HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-02-08-PCChair
Clayton Larson
Commissioners 1245 W. Highway 96
Andrew rew Holewa N HILLS Arden Hills, MN 55112
Liz Modesette 651.792.7800
Daniel Reiff Arden Hills www. ci.arden-h ills. mn. us
Janet Stodola
Roberta Thompson Planning Commission
Clayton Zimmerman -- July 2, 2008
City Vision
A strong community that values our unique environment, our fiscal soundness,
and our tradition as a desirable city in which to live, work, and play
Agenda
Regular Planning Commission Convenes 6:30 PM
Call to Order
1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
2. MINUTES
A. June 4, 2-008 Regular Meeting
3. PLANNING CASES
A. Planning Case 08-018; Site Plan Review; 1924 Grant Road; Jeffery Beard — Not a Public Hearing
B. Planning Case 08-020; Variance; 1518 Brairknoll Drive; Nicholas and Leann Walker — Not a Public Hearing
C. Planning Case 08-021; 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update— Public Hearing
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
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/plan us/planningcases
� �JrSiGi`'JAL
�RzEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 2, 2008 PC Agenda Item 3.A
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Meagan Beekman, Planner I
SUBJECT: Planning Case #08-018
Site Plan Review
Jeffery Beard
1924 Grant Road
ATTACHMENTS: A — Application and Supporting Materials
B — Air Photo and Photographs of the Site
C — Plans and Surveys
Requested Action
The applicant is requesting a site plan review to construct a 988 square foot detached garage on
the property located at 1924 Grant Road. The proposed structure would replace the existing 450
square foot garage and would be the only accessory structure located on the site.
Background
1. Overview of Request
The applicant owns the property located at 1924 Grant Road. He is proposing to demolish
his existing 450 square foot garage and build a 988 square foot detached garage in his rear
yard. No variances are required for the proposed detached garage. The Zoning Codep ermits
up to two accessory structures on a property provided that neither exceeds 728 square feet in
size. In addition, Section 1325.01 Subd. 7 of the City's Zoning Code allows for a single
accessory structure, not to exceed 1,458 square feet, if approved through a Site Plan Review.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 2, 2008
IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanningiPlanning Cases 12008108-018 Beard Site Plan Review (Pending) 1070208 -PC Report -Beard Site Plan
Review.doc
Page 1 of 8
The proposed garage would be ten feet from the nearest side property line and fifteen feet
from the rear property line. The garage would not exceed fifteen feet in height. The siding
of the proposed garage would not match that of the existing home because the applicant is
planning on residing his home at a later date to match the new garage.
The home was constructed in 1954, likely the existing garage was constructed at the same
time. The existing garage is currently setback five feet from the side property line to the east
and does not meet setback regulations, which require a ten foot setback for accessory
structures. Both the home and garage were constructed prior to the current zoning
regulations. While the structure and existing garage are legally non -conforming, the
proposed project would bring the property into greater conformance with the present code.
The applicant has submitted a letter addressing the details of the application, a survey of the
property, elevations of the proposed structures, and photographs of the site (Attachments A
and Q. The property is in the R-2 Zone. There are no known variance requests on file for
this property.
2. Site Data
I Surrounding Area
North
Low Density Residential
R-2: Single and Two -Family
Single Family Detached
Residential District
Residential
South
Low Density Residential
R-2: Single and Two -Family
Single Family Detached
Residential District
Residential
East
Low Density Residential
R-2: Single and Two -Family
Single Family Detached
Residential District
Residential
West
Low Density Residential
R-2: Single and Two -Family
Single Family Detached
Residential District
Residential
City of Arden Dills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 2, 2008
IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases 12008108-018 Beard Site Plan Review (Pending) W70208 -PC Report -Beard Site Plan
Review.doc
Page 2 of 8
Plan Evaluation
1. R-2 Regulations, Existing Conditions, and Proposed Redevelopment
A. Lot Size & Dimensions — Not Impacted
The lot is 11,761 square feet, 75 feet wide and
157 feet long. The lot does not meet the width
requirements of the Zoning Code; however it
exceeds all other R-2 lot size requirements.
B. Structure Setbacks — Not Impacted
The existing dwelling encroaches five feet into
the front yard setback requirements.
Additionally, the existing detached garage is five
feet from the side property line, and therefore
encroaches five feet into the side yard. The
proposed garage would meet all setback
requirements and bring the property into greater
conformance with the zoning requirements,
eliminating the setback encroachment of the
existing garage.
C. Lot Coverage — Meets Requirements
1. Minimum Lot Areas
11,000
2. Minimum Lot Size (ft,
width/depth))
85/120
3. Height (ft.) — Principal
Structures
35
4. Height (ft.) — Accessory
Structures
15
5. Lot Covered by Structure
25%
6. Min. Landscape Lot Area
65%
7. Minimum Building Setbacks
ft
Square
Front yard
40
Rear Yard (Principle)
30
Rear Yard (Accessory)
10
Side Yard Interior - Principal
(Min/total both yards on lot)
5115
Side Yard Interior - Accessory
10
Side Yard Corner
40
The existing structure coverage does not exceed the R-2 coverage limitations.
Chart 2:
Lot
Existing
Proposed
R-2 Regulation
Coverage
Square
%
Square
%
Square
feet
Feet
Feet
Dwelling
969
8.24%
969
8.24%
Garage
450
3.83%
988
8.40%
Total
Structure
11419
12.07%
1,957
16.64%
2,940
25%
Driveway
972
8.26%
1,822
15.49%
Patio
36
0.31%
36
0.31%
Total Lot
Coverage
21427
20.64%
3,815
32.44%
41116
35%
Remaining
Landscape
9,334
79.36%
7,946
67.56%
7,645
65%
Area
Lot Size
111761
11,761
11,761
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 2, 2008
IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases 12008108-018 Beard Site Plan Review (Pending) 1070208 -PC Report -Beard Site Plan
Review.doe
Page 3 of 8
D. Structure Height — Meets Requirements
The existing dwelling does not exceed the 35 foot height limit, nor would the proposed
garage exceed the 15 foot height limit.
2. Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements
The proposed addition is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements.
3. Tree Preservation Ordinance
The applicant submitted a Tree Survey with the proposed Site Plan and Survey (Attachment
Q. He is proposing to remove four coniferous trees to make way for the new garage.
According to the Tree Survey, there are seven significant trees on the site. Two are
deciduous trees measuring 36 caliper inches, and the rest are coniferous trees totaling 146
feet in height. The Tree Preservation Ordinance allows the removal of up to ten percent of
the significant trees on site without mitigation. Based on the measurements of the trees, the
applicant can remove 18.2 feet of trees without replacement, but anything above and beyond
that needs to be replaced at a rate of one to two. In this case the applicant is removing an
additional 98 feet of coniferous trees, requiring the replacement of 49 feet of new trees. At a
minimum height of six feet each, the applicant would be required to plant eight new trees on
his lot.
Three of the trees to be removed are located under a power line that serves the property. The
applicant has stated in his letter that he believes the trees to be nuisance trees due to their
proximity to the power lines. He has contacted the utility company and has asked them to
make a determination to this effect. Tree's in the way of power lines are not specifically
dealt with in the regulations because they are considered a private matter between a property
owner and the utility company; however, Staff would be comfortable with identifying the
trees as nuisance if the utility company provided a letter indicating that they are a problem
and will have to be removed or significantly cut back in the future. The utility company has
visited the site and has not yet provided a determination as to the status of the trees. If the
trees are identified as nuisance, and all four trees are removed, the mitigation amount would
be six feet rather than 49 feet.
The applicant is proposing to plant three, six foot trees along the east property line, which
would be 18 feet of new trees. He has stated in his letter that he believes, regardless of the
determination of the utility company, that 49 feet of replacement for the removal of four trees
is unreasonable. Staff did suggest to the contractor that if the garage were repositioned on
the property 8-10 feet to the west, three of the trees could be left untouched, reducing the
required mitigation to a single six foot tree.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 2, 2008
IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillsiPlanninglPlanning Cases 12008108-018 Beard Site Plan Review (Pending) 1070208 -PC Report -Beard Site Plan
Review.doc
Page 4 of 8
4. Additional Review
This application may require Rice Creek Watershed District approval prior to the issuance of
any building permits. If the site plan review is approved, a condition has been added
requiring RCWD review prior to the issuance of building permits.
Site Plan Review Evaluation Criteria
The Zoning Code allows for a property owner to construct a single accessory structure, not to
exceed 1,45 8 square feet in unusual circumstances, if approved through a Site Plan Review;
however, the Code does not define unusual circumstance, or specifically identify criteria for
evaluating a site plan for the purpose of granting approval of a larger accessory structure.
The approval is largely left up to the discretion of the Planning Commission and City
Council. The purpose of the site plan review process is to ensure a higher quality project
than could be achieved by following the letter of the Zoning Code. In the case of this
application, the proposed garage is 988 square feet. The property owner could fit two
accessory structures up to 728 square feet each on his property, which would likely have
more of a visual impact than this single structure. The property owner has argued that having
the single accessory structure that is 988 square feet will look nicer and add more value.
The Code regulates that the exterior finish must be compatible with the existing structure and
the neighborhood. While the exterior of the proposed garage will not match the color and
material of the existing principal structure, the applicant has indicated that his intention is to
reside the house to match the garage in the near future.
Findings of Fact
Staff offers the following sixteen findings of fact for review:
1. The lot is ten feet narrower than is required by Code, but meets all other minimum
requirements of the R-2 Zone.
2. The existing dwelling encroaches five feet into the front yard setback
3. The existing garage encroaches five feet into the side yard setback
4. A site plan review is required for the detached accessory structure.
5. The proposed accessory structure would reduce the existing non -conformity of the lot by
removing the non -conforming garage and constructing a new garage that meets all
setbacks.
6. The maximum structure coverage meets the requirements of the R-2 zone.
7. The minimum landscaped area exceeds the requirements of the R-2 zone.
8. The existing dwelling does not exceed the 35 foot height limit.
9. The proposed garage would not exceed the 15 foot height limit for accessory structures.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 2, 2008
IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases 12008108-018 Beard Site Plan Review (Pending) 1070208 - PC Report - Beard Site Plan
Review.doc
Page 5 of 8
10. Garages and accessory structures are permitted within the R-2 Zone.
11. The existing dwelling and the proposed garage are outside of the 100 -year flood plain,
wetlands, and easements.
12. This project requires a Tree Preservation Plan and a maximum tree mitigation amount of
49 feet of new trees, the applicant is proposing to plant 18 feet.
13. The proposed garage would be 988 square feet.
14. The exterior finish will match the principal structure when the existing home is resided in
the near future.
15. The lot is unusual in that there is room to construct two 728 square foot accessory
structures on the property without a variance.
16. The proposed garage would create less impact and be more attractive than what is
presently on the property.
Staff Analysis
The findings of fact for this Site Plan Review support a recommendation for approval. If the
Planning Commission wishes to make a recommendation for denial, the findings of fact must be
amended to reflect the reasons for the denial.
The tree preservation issue is another matter. The Planning Commission must first determine if
three of the trees to be removed would be considered nuisance trees if the utility company
determines that they are a safety hazard or could impede the electrical service to the property.
Regardless of this outcome, the applicant is proposing to plant thee new six foot trees. Secondly,
the Planning Commission must determine if three trees totaling 18 feet in height is an
appropriate mitigation amount in the event that the utility company does not determine that the
trees are a hazard. Code requires 49 feet, which would amount to eight, six foot high trees. A
reduction in the mitigation amount may be granted at the discretion of the Planning Commission
and City Council for the purpose of the greater public good, including for the placement of utility
services. Staff has provided a condition of approval that addresses the trees; the Planning
Commission may amend this at their discretion.
This application marks the first test of the newly adopted Tree Preservation Ordinance. While
enacting this ordinance was an extremely important step in protecting the natural beauty and
property values of our community, it is likely that certain aspects of the ordinance may need to
be adjusted over time. If the Planning Commission feels that the regulations are unreasonable
and a reduction in the required mitigation amount is granted, Staff strongly recommends that the
ordinance itself be reviewed to determine if an overall change is necessary for residential parcels.
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this site plan review, Staff recommends the
following seven conditions:
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 2, 2008
llMetro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases 12008 M-018 Beard Site Plan Review (Pending) 1070208 - PCReport -Beard Site Plan
Review.doc
Page 6 of 8
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 obtain all necessary building permits prior to beginning
construction or demolition on the site.
3. The applicant shall use best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion at all
times during construction.
4. The applicant shall obtain approval ora waiver from the Rice Creek Watershed
District prior to the issuance of any building permits.
5. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code.
6. The property shall be limited to a single accessory structure.
7. The applicant shall plant 49 inches of deciduous trees, 49 feet of coniferous trees, or
some combination thereof, in accordance with the Zoning Code unless a letter from
the utility company is submitted, subject to the approval of the City Planner,
indicating that any of the trees on site are a hazard to public safety or would impede
the electrical service to the property, in which case the applicant shall plant three, six
foot trees.
Options
The findings in this report support approval of the site plan review. If the Planning Commission
wishes to recommend denial the findings should be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial.
1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case
08-018 for a Site Plan Review at 1924 Grant Road based on the findings of fact, the
submitted plans, and the seven conditions in the July 2, 2008, planning case report.
2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 08-
018 for a Site Plan Review at 1924 Grant Road based on the findings of fact and the
submitted plans, as presented in the July 2, 2008, planning case report.
3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 08-018 for a Site Plan
Review at 1924 Grant Road based on the following findings of fact...
4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 08-018 for a Site Plan Review at 1924 Grant Road: a
specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 2, 2008
IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases 12008108-018 Beard Site Plan Review (Pending) 1070208 - PCReport -Beard Site Plan
Review.doc
Page 7 of 8
Public Hearin
Although a public hearing is not required for a variance or a site plan review, the Commission
can allow public comments.
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 comment from residents.
Deadline for Agency Actions
The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on July 16, 2008.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by August 15, 2008 (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.
A tta Ph m on tc
A — Application and Supporting Materials
B — Air Photo and Photographs of the Site
C — Plans and Surveys
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 2, 2008
IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases 12008108-018 Beard Site Plan Review (Pending) 1070208 - PCReport -Beard Site Plan
Review.doc
Page 8 of 8
Attachment A
Application and
ing
Ik4ateriSupportals
It
EN HILLS
July 2, 2008, Planning Commission Meeting
EN HILLS
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112
Telephone (651) 792-7800
Fax (651) 634-5137
www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us
Planning Case No. 08 -
Submittal Date
Application Completed Date
Accepted by
Receipt Number
Council Decision
Council Decision Date
2008 LAND USE APPLICATION
Applicant Information
. ow J'
Applicant: ff.e W, C-/ /
Address: 162 %1
Telephone No.: Other: 9 9 - 57C -54:11-1
Fax No.:
Email Address: jje #,ecl -r-) -T7,V Cd,oPtfC,0S
Property Information
Property Owner: �% ��•� y �-� ���
Owner Address: VO -1 4-
Owner Telephone Na. Other:
Address of Property volved:
Legal DescriptionLA��.oL�cf �r��-�-- ��-c-� l �'�' S ��;k.3
Property ID No.:
Type of Use-.__
z
Zone:
Typeof Req uest*
El PaynninW
ItAimi
LApportionment of Assessments ($30)❑Site Plan
Review (Sign or Fence) ($250)
0 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ($450) ❑Vacation of Easement or Right -of -Way ($300)
LJ Conditional Use Permit or Amendment ($350)
U Final Plat ($200+$25 per lot)
U Master Planned Unit Development ($600+escrow)
L1 Final Planned Unit Development ($200)
Q Planned Unit Development Amendment ($350)
Ll Zoning Code Amendment ($450)
Ll Land Use Requests —Not Already Specified ($150)
U Appeal of Administrative Decision ($75)
Ll Minor Subdivision (lot split/consolidation) ($325+escrow)
Ll Preliminary Plat ($400 + $25 per lot + escrow)
L3 Variance (Zoning Code) ($325)
0 Site Plan Review ($400)
a, -L' �-Cvy—<z' C l(
Revised: 12-12-07
Page 1 of 3
*Certain applications are subject to review
and approval by the Rice Creek Watershed
District. Contact RCWD directly at 763-
398-3070 for additional information.
*The land use application fees do not cover
building, sign, or other permit fees that may
be required upon approval of a land use
application.
*All applications may be subject to
additional fees for reimbursement of
consultant costs associated with filing,
reviewing, and processing of application in
the form of an escrow to the City.
"Purpose of the Site Plan Review is to have City of Arden Hills
grant approval for homeowner to replace existing garage. The
garage and slab are in poor conditions and needs to be
demolished. The garage replacement will be located in middle
of back yard and away from setbacks. We have four existing
trees in the way of the garage replacement. We have identified
2 trees to remain and remove 2 trees. We would replant trees if
required by the Tree Preservation Ordinance. The new garage
vvill be at least 900 square feet. Kitchen expansion through
house addition is being planned in near future."
Filing & Information Requirements
M
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.
Cora pletefincoml2fete 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 (1 5} 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 ofMeeting Attendance
MMMMWMMM8M� WOMMMUMM"M
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.- 12-12-07
Page 2 of 3
Aa-enda Deadline and Meeting 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 6:30 PM, though please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. City Council
meetings are held typically the last Monday of the same month at 7:00 PM. Meetings are held in the
Council Chambers at the City of Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 651120
unless otherwise stated. Applicants are advised that additional meetings and/or workshops are
scheduled when necessary upon approval of the Planning Commission.
2008 SCHEDULE (*subject to change)
Acknowledaernent and Signature
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 responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of
this application.
P
Si
re (Required)
Applicant Signature (if different than the property owner)
Date
Date
Please contact the City Planners Office at (651) 792-7800
if you have any questions regarding this application.
Additional copies of this application form are available on the City's website:
Revised: 12-12-07
hyp.11www. ci. arden-hills. mn. us
Page 3 of 3
NARRATIVE LETTER
Property Owner: Jeffery Beard
Owner Address: 1924 Grant Road, Arden Hills, MN 55112-7829
Owner Phone: 800-677-5958 CSDVRS
Legal Description:
Property ID No:
Type of Use. -
Zone:
Type of Request:
Alexander Grant Park Lot 5 Block 3
33.30.23.24.0037
One -Family Residential
R-2
Site Plan Review
PURPOSE:
Purpose of the Site Plan Review is to have City of Arden Hills grant approval for homeowner to build new garage
to replace existing 20' x 22' garage, which will be demolished. The new garage size will be 988square foot. The
location will be 10 feet away from property line on east side of the lot; and IS feet away from existin fe
nce.
Certified survey is provided by Kemper and Associates.
TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
The homeowner wishes to remove 4 trees, to make room for the new garage and clear of utility wires.. According
to the ordinance and certified survey, total of 49 "inches" replacement trees would be required. At time of this
narrative submittal, homeowners are currently contacting utility company to determine if the four trees in the
backyard are not safe because of the wires overhead. It would be nuisance. Homeowner wishes toplant 3 new 6
feet trees along east side of the lot.
MATERIALS:
The homeowner wishes to have Pre -finished Fiber Cement Siding and Trim with NovaBrik Wainscot at bottom
for exterior walls and Asphalt shingles for roof. The color will be determined after the City of Arden Hills grants
approval of the Site Plan Review. The homeowner have plan on addition to the house in near future. The shingles
and residing during house addition will match new materials of the newgarage.
LARGER ACCESSORY STRUCTURE,
The zoning code of Arden Hills indicated two accessory structures up to 728 square feet each is all on the
homeowner's lot. Keeping the existing garage and constructing smaller second structure would not necessarily
require a variance unless going over on lot coverage requirement. However, both garages would take up more
space than this single larger garage and would likely not look as nice on the lot. In additionthe existing gamge is
already in bad shape and not safe, better off to demolish the garage. While maintain,ing the neighborhood
character, the property value will increase on the house and -surrounding properties.
APPEARANCE OF GARAGE. -
5 -Sheets are provided, that includes existing site conditions, which will be precluded by certified survey;
proposed site plan, proposed elevations, and several different views. Those are preliminary elevations, subject to
refinement of the elevation desi gn.
ZONING CODE:
The zoninir code allows homeowner to have Site Plan Review done without variance.
TREES OUTS
OF WOMEOU
PROPERTY
I G1 EXISTING
TREES TO
REMAIN-
IRON
PIPE
D2
PROPERTY LINE 44ME REMOVAL OPTHM
KEY KEEP SIZE DEMO SIZE
!EXISTING >71
GARAGE
OVERHEAD UTILITY � f � i
WIRES TO SE
DEMOLI544EC)
C2
L
f
EXISTING METAL
L iw FENCE ON
PROPERTY LINE •RE-GROLLIN
REMOVE FOUR _----FALLEN MAPLE
TREES FOR UTILITY TREE TO BE iZl
llilcbw&. RE101OVED
X
30
RI
CALCULATION:
IW TOTAL
UP TO is "INCHES" REMOVE WITHOUT PENALTY
L
FT
so "INCHES" REMOVE REQUIRE REPLACE OF
X
22
49 "INCHES" OF: TREES.
41D
ImAllswoutt
W4r
OIA
EXISTING METAL
X
12
DIA
LINK FENCE TO
NUMBER OF TREES AND SIZE OF
X
ry
5E FES"
EACH TREE To BE DE TERMINEC)- PEN01Ws
FT
WIG44 ON PROPERTY
UTILITY POLE
X
41
LINE
CLEAR OF WIRES.
FT
X
25
FTt
I
X
21
I
FT
FE-CAROUN c4UNEP
MAPLE TREE
601-00
DESIGNER'S NOTE;
RI
CALCULATION:
IW TOTAL
UP TO is "INCHES" REMOVE WITHOUT PENALTY
L
ARE 'OSUALLY NOTED eY
so "INCHES" REMOVE REQUIRE REPLACE OF
ANN& mammiftomwia A
PUN
WILL BE PROVIDED, TWAT MAY
49 "INCHES" OF: TREES.
41D
ImAllswoutt
W4r
EXISTING METAL
LINK FENCE TO
NUMBER OF TREES AND SIZE OF
EXISTING WOOD EXISTING METAL
FENCE- SIX FEET LINK FENCE NOT
5E FES"
EACH TREE To BE DE TERMINEC)- PEN01Ws
WIG44 ON PROPERTY
UTILITY POLE
LETTER FROM UTILITY COMPANY THAT
THE TREES ARE !.S
ES SHOULD BE
LINE
CLEAR OF WIRES.
-Cap
601-00
DESIGNER'S NOTE;
Of
TwI$ EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
ARE 'OSUALLY NOTED eY
Dpl.�IGNER. TI -e- CiERTIFIED SURVEY
ANN& mammiftomwia A
PUN
WILL BE PROVIDED, TWAT MAY
PRECLUDE SaIE WORMAITION. AS
41D
ImAllswoutt
W4r
LM�/ AVE N
PosmW2 WaST940 m AM
m N
"kaLAMMOMI rxow 01
pwr MW M
AI: 0
AAA" AF
A��VIEW
1~ lqw Inv a man I
1-
t
t
� t
d
� f
s
4L bA,
j
r EXISTIi GIF t
GRAVEL f
i
Wt0TH TO t
f ?&,TCC EctSTIN6 I
+/-20
f R
EXISTING i
C
I FUTUt E
14OUSE C :,
1: t
ADDITION- 1 t
IImo..._._. _.... _. _.._ _ ._.I
OVERHEAD
UTILITY WIRES rxxfs, - 1
f
'
TO
DEKOL IWE,
f
w l SOFT CON
DRI1lEWAY�
r- 31 �+��/ t
To MA►TGH STIN& f
NEW CONIFEROUS
°.SSS SQ FT N , TREES- SIZE TO
11 CONC 0 f BE DETERMINED
(3 THUS)
q FLOAT I s It t
SLAB ON
0 GRADE N DEMOLISH EXISTING:
a ,ow THIS SIDE ONLY
SETBACK
_u U
t
EXISTING FENCE A It t
TO REMAIN -
ON PROPERTY
LINE
2$1-O" I
EXISTING FENCE
TO REt"'iA ll�! GARAGE LOCATION GARAGE LOCATION
MEASURED FROM MEASUI D FROM
......... - _ - _... - _. __.. -- -- -FENCE .. _ _ _ .._ _ _ � _ .� � FIROPE RT Y LINE
A &L MED MR01PERTY LINE
a lIN&
PLM
liL�lAVS N
wx ,� � PR�1PE��#ED SITE
PLM ��meammia
� OZ
ao�wrnr � WE PLM � «sr�aow� �ws
00falER '''-
FISER CEMENT
VERTICAL CEDAR
TEXTU'EO SIDING
FISER CEMENT TRIM
FIBER CEMENT
VERTICAL CEDAR -
TEXTURED, SIDING
htOV , FDNC WAINSCOT
BRiC S
SKYLIGHTS
A0"K ELEVA71ON
asPW,aLr
suMU.Es
2'x4' WINDOWS ` DOUBLE DOOR
l�L.I'A'ilt-
SMALL
WINDOWS
81-00 x 81-08 3.-o"
GARAGE DOORS, DOOR
FRONT ELEVATIOW
n i r w
Attachment B
Air Photo.and Photographs of the Site
,!tt
EN HILLS
July 2, 2008, Planning Commission Meeting
C�
7
N
VI
.�
0
P4
m
��
f o
:.
.:
.:. ...... . t ....: s .....: -
f:::::y:t/:/}.: yefifj tx: ':i'':f$::' x'•, iff y
5� • :'.{ +: f Fits/ j�`f+ `S'f�f•%i f/'• r: f:
}, ''+`%' ;4 ..G, ,'••':t•:taft:."N:tf• :� %-f$Y' f rf•:'>
. y: f ti jr,Y,t{4T v..z.f4. t., :ii:'v:f•; ;}�
°°°z�+
{:...
. -
,�
.:
::, ..,
,�
ti; :
�^ s .
t:
:.
,* _ .
. o
... :::..:. :::< ...:
O
_ .
:: tt ::
f'Si Z A1if
� 3rw
Y
$, 2
F8
' .'
�3 :'
:' H -
:..
,� .:,,,
'. :hr:... . `.`..: Wr ::.: ter:::.. ..Lw .... ....... ...-....::: -.
.
:: i .....:
•:'•
::.
;:
.:
:::: ,:: � .: ::::. ... .::.. �..:. . �•
. ...... ... ::
3 :::>:::::::M::
a :ti�`i . ':..
_ ? ::.
°Se: ::.>:.. ::::
..... ... s::::•::::....::: : ::::::::: ::.. s z....
#. .. x ... .... :::::: .::: t�S :.2�? .,.; .....
a ::.::::.. .:: :::::. ::::::.. .: :::::::::::::::. ::::::::. ::::: :. ::::::: ..... ... ...... :...::..:>
.........,,--, ....... ............ ... .... .......... ...... .. ....... .... .................. ........ .............. ............... ....... ......... ........... ...............................
.........:...,... ... ..... �.... ................... ............ ............... ... ... ............... ...... ....... . .......... ................. .:5:. �:::.... :Cv;:v: Y:.
:.. ... :.
:.
S:.s
�'�(
...:::. �,'j :.-
::
.. yY``22
.......
c'9.a�
'.
...
K .* .'
...
.0
.;
I
'+I
....... ....
•....... . ....
...
•:••::•:i:o: •::::.
......
.......r�I
::.... •::•::.. ...
.....
.......0.'�{.
�1�
�'�(
...:::. �,'j :.-
::
.. yY``22
.......
c'9.a�
'.
...
K .* .'
x�.
r.
a,4l:
p
'+I
Sts
,, ,
. t.; � : ft P. . 1 ..
.:. .....9s:: R3 :
� .
� .�
::>
�,
•
�w ..:
,
..... - i...'.
aFP..
... Q�^. i.''
:.
t
ash.,..
:.. 2.: ,;
I
. ..
y �«.
.fit : . .' W ' .:>.... : ::. : av A .... A
:•iii:•:
........ ...'.
�'�(
...:::. �,'j :.-
::
.. yY``22
.......
�•\.. ..
....... y�
�? .'
.....
::
q
.... :..
::. :{:•i:•::{•ii::
::.'�fv.�{. })' ' ii •:4::},�
..............
s::«:s::::::::>::::::
::.
'.:.��y�::'.
:�"P...
Iw :. .-,
.....
/�
... ::i:::::•.
".
j��P�
.::i,.,, :�' y` :.
-: .,. ,i.
....... ....
•....... . ....
...
•:••::•:i:o: •::::.
......
.......r�I
::.... •::•::.. ...
.....
.......0.'�{.
......
.......•Y.y.
......
......
:•:::;:::
:......
....... '.
..... :l ..�............ ..
.:.....
......... ...
.............
.:4:4. i4; t.;
..,..: ..... .
......:::::::::
•:::::::::. ......i.
:::: .
::
x .::
:: .... :::: ;.:... :::. ...; S3?:
". ... ::.
:::"." .. .:.fit.. .. ck . ..:. .. :: ,. ,:::::::: :::::: q, 3''.. ::::
... .. .�t
: ::
t5 :.;:.; .:::::.
.. ...... 3,.. ........ , '.' '.'::S::S::s:::: ." ::SSSS:?Y:S:..: .rH:.'.' . ;.:.;: :... S::i. :. ..... ..... ...... ... .
.- ...... .. ..........a...:...........
..... .. .... ..... .........::
..... ............ .... ............:..:: ::.:::..::::: ..::::: :.::: ::::::.. .-.:.
..... .................. .. ...... ... ............. ............ ... ........... _ _ _... .. .....
.�f.. ............. ....... ... ................:..:..::.:::::::.::::::.::::::::...:::..:::::.._....:...... .
:. .>
.
:,.;,
..:
:.
:....:...:...
:..
:.::.. :::.:::::.
.
�p�:.:
;w
:::::::::.::.::.:
::.. .....:......
....
:...... ...................
J:::::.::::::.............
�.
t
.:::::.......
� .......
>:::::>
..............
:::::::::>'. _
:; .
.:ii.-.--..:
-d
� U
c� 64
r, 4
O
AD
. M —. O
00 N
N
64
'� O
^d Z" �
O Q"'d
U
v —4
� .�
:: ::: : : o °�'
O
O ��
o
Q`''+"d
b
a�
° = cl
GJ U
v� '�
• Q
E ..., O
v� 'G U
,= cd O
� F" w
A
00
O p
N
cc3 cI
N
0 c
U
N 4- cd
aq'd
O r rA
�i ''d ^�
'd to O
U
+ �
O
�� � P4
O
O O
V) P4
..., w ltd
+3 cd
O
> A 64
�-,,, >` W M c�
U 4-
c� ``^��� O
i�l
� '':; �1
O
, , ry O O
i.�
U
�� o
c�
''d
a� o0
Q� C)
0
O co N
cN
� . 3 �,
��
cl
bA
,4; ¢,
.
OU O
U
�(
f..P .
U
��.•ry
... .......... '.'.' rV^^ r
V/ 1�
4 i -a
'� P' � 3
.moi
.s= b H
�'' .-�
o0
W .� o
--1 cis 00
'0 N
-� .-.
._ .
:•: T1s
U �
.-a
�.
�'
0 0
U
� a�
::::.......: c�
� W
U
' .** C4
{��+j '> O
MOM,.
::X,
,M X&
A_X.
K�,
..........
n
............
X
:-:::�S:, x .... ......
.. .......
*w:
... ................. ... WM,
. A:
........ .... ....
..... x: ......
.....
. ..... .... ....... w x
.......... g -S ... . ........
ISO .... .. .....
MIN\
. .......... ..... M
:%N \X % %
TWIN
W:
.. .... .....
A
xUx.:
MIT
% X
X
...... kF
.. ...................
............
....... ........ . .
ff
.:x
-------------
- ---------
OR T%
:X
}CEJ:
....,,............., , ..... .......... ..... n......>:.:.,..:.: �'.:.;: :'. A ...., : '� .rig.:..::: \. {�
n. .<
....,....\.............,. :: \v.}..Y.}\:: ,'.:;�+<,?}r;ta}::? tct�v'.: `n}:: .}::: }:: ff+:?.} ;f::' ;, ...11.. {
J.. .{v?:.': :L'., ::.:':•:++,4,y., :, v. . .$;t' 2 �" ,•.1`.; .... .
-': :?kv,:. v,,.;: .\' ,• :i.'t�\:,\..,..M.'�:}..vt }ti viQ}ti�}`�`" .:}�1✓•\:}v'.;:: w �� �t ..�\. \:....
.. v"'``r: �+:`::::}?.:?::.}:..:., v,}...v,:t.Q:'S�:4n.: •}:: iYf..{.}}}'::{.:v:^v�v.:.{'t.:v:�: }•.t.v.}m\'. � : Q
x.,:.>�,C:.:WK
.'ty%F t4 :{,
: :::RZ`.:;L?^:::: v':.. _:::2:....: •.}:.. `::,,:: ,s..{}� :';, 5; '� ., t .:':rd:gl:,a� � t` 4 �.
�. .)`.:A"k? t—+c ^�.-�� �'s).:1"f •k. N,.1 i45t'8 `. ?:;: � } iz�
„\:: ,1 �v ..:•v._v�.��C,: r\. J A� F� ,�` �t1i: t, i tMAi'f\ �}�;lv �`�r?> ::.:2
� �\a,.. ,.,�..�,., n",.. t3.`:' .:XY:.'' ``��•. � t},t.4a..:4 <. \1 R';Y�r.,�„t�r.+fi' '.�, t\. \.. <`'c�.wgi,. � �\.C: C;y, <'.. L'8.»F,.
......
\4 r. �t4\.::::{:"•. \".:C?C:;•: :. 3.'a:;4 C^„ }::i`:.: :..r4.4;t "```'tt• "C:.G.
',': .. "."C.\'4\r � { K� ^:..�^, ...: Vii: h'v.:: uc �1 1t •\.t ..+U�.'.�1.,.,'?;,.. 4> ' 7` N' tgvE4t'.,k .+:.w.
X,
rdql-
...
,
rm
W � M�
fit.>:�....
V
v
iX
rm
W � M�
"''{ )4x'3.'%`4•',` aRw{+ " �•}Y:4,}"xr'{}:` .
{� } \ q✓�'`�.v C"fit
1 )
yr {
»� X
\
r
r
\
„z �
.' \ :..:
a.
ftl\»
BACKYARD VIEW, LOCATION OF NEW
..:
X.
Xx
' �� ?dG0•�.;. {�,x, \:;: � Y { ?tai, �R :,.
X.
S3s"\;� ,\;•JV` �,` . \ { ,Q ...::: �,`�oc�bx�{2o2{{w.„ v, +.++.\lr\ � .rz'� . .f::�: 3' g}
�rx.N
h. {
a"
w
$ {
�...: ''.{, .T` �... } • . ?{.'. 'ar . �< ` \rev :� R,.{, � � ° � � „n Y>" $
' � Ff, :: ::.e. � � �..,.:.;:}; {} :<,�`^.�•'�+Y� > :�>' :.b'oo,. { c ,: v•�'fa .r... r. ,�.. ::x .�k
'4�{ ' fie, , .9 t ,. :.: � �i:>e{;' , i .5j;) {. . 2.?,,.::; . � � "t � L�. � e\R , � :. .A✓. �z.. �,- , A .
-::., ,: .., :. : ,,,:., :.>� .. .., .,,�%}. .:`{{fir: .. :. ��: .a4C �. .< \ `•�zw::,r ..+.M:��... ��..
{i�tco. .. ,�,r {r.:• a"•ii..,•: .,., ..,.. .,:{., }:.,n.a. ::) ij��.,. �:: � •,{, R'..:::.- . +A �:� :;;Saye.
....>.. ..... .. ... ,. 4 ..IX �.. .. ..{�kh}�.}. ��{v.):" h nh ..v .. .df.n. x.\... .,:. ::: :.:.. ::. :. v: :... :. N•:.}'+ rt•: ..\.)..M."
{w'�'... .'AtA+::::.3 ;..:.....: {. `CSb..., .: .,. .:2.,. �{{.,ti, , .: •::.ar••}•:.. ��:... , :-;\ t''i°fi'S4 '. }v � ,}�»`
•�Y}: �??fr-� \ :.. :: ..... `:�r •: ., y,'�t ...... ,+�,an, . fi ..,.. ,54. {.. ,... .. , . .:; \ .,.w:} : 3.}�' :. � �::�ta
. �:. �:::� ... -.:.. .:. � ,:.. .. .:. ..... ......... fid, 4 .,. .A... :......... ♦ ., -'� ���::�: .rte r• :�� ��\
.. ... .,„ ,:.. t•,{r .�. :.... ,. .,. iiia: \ � �:: r.�.}., . ... ..:. �c- ).: 'Zf• \ },... : �, $:�y, bbEQ. �... fi�: ,{ Y:.
y, +...\\c•,``)\Qx' v{�,,,�y 1 w•;. rtC^"'° \ !K?SY:,A. }Saa. t.,w, 'fi
>:::.. . ....A : . .
.
. :z
`2
.........
iii
:.. .�����:... ........ .... w..,.. .... ... ... .:,..... ...::. ,. .: ..::. \' ;`\,y.r:)r>:�F`yy,,
............
-1110
.1
..
,,,gyp,, _ ..
)a-'. �'}iG\): \ �C{.: a: •^+ \\ - , :...:' 11C•:,. 4i' ::4
rT: .....v ....,, ..... ... .. ... ..... .... .::'}`}i).}•:: ^:^ : ' :a:1):, i
\\ N...:.:..` A...........
[By F
WF ��
Attachment C
Plans and Surveys
'It,
��HILLS
July 2, 2008, Planning Commission Meeting
KEMPER & ASSOCIATES INC.
721 OLD HIGHWAY 8 N ' W.
NEW BRIGHTON. MINNESOTA 55112
651-637-0351
FAX 651-631-8805
VICINITY MAP
(NO SCALE)
ZONING REWREMENTS
70"IEC R-2 - S!NG:'-E & TWO -FAVI -Y RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
MINIMUM, L'l- AREA !-,.00C SO FT.
LOT VIC.7H 8`FEET
L,? DEFT, FEET
PV,AX`!lVLjM LOT CCvERAGE - -.t%
LANOS-APEE '-�-7 AREA - 65%
FLOOR AREA RA. `TC - C-3
'^EIGH-- - 3-5 FUT,
EsJI DING SE T=ACKS:
FRONT - FEE- (II0,;EPE EXISTING PRINCIPAL
?-jIl-D;NGF HAVE A GREATER SETBACK THAN
THE MINIMUM UM SE-EACK REOUIRria HEREIN
TTHE.
FRONT SZTEACK OF A NEW' PRINCIPAL
SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN T.."
PPEVAILINC. SETBACK IN THE IMMENATE
%4CINiTy, IN, NO CASE SiiALL A RESIDENTIAL
6'JI-,CqNG BE TO SET SACK MORE
THAN 60 FEET)
SIDE FEET FEET TOTAL
REAR 3C FEET
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES:
SHALL NOT EXCEED 72E Sl,. F?.IN FLOOR AREA
THE T07A, FLOCK AREA OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
10CATED IN THE REAR Or A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE
SHALL NOT EXCEED 25% CF THE WNIMUM REQUIRED
REAR YARD AREA FOP TIJ[ PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE
NO MORE -,HAN' 2 ACCESSORYSIALL
EE PERMITTED 71-0 CIN A CT
SHALL %�7 EKCHZ� EEE I IN HEiGli', OR THE
H&G""
L,' �HE i':It! �' �IPA, S- .-RUCTURE TO !`,'RICH IT
".
IS ACCESSO"" LO'WEP
SHALL %'07 BE LOCATEM NEARER. THE FRONT LOT
UNE THAN PRDNT YARD SETBACK LINE FOR THE
PRINCIPAL STF?L!,'-T'JPE TO IT IS ACCESSORI
tf"`Y BE LOCATED WTHIN THE PEAR YARD Or THE
PRINCIPAL S-PLIC T:ljRE
SIDE 'Arc SE.Cl-cl - '.0 FEE-
-
REAP, .'ARC' �F7EA,'K EEE?
E BEARD RISIDENCE,
1924 GRANT ROAD
I INCH (MALS It FEET
CITY OF ARDEN 1111-1 , RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA BASIS FOR BFA-dVCS:
RAMSE'Y COUNTY
ODORDHAIE SYSTEM
r4A REAL Tax CPS
(SM LEGAL DESCRP7M BMW) ..SUREVENTS TO
RAMSEY cawr.
MONUMENTS UTrJZNG
M*MSCTA DEPARTMMY
OF TRANSPORTATION
'RS -Erwo")
AL
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
CUT CLAIM DEED DOC. NO. 3506323
-7 C_ _.E aF Lot 5. Blocq 3, AIEXondw Glan'. Park,
.(W IkIo�' Or WAY) according to the m-ap or plot thereof
on 'i'e or of record in the Office of
the Lclu-Iy Recarce- in and fc,
a Pa-sey County, minnescta
►
q
me
It WW2r El
HE IGI 7- -Z
Mp p E
-T-
Aton'. LINE
or LOT KEYSTONE
LAND -E
AL'
59
Loot
INK
FENCE
6- SPRUCE
-EIGHI-12 F -EE
E-"STo`;E
I, A'.LK
CONC KEYSTONE E--
-,7 EE
LAII'sc.n
mom J WALL
1924 GRNiff RW
SINGLE STORY FRAME RESIDENCE
4t
-E. 4 <
40.r7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1�zl�l��1141. % i -LPS,
CHNN"
<,E !jE
co�� VAL "AS 7 L:r
-FST LNE
OA LOT
tir 23— _0037
III,
r
Z
U)
CASr UW -
OF LOT E
>
SC IEE, �sS- O -Z
"14
AREA SUMMARY
.0" 5 = 11.8" SC O;� 02725 ACRES
(--AN
tS -C:j' -oc� a g SC. rl.
S -IN --ARA^
-E F4),TPRt!4'I = 450 5G. FT,
< GRAVEL DRI%`EIVAY = 358 SO, F
701:s -IN-- So.
IRON CON'CP.E7t WALK &- STDC
0 REAR CON -RETE WALK &' STOOP = 95 SC. r-
r� AVER WALK - 2g SQ.
CONCRE -'E PAC = 36 SQ. F'
I i;707AL EXISTING IMPERviOLIS SURFACE CCV---rArE
2.655 Sa F7, (22.4% Or LOT AREA)
'I rr 7
FENw PROPOSED ',%ArAG-- FO, -PRINT = 988 SO FT
PROPOSEC AD: T-ONAL D!ZI\rLViAY
IPEPL-CES EXISTING GARAGE) - 850 So. r-,.
PROPOSED IMPERMIOUS SLIRFACF CCVERAGF
tl 4.043 SO. F7, 34.1% OF LOT AREA)
CHAIN
I-
PARY ---J,
)k
WOOD
SIDLITH UNE CHAN,
FENCE Of LOT LeW
FENCE
OF�O ;L4W2' C` 777::7:777---I— 0" Taw �R� a-- LEGEND
Pp 0 Powm Pw
09'rZ.- 89.%& (M) NORTH L�E s W47W W XW NORTH "�'E 041 11) ELECTRIC METLA
ER OF LET 01 LOT C- a, IS "S VENT
NOTE' LOT CORK FALLS '..PDEN:
3.0 PEET SlJTH
07 W'Daa
AIR 03IO.TiONLI;
FENCE AND 0.! FEET CAST
tiV
Or CHAINW LFENCE 'or I=. , AIL BOX
SLOCK 2.
%.03 3.
_a I- A=CP-Om- 0-MHEAD UTILIT) L -E$
FRONT OF 1924 GRANT ROAD REAR OF 1924 GRANT ROAD,
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
V.e TOO-, HOLLN
EXISTING. GARAGE & DRIV,-V-,'AY
'
DENOTES SET ",,E,
WO"Ek", NARKED
16,07
PREPARED FDRz!
FUTEPY BEAR -n-
924 GRANT R�&
ARDEN HILLS. "N-ESOTA 55112
800-677-5958--
)MLLIAM. TIMME.FZ
NFT DESIGN &DRAF";'4"
4�6 LINDEW Al.T-NOE NORTH
P.0 136)r, 672".
L
44ol
TMCAWON
4T Do
HEREBY CErw� H. S Sup'll. -L^.
OR REPOPT' *A'
DIRES FRE!rRil ll� v,l 01
UNDER C,
I AM A DOLT I.q>-NSj-j TLAT��
OF WN'� 17T-1-1419" THE STATE
0 .EWER. ELS 7-w.;�
DATED TMS ','TH DAY 01 SUNC. 00*
Its.— ORIGINAL
�41�EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 2, 2008 PC Agenda Item 3.$
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Meagan Beekman, Planner I
SUBJECT: Planning Case #08-020
Variance
Nickolas and Leann Walker
1518 Briarknoll Drive
ATTACHMENTS: A — Application and Supporting Materials
B — Air Photo and Photographs of the Site
C — Letter from Neighbors
Requested Action
The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a 404 square foot addition to theara e on the
g g
east and rear sides of the dwelling at 1518 Briarknoll Drive, creating a four -stall garage. The
proposed garage addition would encroach five feet ten inches into the required ten foot side yard
setback. The proposed addition would be five feet from the side property line.
Background
1. Overview of Request
The applicant owns the dwelling at 1518 Briaknoll Drive, which is a located in the R-1
Zoning District. It has an attached two -stall garage. The existing dwelling and garage were
constructed in 1983 and are currently conforming and meet all setback regulations in the
district. The existing garage is ten feet, ten inches from the east side property line. The
City's Zoning Code requires a minimum ten foot side yard setback in the R-1 Zone.
The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing garage and rebuilt it as a three -stall
garage five feet, ten inches nearer to the lot line. This would reduce the side setback to five
feet. In addition to widening the garage the applicant proposes to extend the garage back an
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 2, 2008
IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases 12008108-020 Walker Variance (Pending) 1070208 - PCReport - Walker Variance.doc
Page 1 of 8
additional 22 feet off the rear in order to create a fourth stall. The rear addition would wrap
around an existing deck that is currently off the back of the garage, and is proposed to
remain. The proposed addition would remain in line with the existing 40 foot front yard
setback. The rest of the dwelling would remain unchanged.
The applicant has submitted a letter addressing the variance criteria, a certified survey of the
property, and elevations of the existing and proposed structure (Attachments A and B).
There are no known variance requests on file for this property.
2. Site Data
Low Density Residential
Single Family Detached Residential
R-1: Single Family Residential
.32 Acres (13,939 Square Feet)
The property gently increases in elevation from northwest to southeast.
3. Surrounding Area
North I Low Density Residential
South I Low Density Residential
East I Low Density Residential
West Low Density Residential
R-1: Single Family Residential
R-1: Single Family Residential
R-1: Single Family Residential_
R-1: Single Family Residential
Single Family Detached
Residential
Single Family Detached
Residential
Single Family Detached
Residential
Single Family Detached
Residential
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 2, 2008
IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases 12008108-020 Walker Variance (Pending) 1070208 - PCReport - Walker Variance.doc
Page 2 of 8
Plan Evaluation
1. R-1 Regulations, Existing Conditions, and Proposed Redevelopment
A. Lot Size & Dimensions — Not Impacted
The lot is 13,939 square feet, 100 feet wide and
134 feet long. While the lot exceeds the
dimensional requirements of the R-1 District,
the total size of the lot is slightly smaller than
current Zoning Code would require.
B. Structure Setbacks — Variance Required
The existing dwelling meets all setback
requirements. The proposed garage addition
would extend five feet, ten inches into the side
yard setback. This requires a variance. All
other setback requirements would be met.
C. Lot Coverage — Meets Requirements
1. Minimum Lot Area (SO
145000
2. Minimum Lot Size
ft, width/depth)
95/130
3. Height ft.
35
4. Lot Covered by Structure
25%
5. Min. Landscape Lot Area
65%
6. Minimum Building Setbacks
Front yard 40
Rear Yard (Principle) 30
Rear Yard (Accessory) 10
Side Yard Interior - Accessory 10
Side Yard Corner 40
The proposed addition would not exceed the R-1 coverage limitations for structure or
minimum landscaped area.
Chart 2:
Lot
Existing
Proposed
R-1 Regulation
Coverage
Square
%
Square
%
Square
feet
Feet
Feet
Dwelling
1,622
11.64%
1,622
11.64%
Garage
528
3.79%
932
6.69%
Shed
80
0.57%
80
0.57%
Total
Structure
Z230
16.00%
2, 634
18.90%
3,485
25%
Driveway
636
4.56%
710
5.09%
Total Lot
Coverage
2,866
20.56%
3,344
23.99%
4,879
35%
Remaining
Landscape
11,073
79.44%
10,595
76.01%
9,060
65%
Area
Lot Size
13,939
13,939
13,939
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 2, 2008
IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases 12008108-020 Walker Variance (Pending) 1070208 - PCReport - Walker Variance.doc
Page 3 of 8
D. Structure Height — Meets Requirements
The existing dwelling with the proposed addition meets the 35 foot height limit.
2. Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements
The proposed addition is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. There is a five
foot drainage and utility easement that runs along the side and rear property lines. The
applicant would not be permitted to construct anything in this area.
3. Tree Preservation Ordinance
The proposal would require the applicant to remove four river birch trees that are located to
the rear of the existing garage. These trees are six and seven inches in diameter and so would
not be considered significant. There is no replacement requirement associated with the
project.
4. Additional Review
This application may require Rice Creek Watershed District approval prior to the issuance of
any building permits. If the variance is approved, a condition has been added requiring
RCWD review prior to the issuance of building permits.
The Building Official has reviewed this application and has no objections to the proposed
variance.
Variance Evaluation Criteria
The criteria listed below must be used to evaluate each of the variance requests.
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 variance,
means:
■ The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under conditions
permitted by the Zoning Code;
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 2, 2008
IIMetro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases 12008108-020 Walker Variance (Pending) 1070208 - PC Report - Walker Variance. doc
Page 4 of 8
■ 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 of the locality;
and,
■ Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if
reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Code.
Findings of Fact
Staff offers the following seventeen findings of fact for review:
General Findings
1. The lot size does not meet the requirements of the R-1 Zoning District.
2. The lot does meet the dimensional requirements of the R-1 Zoning District.
3. The existing dwelling and garage meet all property line setbacks.
4. The proposed addition would encroach five feet into the side yard setback, and be five
feet from the side property line.
5. The proposed addition would maintain the existing front yard setback of forty feet.
6. The proposed addition does not encroach on the rear setback.
7. The structure coverage meets Zoning Code requirements.
8. The minimum landscape area requirements meet Zoning Code regulations.
9. The dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height limit.
10. The existing dwelling and the proposed addition are outside of the 100 -year flood plain,
wetlands, and easements.
11. The proposed addition would not impact any significant trees on the property.
Variance Findings:
12. A proposed garage expansion is a reasonable use within the R-1 Zone.
13. The property itself is not unique in the City. Alternative solutions exist that would not
require the need for a variance.
14. The circumstances of the property were not created by the landowner.
15. It is unclear whether the proposed addition would have a negative impact on the property
or the neighborhood. Most properties in the neighborhood have a two -stall garage and
few have structures within five feet of the property line; however the addition could add
value to the property itself.
16. The proposed plans and setback variance for the dwelling do not appear to be based on
economic considerations alone.
Staff Analysis
The findings of fact for this variance request do not necessarily support a recommendation for
approval or denial. While the project is unlikely to have a negative impact on the property, the
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 2, 2008
IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillsOanninglPlanning Cases 12008108-020 Walker Variance (Pending) 1070208 - PC Report - Walker Variance. doc
Page 5 of 8
size and nature of this addition is not a common feature elsewhere in the neighborhood, and few
structures are as close as five feet from the property line. Thus, it is unclear as to whether or not
the proposed addition would in fact negatively impact the neighborhood. Before making a
motion for approval or denial, this specific variance evaluation criterion must be addressed for
the official record.
As is often the case, the evaluation criterion that states "The plight of the landowner is due to
circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner," is the difficult evaluation
criterion. Staff was unable to determine what about the property is unique that would require the
variance. In addition, Staff believes that there are alternative solutions that could be constructed
without the need for a variance. Before making a motion for approval, this evaluation criterion
must be addressed for the record.
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance, Staff recommends the
following eight 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 obtain all necessary building permits prior to any construction or
demolition commencing.
3. The applicant shall use best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion at all
times during construction.
4. The applicant shall obtain approval or a waiver from the Rice Creek Watershed
District prior to the issuance of any building permits.
5. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code.
6. The addition will match the color and siding of the rest of the primary structure.
7. The applicant shall obtain prior written permission from adjacent property owners if
any equipment or construction activity is to cross any property lines.
8. The shed located in the rear yard shall be moved to meet setback requirements
according to the Zoning Code.
Options
The findings in this report are not specific enough to fully support approval or denial of the
variance. With a motion to approve or deny the variance, the italicized criteria must be
addressed for the record:
1. The proposed addition is/is not a reasonable use in the R-1 Zone because ...
2. The proposed addition will/will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or
JL
the City because...
3. The circumstances in this planning case are/are not unique to the property because...
4. The variance is/is not based on economic considerations alone because ...
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 2, 2008
I IMetro-inet. us lardenhills OanninglPlanning Cases 12008108-020 Walker Variance (Pending) 1070208 - PC Report - Walker Variance. doc
Page 6 of 8
Criteria 1 and 4 are already addressed in the findings. Criteria two and three must be addressed
prior to making a motion.
1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case
08-020 for a variance at 1518 Briarknoll Drive based on the findings of fact, the submitted
plans, and the eight conditions in the July 2, 2008, planning case report.
2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 08-
020 for a variance at 1518 Briarknoll Drive based on the findings of fact and the submitted
plans, as proopsed the July 2, 2008, planning case report.
3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 08-020 for a variance at
1518 Briarknoll Drive based on the findings of fact in the July 2, 2008, planning case report.
4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 08-020 for a variance at 1518 Briarknoll Drive: a
specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table.
Public Hearing
Although a public hearing is not required for a variance, the Commission can allow public
comments.
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 received a letter from neighbors expressing their concern over the proposed project;
these have been included in the Planning Commission Packet. Additionally, Staff met with
neighbors, at their request, to discuss this application, express their concerns and better
understand the variance process.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 2, 2008
IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases 12008108-020 Walker Variance (Pending) 1070208 -PC Report - Walker Variance.doc
Page 7 of 8
Deadline for Agency Actions
The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on June 20, 2008.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by August 19, 2008 (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
A — Application and Supporting Materials
B — Air Photo and Photographs of the Site
C — Letter from Neighbors
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 2, 2008
IIMetro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases 12008108-020 Walker Variance (Pending) 1070208 - PC Report - Walker Variance. doc
Page 8 of 8
Attachment A
Application and
ing M
Supportaterials
,!tt
EN HILLS
July 2, 2008, Planning Commission Meeting
,--ARZEN HILLS
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112
Telephone (651) 792-7800
Fax (651) 634-5137
www.ci.arder}-hills.mn.us
Planning Case No. 08-,
Submittal Date
Application Completed Date 7 1
Accepted by �µ
Receipt Number
Council Decision
Council Decision Date
2008 LAND USE APPLICATION
licant Information
Applicant: AJ1-1- kei Lq LC4,NJ,±J_
Address:
I
Telephone No.. .� � e
p Other: (Q(L a00.
Fax No
9
Email Address: -NA/ (A
------ --k 12- k I
Property Information
Property Owner:
Owner Ad.. dress:
Owner Telephone No.
L-P-6'NJ',AkJ' kl-AVej
°- (2 3.3 -6 12 7 Other:
Address of -Property_Involved: i �' �'� kh► �' � � �°P
Legal Description:
Property ID No.: '� 7-�, 3z
Type of Use:
Zone:
Type of Request*
Property Acreage:
❑ Rezoning ($450)
LJComprehensive Plan Amendment ($450)
LJ Apportionment of Assessments ($30) ❑Site Plan Review (Sign or Fence) ($250)
LJ Vacation of Easement or Right -of -Way ($300)
❑ Conditional Use Permit or Amendment ($350)
LJ Final Plat ($200+$25 per lot)
LJ Master Planned Unit Development ($600+escrow)
LJ Final Planned Unit Development ($200)
LJ Planned Unit Development Amendment ($350)
LJ Zoning Code Amendment ($450)
LJ Land Use Requests -Not Already Specified ($150)
❑ Appeal of Administrative Decision ($75)
❑ Minor Subdivision (lot split/consolidation) ($325+escrow)
Ll Preliminary Plat ($400 + $25 per lot +escrow)
Variance (Zoning Code) ($325)
LLUJ to Plan Review ($400)
0
Revised: 12-12-07
Page 1 of 3
*Certain applications are subject to review
and approval by the Rice Creek Watershed
District. Contact RCWD directly at 763-
398-3070 for additional information.
*The land use application fees do not cover
building, sign, or other permit fees that may
be required upon approval of a land use
application.
*All applications may be subject to
additional fees for reimbursement of
consultant costs associated with filing,
reviewing, and processing of application in
the form of an escrow to the City.
13 Minor Subdivision (lot split/consolidation) ($325+escrow)
4 Preliminary Plat ($400 + $25 per lot + escrow)
anance (Zoning Code
6 Site Plan Review ($400)
Brief Description of Request lease also include a !yped, detailed letter explaininq the project):
I I..
�Oq ise C IV\
r aN -oo\J
ck �
:. ��,.�.�..�x: `.�.�,:�.� ..Gry.� _ ...,. _�w�..��. �,.�._ -. ..
Filing & 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/incomplete Aaplications
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 Meeting Attendance
Agenda Deadline and Meeting 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 6:30 PM, though please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date
and time. City Council meetings are held typically the last Monday of the same month at 7:00 PM.
Meetings are held in the Council Chambers at the City of Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96,
Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112, unless otherwise stated. Applicants are advised that additional
meetings and/or workshops are scheduled when necessary upon approval of the Planning
Commission.
2008 SCHEDULE (*subject to change)
I January I February 6 1 February 25 1
I March 3 1 April 2 1 ADril 28 1
I Mav 5 1 June 4 1 June 23 1
I July 7 1 August 6 1 August 25 1
I SeDtember 8 1 October 1 1 October 27 1
November 6 December 3 December 22
December I January 7 (2009) January 26 (2009)
Acknowledgement„and Signature
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 responsibi or all c4sts incurred by the City related to
the pro sling of this application.
/Y
Property Owryti�,.$ig nature (Required) Date
Applicant Signature (if different than the property owner) Date
Please contact the City Planners Office at (651) 792-7800
if you have any questions regarding this application.
Additional copies of this application form are available on the City's website:
TENTATIVE
TENTATIVE
PLANNING
CITY COUNCIL
COMMISSION
I
MEETING
APPLICATION
MEETING*
DATE*
DEADLINE
(Generally held on the
(Generally held on the
DATE*
first Wednesdav at 6:30 p.m.)
last Mondav at 7:00 D.M.)
I January I February 6 1 February 25 1
I March 3 1 April 2 1 ADril 28 1
I Mav 5 1 June 4 1 June 23 1
I July 7 1 August 6 1 August 25 1
I SeDtember 8 1 October 1 1 October 27 1
November 6 December 3 December 22
December I January 7 (2009) January 26 (2009)
Acknowledgement„and Signature
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 responsibi or all c4sts incurred by the City related to
the pro sling of this application.
/Y
Property Owryti�,.$ig nature (Required) Date
Applicant Signature (if different than the property owner) Date
Please contact the City Planners Office at (651) 792-7800
if you have any questions regarding this application.
Additional copies of this application form are available on the City's website:
Dear Planning Commission Members;
Please consider our request for variance from the current 10 foot side property line setback
requirements. We live at 1518 Briarknoll Drive and would like to convert our large 2 car garage
into a small 3 car garage. We would like to have the new addition flush with the front of the
house. Our current garage is just less than 11 feet from the property line and the setback is 10
feet. In order to convert the current 2 car garage into a 3 car garage we would need approval of
approximately a 5 foot encroachment into the current 10 foot setback, we would still meet the 25
foot setback combined between the two side yards. This would allow us to add about 5 feet 10
inches of width to the current footprint of the two car garage and convert it into a 3 car garage.
The next section addresses the 7 following requirements needed for variance approval.
1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed
by the official controls;
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner;
3. The deviation from the Ordinance with any attached conditions will still be in keeping with the
spirit and intent of the Ordinance;
4. The variance will not create a land use not permitted in the zone;
S. The variance will not alter the essential character of the City;
6. The variance is not for economic reasons alone;
7. The proposed use is permitted within the zone.
1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed
by the official controls.
A garage is considered reasonable use in a residential Rl zone.
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner.
Currently, the property shape is that of a slight parallelogram, slanting from the east to west as
you travel from the back to front. I do not believe that we would need this variance if the
property where rectangle in shape. The proposed garage addition is on the east side of the home
and that is the side that hypothetically cuts into the property. It is our understanding that when
the Briarknoll Neighborhood was developed there were many variances that where needed for
development and all were unilaterally approved. I have noticed several homes in the
neighborhood that do not appear to meet the side setback of 10 feet or have a minimum of 25
feet between the two setbacks and adjacent homes. We will still have a combined total of more
than 25 feet between the two side property setbacks on our lot and approximately 23 feet
between the garage addition and the neighbor's garage at the closest point.
We could currently put a detached garage behind our home and meet all the requirements.
However, access would be very difficult and require a driveway around the east side of the home
to the back west corner. The southeast corner of the home would require much more excavation
and would not be an ideal location. Additionally, we do not consider this a possibility because of
the S foot utility easement on the east side of the property. This would only allow for a 6 foot
wide driveway on the east side of the home, not allowing access of any vehicle larger than a
small compact. We could put a larger driveway on top of the easement, but that may be tore up at
some point and the City has said they do not recommend putting driveways over utility
easements. We have thought about this and do not consider this a reasonable option at this time.
Another option we have is to extend the current garage back making it double deep. We do not
consider this a reasonable option at this time either. Currently, our deck is behind the garage and
our patio off the dining room on the east side of the home directly behind the garage. If the
garage were extended back the new garage would then encompass the current deck and patio
door and decrease backyard space. We believe this decrease in an already small back yard would
actually negatively affect the values of our property.
Based on the two possible options above that would allow us to meet the current code and give
us additional garage space, neither are viable options at this time. In case 1 access to the rear
yard is limited and would require 100 plus linear feet of additional driveway running through our
backyard and on top of the utility easement to access the new garage structure. In case 2, an
additional garage would require removal of our current deck and access to it.
3. The deviation from the ordinance with any attached conditions will still be in keeping with the
spirit and intent of the ordinance.
With this project we are currently planning to update several aspects of our home and plan to
continue to improve and maintain it. We have been meeting with a contactor and are planning to
replace all the remaining original windows that have not recently been replaced. We are also
going to add on a 10X10 walk-in closet to the master bedroom, replace the existing decking,
siding, soffits and fascia. With the 3 car garage conversion we will also replace and increase the
driveway so that the third stall is accessible from the driveway. The completion of the garage
addition and the rest of the construction project will update our home to the norms that are
desired by homebuyers in many new neighborhoods. This project will also increase the aesthetic
and financial value of our home, as well as those in the neighborhood. If the variance is granted
and the work is completed on our home, our property and the adjacent properties will still be
homogeneous with regards to the other properties in the neighborhood.
4. The variance will not create a land use not permitted in the zone.
A garage is permitted in the zone and its use will not contradict any use allowed by the zone.
5. The variance will not alter the essential character of the City.
This variance will not alter the character of the city. This will be a professionally built attached
garage. Both overhead doors will match and the existing one will be replaced. The new driveway
and overhead doors will dramatically improve the curb appeal. Three car garages are now the
standard in many neighborhoods and will keep our property desirable for the continued vitality
of the city and neighborhood. The siding selections will be the same as the rest of the home.
There are currently some three car and larger garages in the neighborhood.
6. The variance is not for economic reasons alone.
This variance is not for economic reasons. I have been told by realtors and appraisers alike that
adding and additional garage stall, going from 2 to 3 does not increase the appraised value.
However, they have said it may make the house more sellable and attractive to buyers, but it
does nothing for the value. We love the city of Arden Hills and plan to stay in the community the
rest of our lives and have no intentions of leaving. In conjunction with the other construction
improvements at this time, the garage addition will provide room for the continued growth of our
family in the future. It will allow us to park cars and recreational vehicles inside the garage out
of both the neighbor's view and the view from the road.
7.. The proposed use is permitted within the zone
A garage addition is permitted within the zone.
Based on the arguments above and the of support of or neighbors, we are asking that you
grant us this variance that will allow us to continue to use our property to its fullest, as it
currently situated. We wanted to pursue this variance option before constructing a garage in the
rear of the home or extending the current depth of the garage, both having negative impacts on us
and the neighborhood. We ask that you please approve the two variances above and recommend
approval to the City Council.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Nicholas and Leann Walker
Survey and Site Plan Explanation
We had Acre Land Surveying come and do a new survey and reset the front iron and mark the
property line because the front iron could not be found. They have marked the distance from the
corner of the garage to the property at 10'10", 10" more than the existing survey. We are asking
to have a variance granted to allows only a 5 foot setback, thus allowing approximately 5 ` 10"
be added to the existing garage.
The garage would extend back approximately 46 feet from the front corner and eventually meet
the setback requirements for approximately the last third or the garage. This would add an
approximate total square footage of 410 square feet of garage space.
Additional driveway space would be required to access the additional garage space. An
additional 8' by 15' section blended with a gradual curve to the current driveway area, which
would most likely be replaced, which is believed to be the original driveway that was put in
during the construction of the home.
In any of the garage scenarios listed about one tree off the southeast corner of the garage would
be removed. All parts of the tree at a height of 4' are less than 10 inches in diameter.
CERTIFICATE Or�SURVEY GRAPHi_%. 30
SCALE
-for-
WALKER RESIDENCE
1518 Briarknoll Drive -- ('"' FEET �
Arden Hills., MN 55112 '�--_ > inch = 30 ft.
LEGEND —'--_
• DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND NO;ZTH
O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SETNOTES
DENOTES BITUMINOUS
Set 1/2* Iron Pipe
RLS #44125
Existing Shed *(to
moved per o i be__
owner)*
s -,ft"M
x7.89..
N84oOT4411W
I hereby certify that this survey, plan
or report was prepared by me or under
my direct supervision and that I am
a duly Registered Land Surveyor under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
— Field survey completed on 06/19/2008.
— Bearing's shown are on assumed datum.
102.02
JOB #08135
FondS 2�' Ir �'
Pipe, RL"; �2 n
�- 53
--Variance required due
to garage setback.
Proposed garage is 5.2'
west of property line
Set 12"
��� Metal Spike
r—
soN
♦J
''-'--Proposed
Addition
W
Found 1/2" Iron
Pipe (bent)
ftft -Nam. aft -ft.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Lot 4, Block 3, BRIARKNOLL PLAT TWO, Ramsey
County, Minnesota,
j(7763
RE LAND SURVEYING ;
was
r Ham Lake MN 55304
ERIC R. VICKARYOUS .. III
-458-2W7 acrelandsurve agmail.com
Date: June 20th, 2008 Reg. No. 44125 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 110 Ill 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 X20
Ci\Land Projects R2\08135-brairknoll\dwg\08135-wells-brairknoll,dwg 6/20/2008 100949 AM CDT
s � , ars.5¢ iS�Fewe' '7r
� 0
K .Fi
(sbS'
'+uiaY"i$'
y Com. S
9
Mir
iR
Attachment B
Air Photo and Photographs of the Site
,!r-
,A�EN HILLs
July 2, 2008, Planning Commission Meeting
\ .. ;.\•\v . �\ \`: i� \`+tet-.+ ,�\.:+ �>}}}}
NI
iTii:;��:�;':::::{";\.`vim::':'
}Z:
v
:: :+::. .............. \\ \1\ \� _ S +4]4+.0 :.4. �.'.. +:•:: -. w: :..
h
low
XXX
............. ...
..........
:i:;$::f'•:i$"{:<> `iii:.. W
L
PT
Attachment C
Letter From Neighbors
,!tt
EN HILLS
July 2, 2008, Planning Commission Meeting
Gordy & Diane Torres
1512 Briarknoll Drive
Arden Hills, MN 55112
City of Arden Hills
Megan Beekman - City Planner
1245 W Highway 96 .
Arden Hills, MN 55112
June 18, 2008
Re: 1518 Briarknoll Drive variance request
Arden Hills City Planning Commission:
Our wish is to make it publicly known that we are stoutly opposed to the variance request that has
been applied for by Nick and LeAnne Walker at 1518 Briarknoll Drive. We are neighbors to the
Walker's immediate east. It is understood that if approved this would bring a 46 foot long, 22
foot high structure within five feet of our west property line. The negative impact this would
have on the property value of our home would be financially destructive to us.
The property at 1518 Briarknoll Drive is an `ordinary' 100' x 130' lot of which there is nothing
that would uniquely require the property owners to have no other choice in their construction but
to build up to the five foot city easement on the east side of their property.
We believe that the property owners have numerous alternative options in their build plan rather
than to bring a structure of this magnitude within five feet of our west property line. There is
more than enough footage in the rear of their property to extend the proposed garage to the south
opposed to the east.
We searchingly question and find it impossible to calculate how the property owners'
professional figures submitted to the city can in fact add a third one car garage stall and garage
door by adding only 5'10" to the addition of their current garage.
We have taken pride in our neighborhood for 23 years. We believe it would be against any good
judgment to approve the variance request for which the Walkers have applied.
If you have questions or would like to discuss this further please feel free to call us at 651-633-
7764.
Thank you,
Gordy Torres
&(alt -C NJAA-,P,�
Diane Torres
E1�T HTLLS
.................
...........
. . ........
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 2, 2008 3.0
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: James Lehnhoff, City Planner
SUBJECT: 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update
Planning Case 08-021
Requested Action
Recommend Approval of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update.
Background
State statute (473.864) requires all cities and townships in the seven county metropolitan area to
update their comprehensive plans every ten years, and the next update must be submitted to the
Metropolitan Council by the end of 2008. While there are certain items that are required to be
addressed within the comprehensive plan document, the process gives the City an opportunity to
reflect on the previous Comprehensive Plan and review the community's vision, long-term goals,
and policies. The Metropolitan Council is concerned with coordinating region -wide growth and
change and certain policies must be followed; nevertheless, the City has a great deal of flexibility in
the document to fit local needs. Although the Plan will presumably be reviewed again in 2018, the
Plan is required to look toward 2030.
There is more than one method to developing, writing, and completing a comprehensive plan.
Some plans include a great amount of detail with specific implementation timelines, while other
comprehensive plans follow a goal and policy approach with more detailed implementation to
follow after the plan is adopted. The Arden Hills 2030 Comprehensive Plan focuses more on
setting a community vision and supporting goals while recognizing the need to develop a flexible
implementation schedule and coordinate implementation throughout the Plan after adoption.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 2, 2008
I IMetro-inet. us lardenhills Oanningl Comprehensive PlanlMemos1070208 - PC Report - 2030 Comp Plan Update.doc
Page 1 of 5
CoMprehensive Plan Or anlization
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan is divided into the following chapters
1. introduction
2. Community Profile*
3. City vision
4. Active Living (based on the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Grant)
5. Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP)
6. Land Use*
7. Housing*
S. Economic Development and Redevelopment
9. Parks and Recreation*
10. Protected Resources*
11. Transportation*
12. Environmental Conservation and Sustainability
13. Public Facilities, infrastructure, and Services*
14. Implementation (is partially integrated into each chapter)*
Appendices;
A. Glossary
B. Transportation System Principles and Standards*
C. Transportation Plan Forecasts*
D. Water Supply Plan*
E. Sanitary Sewer Plan*
F. Stormwater Management Plan*
G. Inflow & Infiltration*
H. Capital Improvement Plan*
'Required by the Metropolitan Council and State Statutes
A- � 71'1 , D A � tr+„+r,y-�, �,•.+ +�.. � : „ :... ,a .� s..� 7 L
Chapters -�=1., 111V d�, a goa� Ota�V 111U11L �tia- is in ended to be somewhat of a general, positive, and,
for the most part, uncontroversial statement. Each goal statement is then supported by a series of
policies and background data that are designed to advance the goal statement and the overall City
vision. The policies can be specific or general; short-term or long-term; easyor difficult; and may
y
in some instances be controversial. Not all policies or ideas will have unanimous support. Some of
the policies will require a great deal of time, research and effort to fully implement while others are
relatively simple. Ultimately, some policies and implementation strategies may not be workable.
g y
Since the Comprehensive Plan is meant to guide the City through 2030, it is not necessary to fully
evaluate the potential or possibility of each goal or policy at this time. However, each statement
should have a desired result and be within the realm of possibility.
When reviewing the document, you may notice some topics or sections have a great deal of
background data, do not seem to apply to Arden Hills, or may seem unnecessary. There are a
number of items that the Metropolitan Council requires a City to address, even if the item is
ultimately not applicable to Arden Dills. The Metropolitan Council's Local Planning Landbook
City o, f 'Arden Mills
Planning Commission Meeting for .duly 2, 2008
l tkfetro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanninglComprehensive PlanMemos1070208 - PC Report - 2030 Comp Plan Update.doc
Page 2 of 5
includes the items that a City is required to address in the Comprehensive Plan. This handbook can
be viewed online at http://www.metrocouncil.ore/planning/LPH/handbook.htm.
The appendices are primarily used for those items required by the Metropolitan Council that are
highly technical in nature and would make the chapters cumbersome to read and use. For example,
the Stormwater Management Plan in Appendix F is nearly two inches thick by itself.
Finally, the draft document now includes all of the figures and maps. Due to the cost of printing
color maps, the draft document is printed entirely in black and white. Unfortunately, this does make
some of the maps and charts difficult to read. You can review full color versions of the maps online
at www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us/compplan. The final adopted version of the Plan will include color
maps in an 11 "x 17" size.
Water Supply, Sanitary Sewer, and Stormwater Management
Although the water supply, sanitary sewer, and stormwater management plans are required
components of the Comprehensive Plan, they have not been fully included in the draft distributed to
the Planning Commission. The water supply and sanitary sewer are nearing completion but were
not finished in time for this review. These sections are technical documents relating to the function
of the City's water and sanitary systems. The cover page for the appendices is attached and
includes links to the Metropolitan Council's webpage to show the data that is required for these
sections.
The Stormwater Management Plan is complete but was not included due to its length. A paper copy
can be reviewed at City Hall, and an electronic copy will be on the City's website in the coming
days.
Community Involvement and Review Process
The Comprehensive Plan update process included a public involvement component and a
significant amount of input and review from the City Council; Planning Commission; Economic
Development Commission (EDC); and the Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee (PTRC). A
series of three community meetings were held in August 2007, October 2007, and June 2008. Each
of these meetings solicited public input and provided time for questions and suggestions. During
this time, the public was also able to submit comments on the City's website. The information
collected at these meetings is available on the City's website at vwvw.ci.arden-
hills.mn.us/compplan.
The City Council has also held five work sessions; the Planning Commission has had four, the
PTRC three, and the EDC three. While the language in the Comprehensive Plan has been refined,
the content itself has not changed significantly since the last Planning Commission work session in
May.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 2, 2008
I IMetro-inet. us Wrdenhills Oanningl Comprehensive PlanlMemos1070208 - PC Report - 2030 Comp Plan Update.doc
Page 3 of 5
The full draft and maps was put on the City's website on June 9, and it will remain there through the
end of this year. If edits or corrections are needed, the website will be updated. The website can be
visited at www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us/compplan.
Remaining Schedule
After the Planning Commission review, the Plan will be forwarded to the City Council with a
request for authorization to release it to the adjacent cities, Ramsey County, the school districts, and
the Rice Creek Watershed District for review. The Comprehensive Plan cannot be officially
approved by the City or sent to the Metropolitan Council until after these government entities have
had a chance to review the draft Comprehensive Plan and provide comments. The City is required
to give them up to six months to review the plan, but the reviews are typically completed sooner.
After all of the comments are received from the other government entities, the City Council will
review the final comments, make any final changes, and then forward the Comprehensive Plan to
the Metropolitan Council for review. The Plan must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council by
the end of 2008.
The Comprehensive Plan is required to conform to the system statements and regional policies set
by the Metropolitan Council. City staff and consultants have made a specific effort to address the
Metropolitan Council requirements to ensure that the Plan is not rejected by the Metropolitan
Council. At this time, staff does not anticipate any problems with conforming to those
requirements. The Metropolitan Council system statements and all policy documents can be
reviewed online at htlp://www.metrocouncil.org/-olanning/index.htm.
Implementation
While preparing the Comprehensive Plan is a formidable task, it is only the first step in the
comprehensive planning process. After the Plan is officially adopted, the City must focus on
implementation. Implementing the Comprehensive Plan will require coordination between City
departments, direction from the City Council, and efforts from the various commissions and
committees. The Planning Commission; Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee; Economic
Development Commission; and the other City committees/commissions will almost certainly have a
role. It must be everyone's goal to not let the Comprehensive Plan become an unused document.
It is important to remember that while a Comprehensive Plan is meant to take a long-term look at
the community, it is not a static document. The City should work to implement the Comprehensive
Plan over time; however, this Plan does not exclude the possibility of exploring new projects, goals,
policies, priorities, and strategies down the road if new opportunities or issues arise.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 2, 2008
IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillsOanninglComprehensive PlanlMemos1070208 - PCReport -2030 Comp Plan Update.doc
Page 4 of 5
Upon official adoption, the City is technically required to amend the official controls (i.e.
ordinances) within nine months to bring the City ordinances into conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan. While a few tweaks may be needed, significant changes to the zoning and
subdivision ordinances are not anticipated to be needed because there are not significant land use
changes south of Highways 10 and 96. However, the City may want to consider changes beyond
what is required in order to make more effective and responsive ordinances.
When a final plan is selected for the TCAAP property, the Comprehensive Plan will needed to be
amended to reflect the details of the TCAAP plan.
Options
If there are any edits or corrections needed in the Plan, those can be included with the approval.
The Planning Commission is encouraged to provide any minor edits or corrections to staff prior to
the meeting. If you do have any unresolved concerns, please feel free to contact staff prior to the
meeting.
1. Recommend Approval: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 08-021 for the 2030
Comprehensive Plan update.
2. Recommend Approval with Changes: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 08-021
for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update with changes.
3. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 08-021 for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update.
Staff strongly recommends against tabling the Comprehensive Plan update due to the tight timeline
for submitting the Plan to the Metropolitan Council. However, it can be tabled if there is an
outstanding issue that cannot be resolved prior to or at the meeting.
Attachments
A — Comments from the June 19, 2008, Open House and Comments from the Website
B — Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 2, 2008
IIMetro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanninglComprehensive PlanlMemos1070208 - PC Report - 2030 Comp Plan Update.doc
Page 5 of 5
Attachment A
Public Comments
July 2, 2008, Planning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2008, - Public Open House Comments
The following comments were collected at the June 19, 2008, Comprehensive Plan Open
House. The comments are unedited.
■ Sitting benches on hill along crab trees in Lindy's Triangle Park. They were asked
for in 2001 and put in the park plan in 2002 and here it is 6 years later and we still
have nothing to sit on in this park. Will it be in my lifetime?
■ The baseball backstop was removed in 2001 in Lindy's Triangle. It was used, and
people nearby assumed it was to be replaced. Other than a handful of bocce ball
players and Bethel's rugby team's practice, it has turned more into a dog park. How
about something for the children?
■ A little walking/bike trail from behind the shops in "downtown" Arden Hills to the
trails north of Crepeau Park??
■ 4.1 Active Living: Nice Principles. Healthy food restaurant in downtown Arden
Hills.
■ Access to park -n -rides with public transportation to get to downtowns.
■ The City needs to continue to help pay for annual goose round -up on Lake Johanna.
This used to be a much worse problem and could be bad again, if this isn't kept going
and funded properly.
■ It would also be nice to have housing for the down -sizing, able, independent, elderly,
since we like Arden Hills. E.g. — The Holiday Inn site — easy access to shops and
restaurants, and would help "greater downtown Arden Hills" shopping center (Lex.
and Cty. Rd E) to survive and maybe even the restaurant(s).
■ It looks like AH could use more housing for the workers, to help with convenience, a
shorter commute, and savings in fuel.
■ Downtown street lighting looks too retro. Lights similar to New Brighton's would be
an improvement. This may prove to improve the wild night life we used to so enjoy
in downtown Arden Hills.
■ People using bus system and picked up at Pine Tree and County Road E, need a
shelter for rainy and cold days. Could the City request one from MTC and/or help
pay for one?
■ Public Works needs to not put grass clippings in the street when they mow. I. e. —
Johanna Blvd. and Siems Ct. intersection.
■ Make sure that storm sewer and gutter are kept clean of tree debris — more street
sweeping.
■ Use energy saving transportation = electric mini -buses? To save energy in
transporting people within the area/ e.g. from bigger rapid transit buses or rail stop.
■ It's encouraging to see potential manor homes and TCAAP — Hoping for some
apartment buildings also. A place for new families and empty nesters to move to.
■ Let an Indian tribe build a casino on the north end off CO. Rd. J on the worst polluted
soil and let them share profits with the City.
■ TCAAP — Drain storm water ponds to waterways of sufficient size to allow
recreational use such as water skiing. Eliminate center road and expand ponds, they
would be large enough to ski in.
■ I'm hoping for TCAAP and/or B-2 Gen. Bus. District to include apartments (at all
price levels) and manor homes, townhomes. Somewhere for "new to the area"
families and empty nesters to move to.
■ We need to courage upscale shopping, road improvements, curb appeal, upscale
restaurant, and more local city meeting areas.
■ We need to get more city involvement in city businesses.
■ The newsletter is useless.
■ We need to move the City further north, to less congestion.
2
First Name:
gerald
Last Name:
garner
Address 1:
4652 prior ct.
Address 2:
City:
arden hills
State:
mn
Zip:
55112
Phone 1:
(651) 635-0672
Phone 2:
Email:
kayjer@usfamily.net
Email (confirm):
kayjer@usfamily.net
2008 Comprehensive
use land north of highway 10
Plan Comments::
for service road.
Date:
7/22/2007 2:59:44 PM
Options:
Yes, please add my name to the mailing list.
LAM
Listed on this screen is a
summary of the
information submitted to
your online form (pulling
information from the first
three fields of the form).
To view the complete
information for each
individual record, click
"View" next to that
record. Then click the
"Back" button to return to
the download functions.
If you want to download
the information for all
your records, choose
either tab or comma
delimited format and
click the "Download
Data" link next to it. A
new browser window will
pop-up and you will be
prompted to determine
where you would like to
download the information
to and what you would
like to name the file.
Comma -delimited and
tab -delimited formatted
files can be used by a
number of software
applications including
Microsoft Word,
Microsoft Excel and
Microsoft Access.
1 of 1 6/26/2008 10:19 AM
First Name:
Last Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip:
Phone 1:
Phone 2:
jill
kerns
1355 eide circle
arden hills
mn
55112
(651) 636-8705
Email:
jillf @hotmail.com
Email (confirm):
jillf @hotmail.com
2008 Comprehensive
What are the plans for developing/
Plan Comments::
selling the land the Armory is on
currently ?thanks !Jill
Date:
12/11/2007 2:29:25 PM
Options:
Yes, please add my name
to the mailing list.
Listed on this screen is a
summary of the
information submitted to
your online form (pulling
information from the first
three fields of the form).
To view the complete
information for each
individual record, click
"View" next to that
record. Then click the
"Back" button to return to
the download functions.
If you want to download
the information for all
your records, choose
either tab or comma
delimited format and
click the "Download
Data" link next to it. A
new browser window will
pop-up and you will be
prompted to determine
where you would like to
download the information
to and what you would
'like to name the file.
Comma -delimited and
tab -delimited formatted
files can be used by a
number of software
applications including
Microsoft Word,
Microsoft Excel and
Microsoft Access.
1 Of 1 6/26/2008 10:18 AM
1 ®f 2 6/26/2008 10:19 AM
Listed on this screen is a
First Name:
Jerry
summary of the
Last Name:
Guzi
information submitted to
Address 1:
1266 Nursery Hill Lane
your online form (pulling
Address 2:
information from the first
three fields of the form).
City:
Arden Hills
To view the complete
State:
mn
information for each
Zip:
p
55112
individual record, click
View next to that
Phone 1:
(612) 910-3083
record. Then click the
Phone 2:
(651) 635-9396
"Back" button to return to
Email:
pguzi@earthlink.net
the download functions.
Email (confirm):
pguzi@earthlink.net
If you want to download
I have a comment regarding the city
the information for all
plan,especially the TCAAP development
your records, choose
and how it will impact every homeowner
either tab or comma
north of hwy 694,including myself.lts no
delimited format and
mystery that hamline ave is the exclusive
click the "Download
residential road ,along with its
Data" link next to it. A
tributaries.) want the city administrators
new browser window will
to keep this in mind and find ways to
pop-up and you will be
minimize the impact this development
prompted to determine
will have on our quality of life.hamline
where you would like to
ave already is under way too much
download the information
duress with traffic, noise, and safety for
to and what you would
my family and the kids.the spped limit is
like to name the file.
way too fast at 40 mph,) would like to
see it at 30 mph.lts ridiculous at certain
Comma -delimited and
times of the day for me to access
tab -delimited formatted
Hamline already due to excessive traffic
files can be used by a
2008
and the excessive speed limit of 40
number of software
Comprehensive mph.The city needs to work with the
applications including
Plan
county and state to have the spped limit
Microsoft Word,
Comments::
lowered to 30 mph.Crosswalks need to
Microsoft Excel and
be at every single sidestreet intersecting
Microsoft Access.
with Hamline ave.The city needs to find
other ways to route to foreseen added
traffic and noise polution to be directed
to other streets,not just
Ham line.Again,Ham line ave is the only
residential or otherwise street going
north to south and will be the burden that
the TCAAP development will
affect..Currently,only 1 council member
lives in this quadrant of the city,and
judging by the voting under the previous
mayoral administration(Beverly's),Im not
confident that council members living in
other quadrants of this city will have any
interest in my quadrant..My quadrant will
feel the impact of this development,and
1 ®f 2 6/26/2008 10:19 AM
Site Administration
http://www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us/admin/index.asp?DE=&SEC=IBD...
money needs to be invested in my
quadrant to improve my quality of life
and protect my home value.While you're
at it.lower hwy 96 speed limit to 40
mph ... I can be reached at the above
phone numbers if anyone on our council
doesnt "get it",and III be happy to meet
with them to discuss issue„Thank
you,Jerry Guzi
Date: 6/10/2008 4:25:16 PM
Options:
No, do not add my email address to the mailing list.
. .............
............
2 of 2 6/26/2008 10:19 AM
Attachment B
DRAFT 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Due to the length of the Comprehensive Plan document,
not all copies of this memo will include a copy.
A free copy can be downloaded on the City's
website at www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us/compplan/ or
can be viewed at City Hall.
i
Ei�I HILLS
July 2, 2008, Planning Commission Meeting
Although the new Comprehensive Plan is much kinder to the Arden
Manor community than the 1998 Comp Plan, there is still much room
for improvement. It just doesn't seem to be sensitive to the plight of
our residents. The new Comp Plan sees Arden Manor as an
"important supply of affordable housing." We're not a commodity, we
are a community!
Duane Sheaser and I attended all the Comp Plan community
meetings. There was a lot of discussion about what we wanted for
the future for Arden Hills. Many talked of bike paths and green areas,
a transit system, park and ride areas, community centers, etc. There
was no talk of affordable housing.
Arden Manor is the only affordable housing in Arden Hills, which is
far behind on its commitment to build affordable housing units. Were
it not for Arden Manor, Arden Hills would have little to no affordable
housing units. I think much more effort and discussion should be
expended in striving to maintain Arden Manor. Much progress has
been made since 1998, when the concensus was "it is anticipated
this area will be considered for redevelopment." Most of this progress
has been made in the last year when Arden Hills discovered that
there are actually people living in this community and they care about
their homes and their neighborhoods.
The 2008 Comp Plan touches on "affordable housing units." For
single family homes, I believe the prices start out at -around $250,000
{TCAAP). This is not affordable housing for many, many people.
Townhomes are mentioned. For many this is nothing but expensive,
glorified apartment living. Though many may not like it, manufactured
housing is perfect for many others. It is affordable home ownership. It
affords the privacy of a single family dwelling. The small yards are a
bonus. for senior citizens who like taking care of a yard, but have
downsized to something manageable.
Instead of Arden Manor being the main "supplier" of truly affordable
housing, perhaps more attention should be paid to the next "supply"
and where it will come from.
Thank you
I
Itm,
-.--ARPEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 2, 2008 PC Agenda Item S.A
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Meagan Beekman, Planner 1
SUBJECT: City Council Planning Case Update
The City Council did not review any Planning related cases at their June 9, 2008, meeting.
g
The City Council met on June 23, 2008 at a work session to review the TCAAP work Plan and
Schedule and to discuss the residential component of the development.
The City Council reviewed the following Planning related cases at their June 30 2008 meeting.
g
At the time of this publication, the Council meeting had not yet occurred and the outcome of the
planning related cases was unknown.
PC# 08-017 Zoninp, Code Amendment — Ground Mounted Structures for Antenna
Equipment
At their June 4, 2008, meeting the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of
the zoning code changes regarding cellular antenna equipment located at City water tower sites.
Other Planning Related Updates
The B-2 Steering Committee continues to meet regularly. Their last meeting was on Wednesday,
June 25t'. Topics at the meetings so far have covered visioning for the area existing conditions,
traffic conditions, a market study, land use, and urban design. Presentations and minutes from
previous meetings, as well as schedules for future meetings are available on the City's website
and, as always, the meetings are open to the public.
The Old City Hall site discussion will be going before the City Council at their work session in
August. At that meeting they will be reviewing and commenting on a draft RPP that will then be
shared at a public meeting at a later date. Specific dates have not yet been decided.
City of A7 -den Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 2, 2008
\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Commission\CC Reports\070208 - PC report - CC report.doc
Page 1 of I
Planning Case 08-005 for a Preliminary and Final Plat of the Traverse Business Center has been
delayed once again due to scheduling conflicts and negotiations over the park dedication fee. It
is anticipated that this item will come before the City Council at their July 14= 2008, meeting.
Attached to this report is an article from the Star Tribune regarding good gardening practices that
lead to better water quality. The property owner highlighted in the article is an Arden Hills
resident who lives on Lake Josephine. This type of Lawn care maybe something we want to look
into promoting with the upcoming Shoreland Management Ordinance updates.
Cite of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 2, 2008
`a\!/Ietro-inet_us\ardenhills\PlanningTianning Commission\CC Reports\070208 - PC report - CC report.doc
Page 2 of 1
tj
cu
(U 2
u 4-A Cud
Enp
04
u z ca - o y .-. a 'tY
2C
. U �' of a� ` " o
lc:a
j,,,� /�'� ice--{! 0
O C) >1
>1 cr y o �p o w
3 a cv +� �, to �0 -� o O U� 0
n P4
G�pq z� -U v a`
oG A o o p a
U
43 - � . U U 't r Qj <is
c O 4ZO
U Wim:
�...
,.0 s En w s
ton mo 0
C14
t,7�
ul bA'+ o "Nby CIS +UU-,
� .� 0
'10 P..4
I cl btC;,ca
�U
tq�
, aD q 4-0 G to ;4 A
p cC vi U Q 2
p v}p
Ei
cn
10 cn 'O U m vi V N )L4
C'a
o�, � vs o Ln ;-4 -1
UN u p
O Z; c'�i3 , 4-.- OA .O C;4 E -
p 0 �
Cd
bA cn G U
4-0
O
CZ O 4- p U13 -49
4.1
i o bb '"
C �7 +-� Q o m
-11 Cid * 9
cry .t1 cl in
0 ��. O
(V U cl 0A Ulu
E
cu gul, v
Q4 -J
o"1 0
o
c13
W2�
v
o
a 0 'o
¢ % cu
4 -Vi
c� x
v
A � P14
v�
o ss,
0 0
Q
o
1-4
� � o
cqUO
O
• -
O `s
z;
• cit cCS C4 t
Photos by MARIA ELENA BACA - rnbaca@startribune_com
Native plants thrive in Gustafson"s shoreline garden near a sculpture site recently received for her birthday_
� Safer water can start in back yard
-f GARDEN FROM AA1
The model the district uses to estimate
lake contamination has Locke Lake, at the
southern end of Rice Creek, at U5 micro-
grams of phosphorous per liter of lake wa-
ter, compared to Turtle Lake, not part of
the Rice Creek chain,
- ; which is estimated at
I
_ 21 micrograms per li-
ter, according to Matt
Kocian, take and
t stream specialist for
�i
s= the district_ Ile en-
:= < tire Rice Creek wa-
tershed drains
in-
to Locke Lake, while
the `hurtle Lake wa-
Dawn Gustafson tershed is only a fear
square miles, he said.
Excess nutrients in the water lead to
a domino effect of harm to lake ecolo-
gy. Phosphorous leads to algae blooms,
which can lead to temperature changes
in the water and block sunlight to native
aquatic plants. And the bacterial depletion
of oxygen that comes when algae die can
kill fish .and insects, he said.
Pape's outreach program, Blue Thumb
Planting for Clean Water, helps homeown-
ers and gardeners, through its website and
Prairie Smoke is just hushing its bloommi g
season.
live workshops, to choose and place native
plants to falter rainwater and prevent ero-
sion. Blue Thumb will partially fund some
projects. This year, the district had $22,500
each for projects in Anoka, Ramsey and
Washington counties. Future funding will
depend on residents' demand_
Since its inception four years ago, Blue
Thumb has garnered 46 public, private and
nonprofit partners. Since February, it has
sponsored at least 45 workshops, educat-
ing thousands of people about preserving
clean water through mindful gardening.
Visits to the website, wwwbluethumb.org,
have doubled since this time last year.
"This program has just taken off like a
BLUE THUMB PLANTING
FOR CLEAN NATER
For more information, go to
www.bluethu-mb.org. Grants are ad-
ministered by county conservation
districts.
other watershed districts
may offer dean -water gardening
grants. For help finding a district,
go to www-cleanwaten- n.org or
www. mnwatershed_org_
prairie fare," nape said_ "it's wonderful that
people are seeing the value in it."
Pape looked across Gustafson's garden_
"If everyone did this we would have such
better water quality," she said_
During last summer's drought, Cus-
tafson's garden bloomed while the lawn
died. Although her planning, planting
and maintenance four seasons ago were
intense, she said now the established ar-
eas need tittle upkeep. She only has to do
a .spring cut-back and weed out seedlings
from a nearby tree.
"It would be truly no maintenance if I
didn't keep adding to it," she said, laughing.
Maria Elena Baca - 612-573-4409
an`
to S
ably
By Ni.
smeU
In
dete
the
Cord-
look
ordlook
land
fuse
the 1
face,
of tl
er, t
wan
the
aggf
It
id
cor(
sior
rag(
all
tho:
rue(
con
f
its
WW
Voll
26
ily
tali
201
E:
A
A
A
Il
M
th(-
rni
24
er!
lic