HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-08-12-PC Chair
Clayton Larson 1245 W. Highway 96
Commissioners �,,,�,,,.T uTT LS Arden Hills, MN 55112
Angela Harries t(�U`E1V ML 651.792.7800
Andrew Holewa www.ci.arden-hills.mmus
Samuel Scott Arden Hills
Roberta Thompson
Clayton Zimmerman Planning Commission
Janet Stodola (Alternate)
Meeting
August 8, 2012
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—Role Call
1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
2. Approval of Minutes
A. July 11, 2012, Work Session Meeting
3. Planning Cases
A. Planning Case 12-013- Variance Request; Ed Bacig; 1185 Benton Way—Not a Public Hearing
4. COMMENTS AND REPORTS
A. Report from the City Council
B. Planning Commission Comments
C. Staff Comments
5. ADJOURNMENT—Adjourn to a Work Session immediately following the Regular Meeting
A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting.
Planning Cases are available online at:
http://www.ei.arden-hills.mn.us/planningeases
-ARZEEN�HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 8, 2012 PC Agenda Item 3.A
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Matt Horton, Community Development Intern
SUBJECT: Planning Case#12-014—Not a Public Hearing
Applicant: Peter Vujovich
Property Location: 1185 Benton Way
Request: Variance
Requested Action
The applicant is requesting three (3) variances to construct a 574 square foot addition at 1185
Benton Way. The addition would be located between the existing home and garage with a
portion of the addition over an existing deck. The addition would reduce the combined minimum
side yard setback below the required 15 feet, reduce the lot landscaped area below the minimum
of 65 percent and increase the structural lot coverage area above the maximum of 25 percent.
Background
1. Overview of Request
The applicant is the owner of the home at 1185 Benton Way. The property is located in the
R-3 District, and was constructed within the Hunter's Park PUD development.
The applicant has submitted a proposal to construct a 574 square foot addition to his home at
1185 Benton Way. This proposal is substantially similar to a variance request that was made
by the property owner, and approved by the City, in 2007, but which was never built.
The addition would be located between the existing home and detached garage. A portion of
the addition would be constructed over an existing deck. Three variances are needed to
complete the proposed project. The minimum side-yard setback for this property is 5 feet
with a combined minimum of 15 feet on both sides. The proposed addition would maintain
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for August 8, 2012
\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2012\12-013-1185 Benton
Page 1 of 8
the minimum 5 foot setback,but would reduce the combined total of both side yard setbacks
to 10 feet. Secondly, the structural lot coverage is required by Code to not exceed 25
percent; however, the proposed addition would result in 27 percent lot coverage by structure.
Thirdly, the landscaped lot area is required to be a minimum of 65 percent where the
proposed addition would leave only 61 percent.
The applicant has submitted a letter addressing the variance criteria(Attachment A), an aerial
of the property with the addition drawn in, and elevations of the proposed addition
(Attachment Q.
2. Site Data
Low Density Residential
Single Family Detached Residential
R-3: Townhouse&Low Density Multiple Dwelling
u-r t .19 Acres (8,250 Square Feet)
The property is relatively flat.
3. Surroundin Area
7 7 yy w #
Nom
ai
North Low Density Residential R-3: Townhouse&Low Density Single Family Detached
Multiple Dwelling Residential
South Low Density Residential R-3: Townhouse&Low Density Shared common area for the
Multiple Dwelling homeowner's association
East Low Density Residential R-3: Townhouse&Low Density Single Family Detached
Multiple Dwelling Residential
West Community Mixed Use C-2: General Business Office
Hunters Park Homeowner's Association
In the early 1970s, the City approved a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to create the Hunters
Park neighborhood and homeowner's associations. The single family portion of Hunters Park is
built on approximately 29 acres of which seven acres are shared green space, almost three acres
are used for shared driveways, and the remaining 19 acres are divided into 84 single-family
residential homes.
The Hunters Park PUD used the flexibility permitted in the PUD process, and the neighborhood
was designed with varying lot sizes, structure setbacks, and lot coverages. In flexible PUD
developments like the Hunters Park neighborhood, it is not uncommon for the PUD to include an
alternative set of regulations that supersede the underlying zoning regulations. In the case of the
Hunters Park, alternative lot layout standards were not created, which means that the underling
R-3 regulations were left in place. Since most of the structures and lots do not meet the R-3
Zoning regulations, virtually any change to the structures in Hunters Park required a variance
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for August 8, 2012
\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2012\12-013-1185 Benton
Page 2 of 8
and a PUD amendment. Furthermore, it can be difficult to apply the R-3 regulations to lot sizes
that do not meet the minimum R-3 lot size.
The City Council considered approving an alternative set of regulations for the Hunters Park
neighborhood in 1985 (Planning Case 85-010). However, it was determined that an alternative
set of regulations for Hunters Park should not be created because the lots and structure layouts
were so varied in the original PUD that it would be very difficult to create a standard that is less
complicated than the existing process. The City Council did, however, approve a process for
evaluating future changes to structures in Hunters Park:
1. If additions or alterations to the homes do not require setback or coverage variances
from the R-3 Zone, only a building permit issued administratively by the City shall be
required. This removed the need for a PUD amendment with every change.
2. If additions or alterations to cluster homes do require additional variances of any kind
from the R-3 Zone,the standard variance procedure set by the City shall apply.
3. In both cases, the Architectural and Environmental Committee of the Hunter's Park
Homeowners Association shall review and approve the proposed addition or
alteration before submitting the same to the City. It shall assist individual
homeowners in determining if a variance is required for proposed alterations.
According the planning case files, the Hunters Park homeowner association approved this
process along with the City.
Plan Evaluation
1. R-3 Regulations, Existing Conditions, and Proposed Redevelopment
A. Lot Size &Dimensions
The lot is 8,250 square feet, 55 feet wide, and 1. Minimum Lot Areas 11,000
150 feet long. Although approved as part of the 2. Minimum Lot Size 85/120
Hunters Park PUD, the lot does not meet the 3. Height ft. 35
minimum size requirements in the R-3 Zone. 4. Lot Covered by Structure 25%
5. Min.Landscape Lot Area 65%
B. Structure Setbacks— Variance Required 6. Minimum Building Setbacks
Front yard 40
The existing dwelling meets the R-3 structure Side Yard Interior-Principal
setback requirements. The existing detached 5/15
q g (Min/total both yards on lot)
accessory structure encroaches into the front Side Yard Interior-Accessory 10
yard and southern side yard setbacks; however,
no changes are proposed to the accessory structure.
In the R-3 Zone, a total of fifteen feet is required between the two side yard setbacks with
at least five feet on one side. With the proposed addition, the northern side yard structure
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for August 8, 2012
\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Plaming Cases\2012\12-013-1185 Benton
Page 3 of 8
setback would remain at approximately six feet; however, the southern side yard setback
would be reduced from the current 11.5 feet to five feet. The total side setback would be
reduced from the current 17.5 feet to eleven feet.
C. Structural Lot Coverage— Variance Required
The existing structural coverage on the property is approximately 18.2 percent. The
proposed addition would increase the impervious coverage to 27.0 percent. City Code
limits impervious coverage to 25 percent.
D. Landscaped Area— Variance Required
The existing landscaped area on the property is approximately 65.1 percent. The
proposed addition would decrease the landscaped area to 27.0 percent. City Code
requires the landscaped area to be over 65 percent.
In this type of residential PUD, it is not uncommon for an individual residential lot to not
conform to the lot coverage regulations. Shared green spaces are often used to offset the
coverage on a lot,particularly when the lots are smaller. The Hunters Park neighborhood
includes seven acres of shared private green space. It is unlikely that the neighborhood as
a whole exceeds the lot coverage limitations; however, that cannot be verified without a
neighborhood-wide review.
E. Structure Height—Meets Requirements
The proposed addition would not exceed the 35-foot height maximum for principal
structures.
2. Flood Plain,Wetlands, and Easements
The proposed addition is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements.
3. Tree Preservation
The proposed addition would not require the removal of any significant trees on the property.
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 Hunters Park Architectural and Environmental Committee, along with the two adjacent
neighbors, have approved the proposed addition (Attachment A)
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for August 8, 2012
\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2012\12-013-1185 Benton
Page 4 of 8
Variance Evaluation Criteria
On May 5, 2011, the Governor signed into law new variance legislation that changed the review
criteria City's must use when evaluating variance requests. The new law renames the municipal
variance standard from "undue hardship" to "practical difficulties," but otherwise retains the
familiar three-factor test of(1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. Also
included is a sentence new to city variance authority that 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 the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive
plan."
Therefore, in evaluating variance requests under the new law, in order to find a practical
difficulty, cities should adopt findings addressing the following questions:
• Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance?
• Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan?
• Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner?
• Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner?
• Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
As was the case before the new legislation took effect, economic considerations alone cannot
constitute a practical difficulty. Furthermore, the new law clarifies that conditions may be
imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to and bear a rough
proportionality to the impact created by the variance.
Findings of Fact
Staff offers the following sixteen findings of fact for review:
General Findings
1. Although the 8,250 square foot lot was approved as part of the Hunters Park PUD, it does
not meet the minimum requirements of the R-3 Zone.
2. The existing dwelling meets all property line setbacks. The existing detached garage
encroaches on the front yard and southern side yard setbacks.
3. The proposed addition would reduce the combined side yard setbacks from 17.5 feet to
11.5 feet. The southern side yard setback would be reduced from 11.5 feet to five feet.
The northern side yard setback would remain at six feet. A variance is required if the two
side setbacks do not equal fifteen feet or more.
4. The proposed addition does not encroach on the rear or front setbacks.
5. The structure coverage is proposed to increase from 18.9 percent to 27.0 percent of the
lot. A variance is required to exceed 25 percent structure coverage on the lot.
6. The landscape area would be reduced from 65.1 percent to 60.7 percent of the lot. A
variance is required to reduce landscape area below 65 percent.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for August 8, 2012
\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2012\12-013-1185 Benton
Page 5 of 8
7. The dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height limit.
8. Dwellings are permitted structures within the R-3 Zone.
9. The existing dwelling and the proposed garage are outside of the 100-year flood plain,
wetlands, and easements.
10. The Planning Commission and City Council approved a substantially similar proposal for
the property in 2007.
Variance Findings:
11. A dwelling and addition are reasonable uses within the R-3 Zone.
12. The nonconforming lot size for the R-3 Zone, which was approved as part of the PUD,
and the substantial amount of shared open space that is part of the development, may
present a unique situation that warrants the requested variances. There are no unique
topographical conditions.
13. It is unlikely the proposed addition would have a negative impact on the property or the
neighborhood. The addition will not reduce the northern side yard setback, and the
southern property line is adjacent to common space that is owned by the Hunters Park
Homeowner's Association. The nearest dwelling unit to the south of the subject property
is approximately sixty feet away.
14. The increase lot coverage is unlikely to have a negative impact because of the shared
adjacent shared green space to the south of the subject property. There is a total of seven
acres of Homeowners Association common green space throughout the neighborhood.
15. The proposed plans and setback variance for the dwelling do not appear to be based on
economic considerations alone.
16. The applicant has received approval from the Hunters Park Architectural and
Environmental Committee for the proposed addition.
Staff Analysis
The findings of fact for this variance requests do not specifically support a recommendation for
denial or approval. A single family home is a permitted use in the R-3 Zone, and the addition is
not an unreasonable use in the R-3 Zone. The variance is unlikely to create a negative impact on
the neighborhood or City because there is already a structure on the property,the proposed
addition will not be significantly closer to any nearby structures, and the additional lot coverage
is likely offset by the shared green space throughout Hunters Park. It does not appear that the
variance is based on economic considerations alone. Additionally, the property owner has
received approval from the Homeowners Association for the addition and also had prior approval
from the City for a similar addition.
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. The fact that the original PUD does not include specific standards for this
neighborhood is somewhat unusual, and applying the R-3 regulations does make it difficult to
upgrade these generally smaller homes. The relatively small lot size does make altering the
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for August 8, 2012
\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2012\12-013-1185 Benton
Page 6 of 8
structure difficult under the R-3 regulations. However,there are not any unique topographical
conditions related to the variance. Before making a motion for approval or denial,this specific
variance evaluation criterion must be addressed for the official record.
If the Planning Commission recommends approval on this variance, Staff recommends the
following four conditions:
1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by
the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by
the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission.
2. The applicant shall use best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion at all
times during construction.
3. 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 the City Code.
Options
The findings in this report are not specific enough to fully support approval or denial of
variances one. With a motion to approve or deny the variance request,the following criteria
must be addressed for the record:
1. The circumstances in this planning case are/are not unique to the property because...
The above criteria must be addressed prior to making one of the following motions:
1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend ap rp oval of Planning Case
12-013 for three variances 1185 Benton Way based on the findings of fact, the submitted
plans, and the four conditions in the August 8, 2012,planning case report.
2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 12-
013 for three variances 1185 Benton Way based on the findings of fact,the submitted plans,
and the four conditions in the August 8, 2012, planning case report.
3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 12-013 for three
variances at 1185 Benton Way based on the following findings of fact...
4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 12-013 for a variance at 1185 Benton Way: a specific
reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for August 8, 2012
\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2012\12-013-1185 Benton
Page 7 of 8
Notice
Although a variance does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by
the City and mailed to properties within three-hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property.
Resident Comment
The City has not received any comments regarding this planning case.
Deadline for Agency Actions
The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on July 23, 2012.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute,the City must act on this request by September 22, 2012 (60
days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day
review period. The City may extend the review period beyond the 120 days, with the applicant's
permission.
Attachments
A. Application and Supporting Materials
B. Air Photo and Photographs of the Site
C. Plans and Aerial of the Site
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for August 8, 2012
\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2012\12-013-1185 Benton
Page 8 of 8
Attachment
Application and Supporting Materials
-AVEN HILLS
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for April 25, 2011
For Office Use Only
�T T T.,.� � c Planning Case No. 12'
�1� j�j.LJ Submittal Date
1245 West Highway 96 Application Completed Date
Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 Accepted by
Telephone (651) 792-7800 Receipt Number
Fax (651) 634-5137 Council Decision
Council Decision Date
2012 LAND USE APPLICATION
Applicant Information 1
Applicant: -T>1 \V Fcw"' -- V K OLD*
Address: S �
Telephone No.: (I-- 19lot & :-R-" Other:
Fax No.:
Email Address: ' ,'
Property Information
Property 0wner: q� �9�
Owner Address: O l O _
Owner Telephone No.fo51-3�//-�.2(o Other. (, 1~ �� /9 0
Address of Property Involved:
Legal Description: (Jd � t4 ��` e !' '�
Property iD No.: A4,
Type of Use: SWV. -tc?at j
Property Acreage:
ct
Zone. s /
Type of Request ❑ Planned Unit Development Amendment($600;$300 if
no Site Plan Review is required+$2,000 escrow)
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment($850+$1,000
escrow) ❑ Site Plan Review($300+$600 escrow)
❑ Conditional/interim Use Permit or Amendment ❑ Rezoning($600+$1,000 escrow)
($600; $300 if no Site Plan Review is required ❑ Zoning or City Code Amendment($600+$1,000
+$600 escrow) escrow)
❑ Preliminary Plat($600+$25 per lot+$1,500 ❑ Minor Subdivision(lot split/consolidation) ($450+
escrow) $1,000 escrow)
❑ Final Plat($500+$25 per lot) Variance(Zoning Code)($300+$600 escrow)
❑ Concept Planned Unit Development($300) ❑ Vacation of Easement or Right-of-Way($400+$600
❑ Master Planned Unit Development($600+$2,000 'escrow)
escrow) ❑ Appeal of Administrative Decision ($100)
❑ Final Planned Unit Development($300.00+$600 ❑ Land Use Requests—Not Already Specified($200)
escrow)
Revised:12-08-11
Page 1 of 3
Brief Description of Request(please also include a typed detailed letter explaining the project):
i �fcc r� ro �—
�f4L e- QS a pFr-o 9 j
-IMPORTANT*
• 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 will 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.
I
Filing &Information Reauirements j
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.
Compiete/IncomMete Aapllcations
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
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: 12-08-11
Page 2 of 3
Anenda Deadline and Meetnna 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 after the first
Monday 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.
2012 SCHEDULE (*subject to change)
TENTATIVE TENTATIVE
PLANNING CITY COUNCIL
APPLICATION COMMISSION MEETING
DEADLINE MEETING DATE* DATE*
DATE* (Generally held on the (Generally held on the
first Wednesday after the first last Monday at 7:00 p.m.)
Monday at 6:30 .m.
December 5 2011 January 4 January 30
January 9 February 8 February 27
February 6 March 7 March 26
March 5 April 4 Aril 30
April 2 May 9 May 29
May 7 June 6 June 25
June 4 Jul _ Juf 0
Jul 2 Au"ust Au ust 27
August 6 Se er 24
September 10 October 3 October 29
October 1 November 7 November 26
November 5 December 5 December 26
December 3 January 9 2013 January 28 2012
Acknowlednement 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 respo si a for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this
application.
rope rty er ignatu a(Req Date
App nt Signature(if different tWn the property owner) Dat
Please contact the City planner 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:12-08-11
Page 3 of 3
Request for a Variance to Budd an Addition
1185 Benton Way
Arden.Hills,MN 55111
July'2),2012
To Members of the Arden Hills Planning Commission
We are submitting the attached request fora variance to the Arden Hills zoning codes to accamtnc�date
construction of a one-stc ry addition to our existing single-fitmily dwelling located at 1-185 Benton Way.
The;property is located within the Hunter's Park Planned Unit Development and,was constructed in 1975
Very soon we will provide, along with this application, the approval for this addition by the Hunter's Parl
IHomcowncrs.�ssocia-tion's Architectural and Environmental Committee and in Addition,the Approval from
the three closest aeighbQrs to this property.
We are requesth-ig the threes same variances as were originally granted to us by the City of Arden Hills in
September of 2007.
Background
The reason;for this request for a variance to the set-back regxiiretx ent is due to the original construction of the
Hunter's Park Planned Unit Development,Ihe planned unit development was-originally created using
high-density housing areas surrounded by abundant green:space that is commonly shared among the
single-family unite.This approach created distances-from lot lines that rang:anywhere from two'feet to
perhaps ten feet In the 1980's, the City of Arden hI>lls Pla►ninl Commission decided to adopt the current
Arden Hills R-2 zoning requirements as the rules for the Hunter's Park Planned Unit Developments thereby-
placing the majority o£tlle single-family units within the development.out of compliance with the new setback
rules. Current minimum lest sizes fot the City of.Arden Hills R 2 zone are 85 by 120'. (See Table Cane)The lot
size for our sinl lc,fa xxily horx�e ats 55'by l gtving us a much narrow lot within,which to operate than would
currently be allowable for new development:.
We are proposing;a orte-story addition consisting of a kitchen and dining room expansion. 'The cnxtent
singly:-family homes within the development are.relatively small throughout,including very small Ditchers and
dining,rooms. Rather than move, our hope is to stay within.the existing neigiborhood,creating a honze that
better meets our family's•needs,contributes to the stability of the. 'ieighbc rhood,;,and allows our youngest child
to remain in the Mounds View School District.
Variance Request: Required Side Lot Set Back
The planned addition to the.southeast comer of the single-family dwelling will change the current south-side yard
set back from the 6.,5;:feet to 5.0 feet.No residences adjoin the property on the south side of the:house.The land
imniedi<ately beyond the property line is common area owned by the association;thus the proposed addition will
not impact any adjacent residences.
. l
Review of Seven Hardship Criteria.for Re-q est:-
l. 7 he pro
egy in question catinot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions"allomed by the offidal cdntrok
The property,could s till'be put to a reasonal-ile use without the proposed variance to the rewired.
side-lot set baclz The house,however,its small (approxin ately 1,800 square feet) and-does not meet
the needs of.our>family. Without the proposed addition,;the house will remain unsuitable to our
current needs as,a family,an,d we will necessarily have to move.
2, Tl e plight qf the landommer is due to cytmmstances onigue'to the prroper*oot created by the landau nen
As stated,abuve,the property eras developed as pan of,a high-density,neil hbbihood.The property was
constructed in 1975; the current owner purchased the property in 1996, thus inheriting the,current
structure and lot size,which is smaller than current lot size min mums allowed by the City of Arden
Hills.The plight has.been exacerbated by the adoption of the current R 2 zoning requirements by the
planned unit development rather than the original zoning requirements that were in place when the
planned unit&-velopment was constructed
3 The deviation from the Uidirtana condo any altacbed cmu&ions will still be in keeping u4th the spirit arid intent qftbe'
Ordinance
The intent of the current ordinance is not applicable-to the Hunter's Park.Planned Unit'Development
because the original planned unit development was for a high-density, single-dwelling area and not the
current low-density zoning ordinances being applied.The addition will'be in with,the
regulations and rules of the Hunter's;Park Dome Owners,Association and in beeping with current:
set-back distances already in use within the development..I{inally,the addition-will not impact ffn
adjacent structure on the south side of the property,as the land immediately Beyond the property line.
is common land``owned by the association and is not another structure:,
4 The vatiunce will not mate a land arse notpemiffed in the Zone.
The variance is not creating or facilitating any new land use. The property will continue to be
used as a single-family dwelling:
.5., The variance will not the essential ebaracter of thee City:;
The variance"will not alter,the character of the area;rather,it allows the incorporation of the
new addition without impacting an adjacent structure..
(0. The mtzarce is not for ecornorrric asons alm
The variance is not for economic reasons alone.,The property and current single-family unit are
located in a wonderful,wooded area;the property is within the Mounds View School lDistrict,and;
we see the addition as a lower impact land=use approach to addressing our farnily's aced for inprc,
space than would be moving to a larger home with a bigger foot print or building new
construction:,
7. The proposed use is pemitted-within the Zone:
There is no prohibition applicable tc the prop sed addition use,
2
Variance Request; R 2 Zone Lot Landscape Coverage and Lot Structure Coverage
Any addition will be out of compliance with the current minirnum lot size requirement,itnplernented.ui the
1980's,given that the current strucuueI is,already out of compliaricc.with these lot-size requirements.Therefore,
we are requesting a variance from the lot-ecavetage regtlirernent for total structure (principle and accessory) of
18.2 percent to 25,7 percent and the landscaped area to,65.1. percent coverageA-
Review of Seven Hardship Cdtexia for Request
1. The properly in question cannot lie pal to a masonable use(fused finder conditions'alloyed by the q cial conttolr,�
The property could still be put to a reasonable use without the proposed variance to the lot coverage
requirement with which the house is currently out of compliance due to changes in lot area
requirements post-construction,causing any size.addition to be out of compliance.As stated above in
response to this<criterion,without the proposed addition,the house will remain unsuitable to out ,
current needs as a family,and we will necessarily have to;move.
2. The plight of the landoivveris due to dimmslances-;unigue•to the pmpet0 not dated by the landowner
As stated above,;'the propertywas developed as.pan of aligh-density neighborhood.The property was
constructed in 1975; the current owner purchased the property in 1996,thus inheriting the current
structure and lot size,which is smaller than current lot size mini mums;allowed by the City of Arden
Hills.The plight has been exacerbated by the adoption of the current R-2 zoning requiremmnts by the
Planned unit development rather than the original''zoning requirements that wereui place when the;
planned unit development was constructed:.
3. The demanon, mm the Ordinance with any attached eovdwonJ W/I s#11 be in keeping n4lb the ph it and intent of the
Ordinance
'Ihe intent of the current ordinance is not applicable to the Hunter's Park Plarxned Unit Development
because the otiginal planned unit development was for a'higb-density,'single-dwelling;area on smaller
parcels of].and and not:the current law-detasity zoning ordinances being applied.The addition will be in
keeping with the regulations and Mules of the Hunter's Park Home e O w-aets Association and in keeping
with lot coverages in use at the time of the planned unit development.
4. The vatiance will not create a land use not petrnilted in the Zone;
Tlie variance is not creating or facilitating any new land use.The property will continue to be used;as a
single-family dwelling.
5. the variance will nol alter the essential djraracter cif the Gi y;
The variance will not alter the character of the area;rather,it allows the incorporation of the new
addition without impacting an adjacent structure.
6, The vatzance is not for economic reasons alone:
'lie variance is not for economic,`"reasons alone.'Pie property and current.single-family unit are
located in a wonderful;wooded area;the property is within the Mounds View Scbo<l District,and'we
see the addition as a lower irnpact land-use approach to addressing oiit family s deed,for mote space
than could be moving to a.larger home with a bigger foot.print or building new construction.
7 The proposed use is pemitled within Me Zone.
There is:no prohibition applicable to the proposed addition use.
3
In summary,we believe these variance requests are reasonable-and#ppropz ate given the:original intent of a
high-density,low-impact housing development and the,fact that the zoning requirements have cliangcd since;the
constriction of the planned unit development
We look forward to your consideration of these requests at the Cornn7issioz is August 8`'meeting.
Sin ely=
Edward .
l t
ldw l3acg, r Karen I.... lentn . g, Owner
�ti
July 23, 2012
MEMO
To: Hunters Park Homeowners Association Architecture and Environmental Committee
From: Edward and Karen Bacig, Owners, 1185 Benton Way
Re: Planned addition to 1185 Benton Way
We are proposing a one-story addition to our property, located at 1185 Benton Way,constructed in
accordance with the attached drawings. Siding and trim colors will remain similar to the current
colors used on the house and garage. The addition will increase the structural lot coverage area from
its current 18.2 percent to 25.7 percent and will reduce the south-side yard setback from 6.5 feet to 5
feet.
Specifics of the addition include an expanded kitchen/-dining room area,and mudroom area. For
details, see the attached architectural drawings.
The following three closest neighborshave reviewed and approved these plans:
1) Print narne(s): t��'C14`i' ( QL� L th_I
Signature(s): "
Address: � ,�,� �L,tLLL..! Date: Z.5 _�LL,Y
2) Print name(s): Grp (�� < < - i-} ' `^V'
Signature(s): . -_..__ �,`,�-
_.._
Address: Dater
3) Print name(s): �'% � % (,�" •�'l L:
Signature(s):
Address: �/ c� c l ,�if='C/�1i�;i A114,17Date: `I
We would appreciate your review of the attached documents and if you approve,an indication of
this approval by your signatures below. Thank you.
A &E Committee members' signatures:
Date of Approval:
`r 1 r-
Attachment
Air Photo and Photographs of the Site
DEN HILLS
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for April 25, 2011
4
QQ. O
N � Q
Y1 .v
p
� U
O W
Q O
' N
VI°d
rL
sR- W ld
Q w
oll
cd
ti N
bA U
�`, l �y 0
icd
/ rowV
1 ` f Elv o
d1 O
w �O
I: -tie' im
N
459ta:
cd
Y H �
cn
� o0
�N
y O
a
A
V
k °
vi
U
O
_ -
3
- -
-
oil
EACH =Z
OWN
AFT
AIR
EEL
US
o
SAW
lit
_
- —
oo-
- _ — _ WO
M
low
W001 To
oP of
Any o-E loop gy-
w0woSS-
A No
solo
-_.-_
_ _ s= _ _ -- _ -
..m . w
. . .
-
<:
-
x-.e�� . -
�
may . . .: :y< e:- . .
:. . ��
_ � . . . . , y. . .
. >w.
T
ISO
AL_owa
- — -
wa imp Owl
lo-
RN
-
- [
F
s
_ PMEMP _ -
Fo
T lux
erg` �Rod,
u=
_= AR
_ }
WIT
s
AsAll ' =
MY 1
All
— — _ —
— PEP
4N,
NE
AR
A = 3 - -
_ Its
OFF A
_AW
— —
AV _ -
n
Zol ��
- r _
s s
aw
UK
EAs = - Q
Eq
= �
r s ,
r.
r v,
_ OL
- - - -i-n
_ 59Pat 5,
? _
EAL
a z = -
- _- - -
i
}
3x
r
r x
_ Mom'
---------------------
3 = t-
� r
x _
Arm—
�4e
jo
T
is RAI
EEL1
a
x
z
�E
wig
s ,
......_...._._____...
- _
FEE-
MOM
_ -
I-Ir
3 _
------------
- - 4 -
� I
t - _
rW2 - - -
Aff
UF
-
_
3 _
_
-
wild
r �t,avY4 h �� h na w
a 4
� t
}
t
� 2 a
a( \
\•.�.
� v t
�a�o-
a
iE
If
Ir
a'H; � � � E� •t�fix. .�,' - - -
ST,
AS Ail
A
� ` 1
tE \
1:
c
l
atv 1� �
t p
j tv
An
41
ME
TO
' '
WM
z a s 8
wit 1" t r - i
QUSno
A
t
a3t 4 'T. 0 I.
aSAO
opt
-
e 3
d -
t:
�r,Y �°7A s15P fFtR` \
d�'hin c*�'
\Z
3'Yf
J_
$a
-
i
�k S-
t.
2 �
1
xP
\�R a
t
\\�Zt
\ l
4
t
t
4_
4 Y}q
I;z
m v
E
SIG
ov
4 � a
a,
a�
f 1
. 4 nonIn
RY
vv
\C y
a <:
s �
ON
�..'
op
ill; � "
Sh,
ask
v-:
. . . .
-
_
z�\7 - --
SAM
«� s-
- -
\
-
�
T -_
sO
_
- r r An
3 -
,y PA - -
- - All -
-
- - �I R-
— -
MATri a
�r1 ANT
Y
Wks
r ; n
i � —
1 MAP
r AIN
Ago
£ ,
_ —TOM- 7
7 �
_
} ToTV
aal _ - -
_ -
Mill
T � -
— = W mw_ _
a
wit 10-
-A
Attachment
Plans and Aerial of the Site
-AV EN EN HILLS
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for April 25, 2011
A. M.16111.90.0N
LU
|
' | tsg
it
Aill
IN
--------------
------ ------_
I� II�� yy Wd LL�Oe�fi LfieZN£!L
«Mwh>ee.a Z449a IleM uoi85 eiezeu 'sll!N uaPM wee R.u 'aan}Ja.Z' `/�tl...e rrsrsret
ua8LL N
uPll!PPV
Loce'ywe qar 61ae8 jauivaZ uaie)l+6!ae9 p3 Od
I
4oa[Old /Cauoow P uan04s
« e
00'SS M.6h�90,ON
9101;o eullI e3 I
m
------ y�\� — — ---- ---�— — — — — — ----- —
Md1d ALl—d N31VM --
v I �� SNH1tl.LLIJd3�015 �`�y�
J l 'OOVIH1U(10d SL31 HJO
7 lolin iy,�ra I� IeId a4l ladl a Alllln _
SNMd T!?d i13M35 TBe n
y { y 15
tt
e 11
¢ I t
4L I 3n3 ag kmr/ 3� }
'v i'ZL v WaT UP
J — — W T
'OOV HiTinod NLMd aoiNnH]0
IeId eyl lad luawase3�3!IM . Q
1-77
° m
l O _
`I
�� --r• � I l m Z
I I
I f1 j• � ��Q ; 'III '.�` � .
0
�I
�
ma. W
t
�_
--- ---- ----- -- ------ --
} * I 3u�u duo-ocl
� ''MjMj om
—.k 91oalo aup.°M--
\�oljn0
• .�
- -----------' ----; --- -----------------
'OOV H mo,N,,vd 5213mm,,o IeId a N \
e41 u0-4S fiv'9-LlS'oN--Cl
as
lad]uawe3 u!ewla]eM ld OZ
I� I
- jol}n0 }
unomaN915eM l
0099 3..6b,90e0S
A DEN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 8, 2012 PC Agenda Item 4.A
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner
SUBJECT: Report from the City Council
July 30,2012, Regular Meeting
The City Council voted unanimously to approve the design and quote for a gateway sign to be
installed on the southwest corning of County Road E and Lexington Avenue, in front of the new
Walgreen's pharmacy building. Fourth Dimension signs will be manufacturing and installing the
sign in the next 6-8 weeks. Staff is working with a landscape architect to design landscaping to
be installed around the sign base.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for July 11, 2012
PAPlanning0anning Commission\CC Reports\08-08-12-PC report-CC report.doc
Page 1 of 2