HomeMy WebLinkAbout4B, Planning Case #11-014 for a Variance at 1145 Amble Drive�
EN HLLLS
Request for Council Ac�ion
I
Prepared By: Meagan Beekman, City Planner � Cauncil Meeting Date: July 25, 2Q11
Approve Planning Case #11-014 for a Variance at 1145 Am�le Drive
Budgeted Amount: Acfual Amount: Fur�ding Source:
NA NA NA
Recommendation:
Approve Planning Case 11-014 for a Variance at 1145 Ambl� Drive, based on the findings of
faci and the sub�itted plans, as amended by the fve conditions in the July 25, 2011, report to the
City Council.
Sunno�rtxn� Dacuments:
1. Memorandum frarn Meagan Beek�ax�, City Planner.
2. July 6, 201 l, Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
3. July 6, 2011, Report to the Planning Commission —
htt :/lwww.ci.arden-hills.mn.usl lannin case
�
EN HILLS
MEMOItANDUM
DATE: July 25, 2011
TO: Honorahle Mayor and City Council Members
Patrick Klaers, City Administrator
FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case #11-014 -� Not a Public Hearing
Applicant: Bryan Lillehaugen
Property Location: 1145 Amble Drive
Request: Variance
Repuested Action
Motion to Approve Planning Case ll-014 far a Variance at 1145 Amble Drive, Based an tl�.e
Findings of Fact and the Sub�itted Plans, as Amended by the Five Conditions in the July 25,
2011, R�port to the City Council.
Back�round
The applicant is the owner of ihe home at 1145 Amble Drive. The property is �ocated in the R-1
District, and is a corner lot. The existing home is setback appxoximately 40 feet from the front
property line, which abuts Amble Drive, and 30 feei from the side property line, which abuts
Pleasant Drive. The existzng home is a noncon%rming structure because the curreni Zaning
Code requires a 40-%ot setback from both property lines abufting public streets on a corner lot.
The home was constructed in 1979, a.nd the original building permit indicates that the hame was
conforming when it was built, meaning that the City's ordinance for corner �ots has been
amended since that time.
The applicants are requesting a variance io consiruct a 408 square foot additian. The single-story
addition v�rould extend 24 feet off the rear of the garage, and fill in the eastern corner of ihe
existing home. The addition would not decrease any of the existing setbacks of the pz�ncipal
City of Arden Hills
Ciry Council Meeting for July 25, 2011
1': IPlanninglPlanning Cases12011111-014 -1145.4mble Drrve - i�ariance -(PC ApprovedJl07-25-11 - CC Report.rloc
Page 1 of 4
struciure. Whil� the addition would remain in line with the existir�g setbacks of the home, a
variance is required because the property currently encroaches ten feet inio the 40-foot side yard
setback, as would the addition. The praposed addi�z�n wouId meei a11 other setback
requirements.
The applicant has submitted a letter addressing the variance criieria, an aer�al of the property
with the addition drawn in, and elevaiions of the proposed addition (Attachment B).
Variance Evaluation Criteria
On May S, 2011, the Governor signed into law new variance legislation that changed the review
criieria City's must use when evaluating variance requests. The new law renames the municipal
variance standard from "undue hardsl�p" to "practical di�ficulties," but otherwise retains the
�atniliar three-factor iest of (1} reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. Also
included is a sentence new to ciry variance authoriry tihat was already in the county statutes:
"Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the ordinance and when ihe terms of the variance are consistent with ihe comprehensive
pian."
Therefoxe, in evaluating variance requests uander the new law, in ord�r ta find a practical
difficulty, cities should adapt findings addxessing the following quesiions:
• Is the variance in harmony with the purposes axid intent of the ordinance`?
• Is the variance consistent tivith the comprehensive plan?
• Does the proposal put propez�ty ta use in a reasonable manner?
• Are ihere unique circumstances to the property not created by �he landowner?
• Will the variance, i� granted, alter the essential cha�acter of the localiiy?
As vcras the case before the new legislation took effect,
constituie a practical difficulty. Furthex�nore, the new
imposed on granting of variances i� those conditions ar
proportionaliiy to the i�npact created by the variance.
Findin s of Fact
econo�ic consideratians alone cannot
law clarifi�s that conditions may be
e directly related to and bear a rough
The Planning Cammission offers the following thirteen findings of fact for revier�v:
General Findings
1. The lot size meeis the requirements of the R-1 Zoning District.
2. The loi meets the width and depth requirements for the R-1 Zonrng District.
3. The property is a corner Iot.
City ofArden Halls
Crty Council Meeting for July .25, 2011
P:1PlannirrglPlanning Cases120114I1-014 -1145.4m61e Drive - Y¢riance -(PC ApprovedJ 107-25-11 - CC Reporf.doc
Page 2 af 4
4. The applicant is proposing a�O8 square foot addition to the rea�r a� th.e �ome, which
would encroach 10 feei into the 40-foot required side yard setback for corner lots.
5. The proposed addition mee#s a.11 other zonzng and setback req�ixemenfis for principal
structures in the R-1 Zoning District.
6. The pxopased addition is o�tside of ihe 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easerr�ents.
7. Tree xeznoval for the proposed garage would not require any mitigation under the Tree
Preservation Ordinance.
Va�iance Findings:
S. The variance would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City's ordinance
because the request �ninimizes the impact of the addition by maintaining the homes
existing setbacks.
9. The variance would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan because it meets
the City's housing goal of encouraging redeve�opment that is complimentary to and
enhances the character of the City's e�tablished neighborhoods.
10. The variance request would put the praperty to use in a reasonab�e manner because
single-family homes are a reasonable use in the R-1 District, and the addition would
maintain the horne's existing seibacks.
11. The property is unique in the City because it is a corner lot, and the home was
conforming when it wa� constructed. The practical difficulty was not creaied by the
landowner, but rather �he Czty when the Zoning Code was amended ta require a 40-foot
setback on corner lots. Had the Zoning Code nat been amended by the City, the proposal
would not require a variance.
12. The proposal will not alter the essential character of ihe neighi�orhood because it is a
sma1� addition, which wouid znaintain the existing home's seibacks.
13. The constr�.ctian and location of the garage is not based on economic considerations
alone, because the hameowner has increased their expense in order to minimize t�e size
of the addition that requires a variance, and enlarge another portion of the honne �at does
not require a variance.
Recommendafion
The Plannin.g Commission unani�nously recominends appraval of Planning Case 11-014 far a
variance at i 145 Arnble Drive, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended
by the following five conditions:
1. The projecfi shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by
the candrtions of approval. Any significant changes ta t�iese plans, as determined by
the City Planner, sha11 require review and appraval by ihe Planning Commission.
2. The applicant shatl use best management practices (BMPs) to control exosion ai all
times during canstructian.
3. The structure shall confarm to aIl ather rege�lations in the City Code.
City ofArden Hills
City Council Meeting for July 25, 2011
P: IPlanninglPlanning Cctsesl2011111-014 -1145�1mble Drive - Yariance -(PC�lpproved)107-25-1I - CCReport.doc
Page 3 of 4
4. The addition shall amatch the calor and architectural styling of the rest of the primary
structure.
5. The applicant shall obtain approval or a waiver from the Rice Creek Watershed
District prior to the issuance of any building permits.
oAti�ps
1. Approve the propasal as submitted.
2. Approve the proposal with conditions.
3. Deny the application with reasons %r denial. Ii the City denies the petitioners request, ". .. ii
rnust state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time it denies ihe requesi."
�. Table for addiiional information.
The f ndings of fact in this plaruiing case report support approval of ihe variance requesi. If the
City Council chooses to deny �he variance, findings that support this motion nnust be stated for
the recard prior ta voting on the nnotion.
Deadline for A�encv Actions
Tl�e City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on 7une 23, 2011.
Pursuax�t to Minnesota State Statute, the City rnust act on this request by Augttst 22, 2011 (6Q
days), tuiless the City provic�es the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day
review period. The City may extend the review pe�iod beyonc�. the 120 daps, with the applicant's
permission.
Attach�nents
A— July 6, 2011, Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
B�- July 6, 201 I, Report to the Planz�ing Commission
htip :ll www. ci. ardenhi 1� s.�an. n. us/p 1 anningcas e
City of.4rden Hills
City Council Meeting for July 25, 2011
P:1PlanninglPlanning Gases12011411-014 - 1145.4mble Drive - Yariance -(PC,4ppraved)107-25-11 - CC Reporl.doc
Page 4 of 4
Attachment
June 6, 2 011, Draft Planning
Commission Minutes
The P�.anning Commission voted unanimously to approve �khe
application.
�
-�n� �.�s
City aftlyden Hills
Ciry Councrl Meeting for April ZS, 2011
June 6, 201. �, Draft P�anning Commissian Minutes
Planning Case 11-014; Variance; Sryan Liliehaugen; 1145 Amble Drive — Not a Puhlic
Hearing
City Planner Meagan Beekman stated the applicant has requested a variance to construct
a 408 square foot addition in the rear and side yard of the home located at 1145 Amble
Drive. The structure would encroach ten feet in the required side yard setback of 40-feet.
She provided additional background information.
City Planner Beekman stated Staff affers flie following findings o£ fact %r this proposal:
General Findings:
1. The Iot size meets fihe requirements of the R-1 District.
2. The lat meets the width and dept reqniremen�s for ihe R-1 District.
3. The property is a corner lot.
4. The applicant is proposing a 408 square foot addition to the rear af the home, which
would encroach 14-feet into th� 40-foot required side yard setback for corner lots.
5. The proposed additian meets all ather zaning and setback requirements far principal
structures in the R-1 Zoning District.
6. The proposed addition is outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and
easements.
7. Tree removai for the proposed garage would not require any mitigatio� under the
Tree Preservation Ordinance.
Variance Findings:
8. The variance would be in harmony with the purpose and intent oi the City's
ordinance because the request minimizes tkae impact of the addition by maintai�ing
the homes existing seibacks.
9. The variance would be consisteni with the Ciiy's Compreher�sive Plan because it
meets the City's housing goal of encouraging redevelopment that is complimentary to
and enhances ihe character of the City's established neighborhoods.
10. The variance request vvould put ihe pxoperty to use in the R-1 District, at�d the
additian would maintain the home's existing setbacks.
11. The property is unique in the City because it is a corner lot, and the home was
con%rming when it was consiructed. The practical difficulty was not creaied by th�
landowner, but rather by the City wher� the Zoning Cade was amended to require a
40-foot setback on corner lats. Had the Cify not amended the Zoning Code, the
proposal would not require a va�riance.
12. The proposal will not alter the essential character of the neighbarhood because it is a
small addition, which would maintain the exisiing harne's setbacks.
13. The constr�ction and location of the garage is not based on economic cansiderations
alone, because the homeawner has increased their expense in order to zninimize the
size of ihe addition that requires a variance, and enlarge another portion of the home
that hoes not require a variance.
Ciiy Pianner Beekman stated the findings of fact for this variance support a
recom�nendation fox approval. If the Planning Com�nission recommends approval of ihe
variance, Sta�f xeconr�mends the following five cond�tions:
1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans as amended by
the canditions af approval. Any signif cant changes to these plans, as determined by
the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission.
2. The applicant shall use best management practices {BMPs) to contxol erosion at all
times during constructian.
3. The struct�re sha11 conform to all other regulations in the City Code.
4. The addition sha11 match the color and architectural styling of the rest of the primary
siruct�re.
5. The applicant shall obtain appraval or a waiver from the Rice Creek Watershed
District prior to the issuance of any building penmits.
Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner conunents.
Commissiouer Holewa moved and Commissioner Thompson seconded a�otion �o
xecoanmend a roval of Plannin Case 11-014"'__._,.
for a variance at 1145 Amble Drive
based on the �ndin�s of fact and the submitted nlans, as amended bv the five
conditions in the July 6, 2011, repart fo the PlanninE Commissior�. Tl�e motion
carried unanimousIv (4-U�. � ..
Attachment
June 6, 2�11, Report to the Planning
Commission
�
�3EN HILLS
Ciry of�irden Hills
City Council Meeting for April 25, 2011