Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-06-11 PC Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 2011 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Clayton Larson called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Clayton Larson, Commissioners Roberta Thompson, Andy Holewa, and Samuel Scott. Absent: Commissioners Clayton Zimmerman and Angela Hames. Also present were: City Planner Meagan Beekman; Councilmember Fran Holmes; Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher; Community Development Intern Mei- Ling Anderson; and Recording Secretary Tina Borg. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – JULY 6, 2011 The Agenda was approved as presented. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. June 8, 2011 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, to approve the June 8, 2011, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 11-014; Variance; Bryan Lillehaugen; 1145 Amble Drive – Not a Public 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 ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 6, 2011 2 3.A. Planning Case 11-014; Variance; Bryan Lillehaugen; 1145 Amble Drive – Not a Public Hearing (continued) 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 offers the following findings of fact for this proposal: General Findings: 1. The lot size meets the requirements of the R-1 District. 2. The lot meets the width and dept requirements for the R-1 District. 3. The property is a corner lot. 4. The applicant is proposing a 408 square foot addition to the rear of the home, which would encroach 10-feet into the 40-foot required side yard setback for corner lots. 5. The proposed addition meets all other zoning and setback requirements for 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 removal for the proposed garage would not require any mitigation under the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Variance Findings: 8. The variance would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City’s ordinance because the request minimizes 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 redevelopment that is complimentary to and enhances the character of the City’s established neighborhoods. 10. The variance request would put the property to use in the R-1 District, and the addition 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 conforming when it was constructed. The practical difficulty was not created by the landowner, but rather by the City when the Zoning Code was amended to require a 40-foot setback on corner lots. Had the City not amended the Zoning Code, the proposal would not require a variance. 12. The proposal will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because it is a small addition, which would maintain the existing home’s setbacks. 13. The construction and location of the garage is not based on economic considerations alone, because the homeowner has increased their expense in order to minimize the size of the addition that requires a variance, and enlarge another portion of the home that hoes not require a variance. City Planner Beekman stated the findings of fact for this variance support a recommendation for approval. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance, Staff recommends the following five conditions: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans 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. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 6, 2011 3 3.A. Planning Case 11-014; Variance; Bryan Lillehaugen; 1145 Amble Drive – Not a Public Hearing (continued) 2. The applicant shall use best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion at all times during construction. 3. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 4. The addition shall match the color 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. Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Thompson seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 11-014 for a variance at 1145 Amble Drive based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the five conditions in the July 6, 2011, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). B. Planning Case 11-015; Site Plan Review; Marsha and Brian Burgeson; 3759 New Brighton Road – Not a Public Hearing Community Development Intern Mei-Ling Anderson stated the applicants are requesting a site plan review to construct a 903 square foot detached garage on the property located at 3759 New Brighton Road. The proposed structure would replace the existing 580 square foot garage and would be the only accessory structure located on the site. She provided additional background information. Community Development Intern Anderson stated Staff offers the following seventeen findings of fact for review: 1. The lot meets all other 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 plan review is required for the detached accessory structure. 5. Garages and accessory structures are permitted within the R-2 Zone. 6. 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. 7. The maximum structure coverage meets the requirements of the R-2 Zone. 8. The minimum landscaped area exceeds the requirements of the R-2 Zone. 9. The existing dwelling does not exceed the 35-foot height limit. 10. The proposed garage would not exceed the 15-foot height limit for accessory structures. 11. The plan suggests that there would be bill brought to the sire to create an even grade for the proposed garage. 12. The driveway would be expanded five-feet lengthwise to meet the front of the new garage. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 6, 2011 4 3.B. Planning Case 11-015; Site Plan Review; Marsha and Brian Burgeson; 3759 New Brighton Road – Not a Public Hearing (continued) 13. The existing dwelling and the proposed garage are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. 14. The proposed garage would be 903 square feet. 15. The exterior finish will match the principal structure. 16. The lot is unusual in that it is unusually large, and there would be enough room to construct two 728 square foot accessory structures on the property without a variance. 17. The proposed garage would create less impact and be more attractive than what is presently on the property. Community Development Intern Anderson stated 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. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this Site Plan Review, Staff recommends the following seven 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 grading and 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 height of the structure shall not exceed 15-feet. 5. The applicant shall obtain approval or waiver from 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 limited to a single accessory structure. Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Chair Larson stated the code allows for two accessory structures, at 728 square-feet each, on this property. He asked if approving the 908 square-foot structure would replace this and allow for just the single accessory structure on the property. City Planner Beekman stated the applicant would not be able to build a second accessory structure on the property to make up the difference in square footage that would have been allowed with the two structures. Chair Larson suggested Staff include permit ready drawings with the information presented to the Planning Commission for approval. This will ensure the Planning Commission is approving a plan that is meeting the requirements 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. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 6, 2011 5 3.B. Planning Case 11-015; Site Plan Review; Marsha and Brian Burgeson; 3759 New Brighton Road – Not a Public Hearing (continued) Chair Larson stated there were windows in the second story of the structure. He asked what this area would be used for. Mr. Brian Burgeson, 3759 New Brighton Road, Arden Hills, stated this area would be used as a man cave area and for storage. He also stated the lot pins were easily located and the side property lines were well established. Chair Larson stated if this area was going to be used as a second dwelling this would require an additional process through the City. Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Scott seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 11-015 fort a Site Plan Review at 3759 New Brighton Road based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, and the seven conditions in the July 6, 2011 report to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Scott asked if the foundation of the existing structure 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 unanimously (4-0). C. Planning Case 11-016; Preliminary and Final Plat, and Final PUD Amendment; Arden Plaza, LLC; 3585 Lexington Avenue – Public Hearing Commissioner Thompson moved and Commissioner Scott seconded a motion to table Planning Case 11-016 for Arden Plaza, LLC at 3527 Lexington Avenue North. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Councilmember Holmes updated the Planning Commission on City Council activities including approval of a three-year extension to the Traverse Business Center, the direction to Staff to begin working towards updating the City’s website, approval of Planning Cases 11-010, 11-011, 11-012, and 11-013. She stated the City Council also discussed the development of the old City Hall site and determined that they will wait with this until the market improves. Community Development Director Hutmacher will be taking steps to market this property when the market improves. The City Council also discussed improvements to Valentine Park and the approval of the Select Senior Living ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 6, 2011 6 5.A. Report from the City Council (continued) proposal for the Holiday Inn site. The City will be having a Community Meeting on August 4 to discuss the Vikings Stadium. It will be held at the Ramsey Public Works Facility, in the Marsden Room, and it is tentatively scheduled for 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Chair Larson asked if the Stadium was dependant on the Legislature passing the bill that is before them at this time before they are able to move forward. Councilmember Holmes stated even if the Legislature passes the bill that is before them, a stadium is guaranteed to occur in Arden Hills. It must pass through the Legislature in order to move forward but there are other things that must occur as well before the stadium could be built. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests Chair Larson stated the Planning Commission is short one person and one alternate. If anyone is interested they can apply on the City’s website. ADJOURN Commissioner Thompson moved, seconded by Commissioner Holewa, to adjourn the July 6, 2011, Planning Commission Meeting at 6:57 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (4-0).