 1-<::- 5- !!\ Front of Principle Structure Front of Principle Structure Front of Principle Structure ~ ~ !P. ;0 <c' " 6 F . ~ ~ 5' o Street Right-of-way Line Street Right-of-way Line 2 ~ ~ Q D. Conditional Use Permit for the Exterior Storage of an RV /SPT. 1. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the exterior storage of an RV/SPT in the following circumstances: a. The RV /SPT exceeds seven (7) feet in height. b. The RV/SPT is between twenty-eight (28) feet and thirty-four (34) feet in length. c. Lot size, lot dimensions, topographic features, and/or structure locations make it unfeasible to store an R V/SPT in the side or rear yard. 2. Conditional Use Permit Evaluation Criteria. The City shall follow the Conditional Use Permit process in Section 1355.03 Subd 3 in this Zoning Code. A Conditional Use Permit shall also meet the following criteria: a. A residential lot shall be limited to no more than one (1) Conditional Use Permit for a RV/SPT. b. The RV /SPT shall be at least ten (10) feet from any side or rear property line unless the side or rear property line is adjacent to a public street. A RV/SPT shall be at least forty (40) feet from side or rear property lines that are adjacent to a public street (i.e. corner or through lots). c. If the lot size, lot dimensions, topographic features, and/or structure locations make it unfeasible to store an RV/SPT in the side or rear yard, no more than one (1) RV/SPT may be permitted forward of the principle structure. Under no circumstances shall the RV/SPT be stored closer than twenty (20) feet to the front property line. d. The unique circumstances of each lot shall be considered to determine the most appropriate storage location. Where possible, the RV/SPT should be stored as close to the principle structure as possible so as to reduce the visual impact of the RV/SPT. e. The City may require screening (fencing, trees, other vegetation, etc) to reduce the visual impact of the RV/SPT. f. The City may require a neutral colored cover for the RV/SPT to reduce the visual impact of the RV/SPT. 3 ~ ~ Q Frontaf Principle Structure g. No part of the UV/RT shall be outside of the storage area specified in the Conditional Use Permit. h. Graphic Storage Location Summary. \j; w ""Iwl+- 3>1 40' I+- W"11O' I+-- t 10' t en @ ~ " c' " :\ r i1! r 3' o Frontaf Principle Structure Front of Principle Structure Street Right-of.way Line Street Right-ot-way Line E. Prohibited. Exterior storage of RV/SPTs greater than 34 feet in length shall not be a permitted use in any residential zone. Subd.3 Boat and Watercraft Exterior Storage Provisions for Shoreline Residential Lots. A. In addition to the provisions in Section 1325.10 Subd 2, the owner or occupant of any shoreline lot is permitted to store three (3) additional boats or watercraft. B. Boats and watercraft include, but are not limited to, power boats, cruisers, canoes, jet skies, fishinglhunting boats/pontoon boats, and sail boats. C. Boats and watercraft stored on a residential lot shall be owned or leased by the owner or occupant of the property on which the boat or watercraft is stored. D. Boats and watercraft may be stored outside provided the boats and watercraft: 1. Conform to the permitting, length, height, setback, and location regulations in Section 1325.10 Subd 2 of this Zoning Code. 2. Are stored outside the regular structure setback from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) mark. Lesser lakeshore setbacks maybe considered in unique situations through the conditional use permit process in Section 1325.10 Subd 2.E. 4 3. Are located in a location with the least visibility as feasible from adjacent properties and the lake as determined by the Zoning Administrator. E. No part of boat or watercraft shall be outside of the permitted or conditionally permitted storage area. F. Graphic Location Summary. LakeshorefOHW ~ ~ Q Frontaf Principle Structure Front of Principle Structure Street Right-ot-way Line Subd.4 Parking Permits. All RV's may be parked in driveways for the sole expressed purpose of loading and unloading for a period not to exceed seventy-two (72) hours. Permits for a period of up to seven (7) days, renewable once during a twelve (12) month period may be obtained from City Hall. Subd.5 RV and SPT Measurement Procedures. A. Height. The height of an RV/SPT shall be measured from the ground to the highest point of the structure not including antennas and utility/mechanical systems that are accessory to the RV/SPT and take up no more than ten (10) percent of the roof surface area. Top to Bottom Top to Bottom 5 B. RV/SPT Length. The length of an RV/SPT shall be measured from end to end not including the hitch provided the hitch does not significantly increase the visual impact of the RV/SPT If a vehicle, boat, ATV, or other item(s) extends past the front or back of a trailer, the additional length shall be included in the overall length of the trailer. End to End I I I End to End I .---lw cc ccccc,x"'F I End to End I ~~'CCCCCC"~ I I End to End Including Boat 6