HomeMy WebLinkAbout4B Approve PC 08-012 for 1381 Floral Drive Variances�
EN HILLS
Request for Council Action
Prepared By: Meagan Beekman
_..�_�_..... _
_._ .. �.�.
Dept.: Community Development
Council Mtg. Date' 04-28-08
Final Action Needed By: 05-12-08
__ .....................................
Budgeted Amount
Actual Amount:
Funding 5ource:
... .......... - -----
oiEon to Approve Planning Case OB-012 for Two Variartces at 1381 Floral nrive, Based on the Findings
Amended by the Five Gonditions in the ApriE 28, 2008, Report to the City Council.
Approve Planning Case 08-U12 for Two Variances at 1381 Floral Drive, Based on the Findings
by the Five Conditions in fhe April 28, 20Q8, Report to the City Council.
MemolLetter;
_ ......,. __ ...
Resolution No.:
.. _ _...._ .,,....�.- -------
Ordinance No
---- _ _._..
Engineering Recommendation:
Attorney Recommendation:
Other.
April 28, 2008, Memo to the City Council
_ - _ _....,.. . ---
A• Draft Planning Commission Minutes from April
B: Plannir��7 Case Report 08-012.
Plans, as
�
�
Plans, as
_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _
�
-�i .R�EN�HILLs .
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 2$, 20Q8
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Meagan Beekman, Plant�er I
SUBJECT: Pianning Case #OS-b12
Variance
Grant Dattilo
1381 Floral Drive
Request
IVlotion to Approve Plannirig Case 08-012 for Two Variances at 1381 Floral Drive, Based on the
Findings of �act and the Sub�nitted Plans, as Amended by the Five Conditians in the April 28,
2008, Report to the Ci�y Council.
Background
The applicant owns the dwelling at 1831 Flora� Drive, which is a located in the R-1 Zoning
District. It has an attached single stall garage. The existing honr�e is currently non-conforming.
It currently encroaches four feet inio the required 40 foot front yard setbaci�. The west side of
the existing dwelli�g is setback 21 feet from the side property line. The east side of the home is
setback four feet fram the side property Iine. The applicant is proposing to construct an
additional garage stall on the west side, creating a two-s�all garage. The proposed side setback
on this side would be reduced from 21 feet down to ten feet. The City's Zoning Code requires a
minimum te�. foot side yard setback in the R-1 Zone. Whil� the proposed project meets this
regulation, the combined side yard setbacks would be reduced from 25 feet, which currently
meets code, down to fourteen feet.
In additioz�, the existing garage steps back approxinnately two feet from the front of the house,
and encroaches two feet in to the front yard setback. The garage addition would maintain the
City of�Irden Hills
City Council Meeting for April .28, 2008
IlAaetro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanninglPdanningCases12008108-012Dattilo variance{PC.4ppraved)1042808-CCReport-Datillo [�ariance.rloc
Page 1 of4
___ _ _
cu;rirent front yard setback of the existing garage of 3$ feet. A variance is required in order to
extend the iwo foot front yard encroachment along the front of the garage addition.
The praposed addition would not increase #he front setback encroaclunent of the existing
dwelling. The rest ofi the dwelling and attached garage would rer�ain unchanged. Both
variances are contingent upon one another.
The home was constructed in 1973. The original building permit showed the home situated
closer to the center of the lot wiih side yard setbacks �hat would meet the requirements of the
current code. It appears thai the actual construction of the home diverged from the approved
plan.s, as the existing dwelling is situated differently than the original plans. Had the home been
built as approved it would have anet the required side yard setbacks; howe�ver, as it is, the
existing dwelling encroaches into the side yard setback to the east. There is no record that the
actual construction of the dwelling was approved by the City. There are no l�own variance
requests on file far this praperty.
The applicant has submitted a letter addressing the variance criteria, a letter from a contractor
ouilining the reasons that the rear yard is unbuildable, a site plan of the property, elevations of
the existing and proposed structure, and photographs of the exis�ing dwelling (Attachment B).
Findin s of Fact
The Planning Com�ission offers the following seventeen findings of fact for review:
GeneYal Findings
I. The lot size meets the requirements of the R-1 Zoning District.
2. The lot does not meet the width requirexz�ents of the R-1 Zoning District.
3. The existing dwelling does not meet all property line setbacks. The existing dwelling is
four feet from the side pxoperty line and encroaches four feet in#o the front yard setback.
4. The proposed a�ditio� would meet the ten foot minimum side yard setback, bui reduce
ihe combined side yard setback requirement from 25 feet down to fourteen %et.
5. The proposed addition would encroach two feet into the front yard setback. While this
would not decrease the existing structure's setback, a variance is required because the
footprint of tk�.e home within the encroachment i� increasing.
6. The proposed additio� does not encroach on the rear setback.
7. The structure coverage meets Zoning Code requirements.
8. The minimum landscape area require�nen�s meet Zoning Code regulations.
9. The dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height limit.
10. The existing home was not built according to approved plans.
11. Garages are permitted structures within the R-1 Zone.
City oft4rden Hills
City Councii Meeting for �lpril 28, 2008
11Metro-inet.uslardenhilfslPlanninglPlanningCasesl200810�-p12Dat1ilo Variance{PC.4pprovedJ1042808-CCReporL-Datillo �ariance.doc
Page 2 af 4
_ _ _ __ _
12. The existing dwelling and the proposed addition are outside of the 100-year flood plain,
wetlands, and easements.
T/ariance Findings:
13. A garage is a reasonable us� within the R-1 Zone.
14. The high water table in the rear yard is a unique feature of the lot since ii makes
alternative locations for the two-siall garage impractical.
15. The circumstances of the property were not created by the Iandowner.
lb. It is unlikely th� proposed addition would have a z�egative impact on the property or the
neighborhood.
17. The proposed plans and setback variance for the dwelling do not appear to be based on
econornic considerations alone.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval {6�0) of Planning Case 08-01.2
for two vaz-:iances at 1381 �loral Drive, based on the Findings of Fact and the submitted plans, as
amended by ihe following �ve conditions:
].. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by
the conditions of approval. Any signi#'icant changes to these plans, as determined by
the City Planner, shall require review and approval by tne Planning Commission.
2. The applicant shall use best management practices (BMPs) to contro� erosion at all
tzmes during construction.
3. The applicant shall obtain approval or a waiver from the Rice Creek Watershed
District prior to the issuance of any building permits.
4. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in ihe City Code.
5. The addition wi11 match the color and siding of the rest of the primary structure.
OA�IOIIS
l.. Approve the proposal as submitted.
2. Approve the proposal with conditians.
3. Deny the application with reasons for denial. If the City denies the petitioners request, "...it
must state in writing the reasons �or the denial at the time it denies the request."
4. Table for adtlitional information.
The findings of fact in this planning case report support appzoval of ihe variance request. If the
City Council chooses to deny the variance, iindings that deny the variance �x�ust be stated far the
record prior to voting on the motion.
City of.4rden Hills
City Council Meeting for,4pril Z8, 2008
11Metro-ined.uslarrlenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases120081Q8-012 Dattilo Variance (PCApproved)1042808 - CCReport - Datillo YRriance.doc
Page 3 of �4
Deadline for A�ency Actions
The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on March 12, 2008.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Stahxte, the City must act an this request by May 12, 2008 (60 days),
unless tihe City provides the petitioner with written reasans for an additianal 60 day review
period. The City may with the petitioners' consent extend the review period beyond the 120
days.
Attachments
A Draft Planning Con2mission Meeting Minutes
B April 2, 2Q08, Report to the Planning Commission —
ht�//www.ci.arden-hills.znn.us/planningcase
City of,4rden Hills
CityCouncillYleetingfor�tpral2&, 2008
11Metf•o-inet.uslardenhillslPlttnninglPlanning Cnses12008408-012 Dat[ilo variance (PCApproverl)1042808 - CCReport - IJatillo Vdnrrnce.rloc
Page 4 of 4
_ _. ....
_
Attachment
Planning Commission
M�eting Minutes:
� Aprl� 2� 2 O O$(dz�aft)
Apri128, 2008, City Council Meeting
Draft Minutes — Apri12, 2008, Planning Co�nmission Meeting
PLANNING CASE # 08-012 — VARIANCE; GRANT DATTILO; 1381 FLORAL
DRIVE �.� �
Ms. Beekman reported ihat the applicant subrnitted a request for two variances to
construct a 253 square foot addition to tlze garage on the west side oi the dwelling
at 13 S 1 Flaral Drive, creating a two-stall garage. The proposed garage addition
would encroach two feet into the required front yard setbacic and reduce the
combined side yard setbacks from 25 feet down to fourteen feet. She then
provided background information and said the findings of fact do not specifically
support a recommendation for denial or approval. She stated that if the Planning
Commission recommends approval, Staff recommends the following five
conditions.
1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as
amenc�ed by the conditions of approvaL Any significant changes to these
p1ans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and appz-oval by
the Planning Commission.
2. The applicant shall use best management practices (BMPs) to conirol erosion
at all times during constructioz�.
The applicant sha11 obtain approval or a waiver from the Rice Creek
Watershed District prior to the issuance of any building permits.
4. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code.
5. The addition will match the color and siding of the rest of the primary
structure.
Chair Larson inquired if there was a walk-out to the rear of the property. Ms.
Beekman stated that there was.
Chair Larson inquired if the high water table zs in the backyard. Ms. Beekman
stated that it is.
Chair Larson opened the floor to Commission questions.
Commissioner Holewa inquired about the drop-off in the back of the property.
Ms. Beekmaz� stated she thinks ii is about 10 fee�.
Commissioner Holewa inquired if the driveway will curve in the front yard and if
theze will be a second story on the garage. Ms. Beekman stated ihat her
z�nderstanding is that there won't be a floor on the second stoxy, but the window is
there for aesthetic purposes.
Cornrnissioner Holewa inquired about the height. Ms. Beekman stated that it
would meet the code regulations and could be up to two stories. She stated that
she has not seen cons�ruction clrawings io know the exact heighi.
Chair Larson inquired if there is a dit`ference between a dwelling area and a
garage in proximity to the lot 1ine. Ms. Beekman stated that there is not.
Chair Larson clazified that as it is proposed it is a single �tory struct�ire with a
higher roof line. Ms. Beekrxzan stated that is correct.
Chair Larsan inquired about �sing the upper area far storage. Ms. Beekrrian
stated that it is lilcely that there would be rafters for storage.
Commissioner Modesette inquired about the location of the garage that had been
planned in the backyard and wasn't built and if there were any soil borings done.
Ms. Beekman demonstrated the proposed location of the garage that wasn't built,
Commissioner Modesette stated that it is surprising that this structure vvas built
and an addition directly on to it could not be constructed.
Commissioner Stodola inquired if there are any proposed changes to the house.
Ms. Beelcman sta�ed the applicant is proposing to place new siding and do some
other construciion wozk, �ut nothing that would require anything except building
permits.
Coznmissioner Holewa inquired about ianpervious surfacing. Ms. Beekman staied
that the lot is large, but the addition wouldn't cause the impervious surfacing to
go beyond the code. She stated the ca�culation is not in the report.
Cominissioner Zimmerman inquired about the applicant's plazis.
Grant Dattilo, 1381 Floral Drive, stated that ihere will be storage above the rafters
in the garage and the siding will be done on the entire house. He stated he
contacted the previous contractors about the addition and the contractor explained
that since the back of the house is so much lower, water con�inued to flow in
during construction, and so the project was abandoned.
Coxnmissioner Holewa inquired if Mr. Dattilo plans to live at the residence. Mr.
Dattilo stated that he does plan to Iive there.
Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Holewa, to
recornmend approval of Planning Case #08-012 for two variances at 1381 Floral
Drive based on the finding of fact, the submitted plans, a,�d the fve conditions as
iisted in staff's April 2, 2008, planning case report. The proposed addition is a
reasonable use in the R-1 Zone; the proposed addition r�vill not alter the essential
character of �he neighborhood or the City; the circuinstances in this planning case
are unique to the property because oi the high water table in the backyard that
necessitate building the garage additian on the side of the house; and the variance
is not based on economic considerations alone.
Commissioner Holewa stated he isn't st�re tt�at the second story garage fits all of
the criteria. He inquired about the other Planning Cornmissioner's tiiougk�ts.
Chair Larson clarz�ied that there isn't a second story in the garage. He stated he
would be in favor of the two stall garage because it is common.
Commissioner Modeset�e stated she favoxs fihe proposal because it is an
izx�provement. She stated that because ofthe substandard size of the existing lot at
85 f�ei ii is difficult to meet alI of the standards.
Commissioner Thompson stated she would support this because of the high water
table and the previous comments.
Commis�ianer Holewa siated thai as he understands it, the house wasn't placed in
the proper location. He stated tl�at if it were, the application wouldn't be here.
Chair Larson stated that there are a large number of kouses wiih a similar
satuation.
Commissioner Stodola inquired i£ the addition of the garage would still meet the
10 foot minirr�um side yard setback. Ms. Beelctnan stated that it vcrould still meet
the minitnum requirements.
Chair Larson stated that the front yard setbacl� would not change.
The motion carried unanimously {6-0}.
This Planning Case will be reviewed at the Monday, Apri128, 2008, City Council
meeting.
Attachment
Apri12, 2 0 o S,
Report to the P�anning Commission
Available online at:
htt�//www. ci.arden-hills.mn. us
April 2$, 2048, City Council Meeting