HomeMy WebLinkAbout4C, Approve Planning Case #11-015 for a Site Plan Review at 375�
-74�EN HILLS
Request for Council Action
Prepared By: Mei-Ling Anderson, Co�nmunity Council Meeting Date: July 25, 2011
Development Intern
Approve Planning Case #I1-01S far a S�te Plan Review at 3759 New Brighton Road
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding So�rce:
NA NA NA
Recommendation:
Approve Planning Case 11-015 for a Site Plan Review ai 3759 New Brighton Road, based on the
findings of fact and the su�6mitted plans, as amended by the seven conditions in the July 25,
2011, report tfl the City Council.
SupAortin� Documents:
1. Memorandum from Mei-Ling Anderson
2. 7uly 6, 2011, Draft Planning Cornmission Meeting Minutes
3. July b, 2011, Report to the Planning Cornmission —
h ://www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us/ lannin case
�
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 25, 20ll
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
�'atrick Klaers, City Administratar
FROM: Mei-Ling Anderson, Communiry Development fntern �
SUBJECT: Planning Case #11-415 — This Request Does Not Require a Public Hearing
Applicant: Marsha and Brian Burgeson
Property Location: 3759 New Brighton Road
Request: Site Plan Review
ReQuested Ac#ion
Motion to appro�e Planning Case 11-015 far a Site Plan Review at 3759 New Brighton Road,
based on the findings of fact and the submitted �Ians, as amended by the seven conditions in the
July 25, 2011, report to the City Council.
Sack�round
The applicants own the residential property located at 3759 New Brighton Roac�. The property is
zone�. R-2, Single and Two Family Residential District. They are proposing to demolish their
exisiing 5$0 square foot garage and build a 903 square foot detached garage in the rear yard. No
variances are required for the proposed detached garage. The Zoning Code perrnits up to twa
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
struct�re, not to exceed 1,458 square feet, if approved through a Site Plan Review.
The hom� �vas canstructed in 1938 and the existing garage was constructed during the 1940s.
TY�e existing garage is currently set back five feet from the side property line and does not �neei
the R-2 district setback regulations, which requi�e a�inimum te� foot setback far accessory
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for July 25, 201 i
P:1PlanninglPlannrng Cases12011111-015 - 3759 Neav Brighton Road - Site Plarr Review -{PC ApprovedJ107-25-11 - CC Report.dacx
Page 1 of 4
s�-uctures. The existing garage is iegally non-conforming as i� vvas canstructed prior to the
current zoning regulations; however, the proposed project would bring the property inta
conforn�ance with the present code because the new garage woutc� be relocatec! to meet ihe
minimum ten-foot side yard setback for accessory stn.zctures in the R-2 district.
The depth of the nevv garage would be expand�d from twenty-seven feet to forty-two feet. It
would remain in the rear yard of the property and woulc� be situated i�ifteen feet behind the
dwelling uni� after relocating the ��isting building footprint iive feet to the west and six feet io
the south. The proposed garage would be located eleven feet from the nearest side property line.
All other setback requirements would be met. As discussed during the July 6, 2011 Planning
Comrnission meeting, the property lines will require verification before the applicant may pull a
construction permii from the City.
The new structure would be expanded vertically but would nat exceed fifteer� feei in height. The
applicant has stated that the siding and roofing rnaterials of the propased garage would match
that of the existing home and ihat the uneven iopography af the site wouId be filled to grade
level.
The applicant has ,submitted a letter addressing the details of the application, a lar�dscape plan far
the property, elevations of the proposed structures, and photographs of the site. There a�e no
known variance requesis on file for this property.
Findin�s of Fact
The Planning Co�nmission offers the fallowing seventeen findings o� fact for review:
1. The lot meets all other minirnutn requirements of the R-2 Zone.
2. The existing dwelling does not encroach on any setbacks.
3. The existing garage encroaches iive feet into the side yard setback.
4. A site plaz� review is required for the detached accessory structure.
5. Garage,s and accessary structures are permitted within the R-2 Zone.
6. The proposed accessory st�ructure would reduce the existing non-conformity of the lot by
removing the non-confoz-�x�.ing garage and constructi�g a new garage that meets all
setbacks.
7. The maximum structure coverage meets the requirements of the R-2 zone.
S. The minimum landscaped area exceeds the requirements of the R-2 zone.
9. The e�isting dwelling does noi exceed �ie 35 foat height iimit.
10. The pxoposed garage would not exceed the 1 S foot heighi limit for accessory structures.
11. The plan suggests that there would be fill brought to the site to create ar� even grad� for
the proposed garage.
City of�Irden Hills
City Council Meeting for J'uly 25, 2011
P.� 1PlannrnglPlanning Cases12011111-D1 S- 3759 Netiv Brighton Road - Sire PIQn Review -(PC Approved)107-25-11 - CC Iteport. dacx
Page 2 of 4
12. The driveway would be expanded five fe�t length�ovise to meet the front o� the new
garage.
13. The existing dwelling and the proposed garage are outside oi the 100-year flood }alain,
wetlands, and easerr�ents.
14. The proposed garage wou�d be 903 square feet.
15. The exterior f nish will match the principal structure.
16. The Iot is unusual in that it is unusually large, and there would be enough roam to
canstruct two 728 square foot accessory structures on the property �vi�liout a vaxiance.
17. The proposed garage would create less impact and be more attractive than what is
presently on the property.
Recommendation
At their 7uly 6, 2011 meeting the Planning Commiss�on voted �nanimously ta recornrnend
appxoval of Planning Case 11-015 for a�ite plan review at 3759 New Brighton Road, based on
the Findings of Fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the following seven conditions:
1. The project shall be comp]eted in accordance wiih the plans submitted as amended by
the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined �y
the City Planner, shal� require review and approval by the Plar�ning Cammission.
2. The applicant sha11 obtain all necessary grading and building permits prior to
begir�ning co�struction or d�molition on the site.
3. The applicant shall use best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion ai a11
times during constructian.
4. The height of ihe structure shall not exceed 15 feet.
5. The applicant shall obtain appraval or a waiver fra�n the Rice Creek Watershed
District prior to the issuance of any building permits.
6. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code.
7. The property shall be lizx�ited to a singie accessory structure.
Options
1. Approve the proposal as submitted.
2. Approve the proposal with conditions.
3. Deny the ap�lication with reasons for deniaL If �he City denies the petitioners request, "...it
must state in writing the reasans far the denial at the iime ii denies the request."
4. Table �'ar additional infornnation.
City of�Irden Hiils
City Council Meeting for July 25, 2011
P: IPlanninglPlanningCases12011111-015 - 3759 Ne�v Brighton Road - Site Plan Revietiv -(PC�IpprovedJ107-25-11 - CC Report.docx
Page 3 af 4
Requested Action
Motion to approve Planning Case 11-015, for a Site Plan Review at 3759 New Brighton Roac�
based on the Findings of Fact, the submitted plans, and the conditaons in the July 25, 20ll,
me�no to the City Council.
Deadline %r A�encv Actions
The Czty of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on June 13, 2011.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City rnust act on this request by August 12, 2011 {60
days), unless the City provides the pe#itioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day review
period. The City tnay r�ith the petitioners' consent extend �he review period beyand the 120
days.
Attachments
A— Jiily b, 20 � 1, Draft Planning Corrunission Meeting Minutes
B— July b, 2411, Report to the Planning Commission —
http :l/www. ci. arden-hills. mn. us/plannin �case
City of�4rden Hills
Ciry Council Meeting for Judy 25, 2011
P: IPlanninglPlanning Casesl2dll 111-015 - 3759 Nezv Brighton Road - Site Plan Revre�v -(PC,4pprovedJ107-25-11 - CC Report.docx
Page 4 of 4
Attachment
July 6, 2Q11,
Draft Planning Commission Minutes:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approva.l
for Planning Case xx�-o�5 at their July b, 2ox�, meeting.
July 25, 2011, City Council Meeting
JuIy 6, 2011, Draff Planning Commission Minutes
Planning Case I1-01S; Site Plan Review; Marsha and Brian Bnrgeson; 3759 New Brighton
Road — Not a Public Hearing
Cornrri�nity Development Intert� Mei-Ling Anderson stated the applicants are requesting
a site plan review to construct a 903 square faot detached garage on the property lacated
at 3759 New Brighton Road. The proposed strucfure would replace the existing 580
square foot garage and would be the only accessory structure located on the site. She
provided additional background in�oz-mation.
Comrnunity Deve�oprr�ent Intern Anderson stated �taff of�ers the following seventeen
findings of fact �ar review:
1. The lot meets al� o�her minimum requirements of the R-2 Zone.
2. The existing dwelling does not encroach on any setbacks.
3. The existing garage encroaches five-feet into the side yard setback.
4. A site p�an review is required fox ihe detached accessary struci�-e.
5. Garages and accessory structures are permitted within the R-2 Zone.
6. The proposed acce,ssory structure would reduce �ie existzng non-conformity
of the lot by removing the noz�-conforming garage ancrt constructing a new
garage that rneets all setbacks.
7. The maximum stiructure coverage meets the requirements of fhe R-2 Zone.
8. The minimu�n landscaped area exceeds th� requirernents of �e R-2 Zone.
9. The existing dwelling does not exceed the 35-foot height lirr�it.
10. The propased garage would not exceed the 15-foot height limft for accessory
structures.
11. The plan suggests that ther� �would be bill broughi to the sire to create as� evean
grade far the proposed garage.
12. The driveway would be expanded five-�eet lengthwise to meet the front of the
new garage.
13. The existing dwelling and the proposed garage are outside of the 100-year
flood plain, weilands, and easements.
14. The praposed garage wou�d be 903 square feet.
15. The exterior finish will match the principal structure.
16. The lot is unusual in that it is unusually Iarge, and t�iere would be enough
room to construct t�wo 728 square foot accessory sfructur�s an the property
without a variance.
17. The propased g�rage would create less impact and be more attractive than
what is presently on the praperty.
Community Development Intez-n Anderson stated the findings of fact for this Site Plan
Review support a recozxzxnendation for approval. If the Planning Commission wishes to
make a reco�ranendation for denial, ihe findings of fact nnust be amended to reflect ihe
reasons for the deniaL If the Planning Cammission recommends approval af this Site Plan
Review, Staff recommends the following seven condi�ions:
1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as
amended by t11e conditions of approval. Any s�gnificant changes to these
plans, as deternained by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by
the Planning Commission.
2. The applicant shall obtain a11 necessary grading and building perrnits prior to
beginning construction or demoiition on the site.
3. The applicant sha11 use best managemex�t pxactices (BMPs} ta control erosion
at aIl times during construction.
4. The height of the structuxe shall not exceed 15-feet.
5. The applicant shall obtain approval or waiver from the Rice Creek Watershed
District priar to the issuance of any building pern�its.
6. The s#ructure sha11 confoz-�xi ta all other regulations in the City Code.
7. The property shall be limited to a singie accessory structure.
Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner coxnments.
Chair Larson stated the code allaws �or two accessory structures, at 728 square-feet each,
on this property. He asked if approving the 908 square-foot structure would xeplace this
anc� al�ow for jusi ihe single accessory structure on the property.
City Planner Beekman stated the applicant wo�d not be able to build a second accessory
structure on the property to nn.ake up the difference in square foatage that would have been
allowed with the two st�ruuctures:
Chair Larson suggested Staff include permit ready drawings with the infonnation
presented to the Planning Commission for approval. This will ensure the Plaru�ng
Commission is approving a plan that is meeting the req�irements of the application and not
encroaching on property lines
Community Development Intern Anderson clarified the applicant had provided a written
statement showing the structure would be 11 feet from the setback.
Chair Larson stated there were window� in th� second story of the structure. He asked
what this area would be used for.
Mx. Brian Burgeson, 3759 New Brighton Road, Arden Hills, stated this area would be
used as a maz� cave area and far storage. He also stated the lot pins were easily �ocated
and the side property lines were well established.
Chair Larson stated if this area was goix�g to be used as a second dwelling this would
requzxe an additional process through the City.
Commissioner I�oler�va moved and Commissioner Scott seconded a�notion to
reco�mend a roval of Plannin Case 11-015 �ort a Sit� Plan Review at 3759 New
Bri htan Road based on the fndin s o#' fact the submitted lans and the seven
conditions in the Jul 6 2011 re ort to fhe Plannin Commission.
Commissioner Scatt asked if the faundation of the exisiing struct-ure would be removed in
order to create the new structure.
Mr. Burgeson stated it would be removed.
The motion was called to a vote.
The motion carried unanimousl 4-0 .
Attachment
July 6, 2 011,
Report to the Planning Commission
Available on�i.ne a�: htt�//www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us
July 25, 20I 1, City Council Meeting