Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-06-1989 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING VILLAGE OF ARDEN HILLS WEDNESDAY , SEPTEMBER 6, 1989 - 7 :30 P.M. VILLAGE HALL 1. Call to Order and Roll Call . 2. Approval of Minutes of August 2, 1989, Planning Commission Meeting. 3. Case 89-12 Minor subdivision (lot line realignment) , Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Dalsoren Addition for Mel and Eleanor Fish , 1975 Glenpaul Avenue. 4. Case 89-13 Lot combination, Lots 4 and 5, Block 3, Arden Oaks Addition, for Pat and Raghu Sharma, 1462 Arden Oaks Drive. 5. Case 89-14 Variance from provision that does not allow accessory buildings to be placed between the principal structure and the front lot line, Lot 14, Arden Hills Addition, Jeff and Barb Fog. • 6. Council Report. 7. Adjournment. MINUTES OF THE ARDEN HILLS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1989, 7:30 P.M. - CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chairman Probst called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. • ROLL CALL The roll being called the following members were present: Chairman Probst, Members Dave Carlson, Peter Martin, Raymond McGraw, Scott Petersen, Dorothy Zehm and Dan Ashbach. Absent: Members Winiecki, Piotrowski, Curtis and Woodburn. Also Present: Planner John Bergly, Mayor Thomas Sather, Clerk Administrator Gary Berger and Deputy Clerk Catherine Iago. APPROVE MINUTES Petersen moved, seconded by Martin, that the August 2, 1989, Planning Commission Minutes be approved as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) CASE #89-12; MINOR Planner Bergly explained the applicant is requesting a SUBD. , LOTS 2 & 3, realignment of a side lot line between Lots 2 and 3, BLK. 1, DALSOREN Block 1, Dalsoren Addition, in the R-2 Residential ADDN, MEL FISH, District. He noted Outlot A is already attached to Lot 2. 1975 GLENPAUL AVE. Bergly reviewed the considerations listed in his report dated 9-6-89, and noted the relocation of the lot line, as proposed will accomplish the following: 1. Allow an even exchange of properties between the owner of Lot 3 and the applicant. 2. Serve the interests of both the applicant and the owner of Lot 3 by creating more regularly shaped front, rear and side yards. • 3. More nearly meet the requirement in the subdivision regulations that side lot lines should be perpendicular to street right-of-way lines. 4. Correspond with fencing that has been installed in the rear yard. 5. This area of the City was developed prior to the adoption of present standards; the front yard setback and garage side yard setback do not conform with present requirements. The Planner pointed out the Commission should consider that the pavement on Glenpaul Avenue is not situated in the center of the right-of-way (as shown in the drawing attached to his report) . He indicated that when the driveway for Lot 2 was constructed it was inadvertently laid out generally perpendicular to the pavement without regard for the property line. Bergly advised that an easement is shown on the southeast corner of Lot 2 as the driveway was constructed partially on Lot 1. He explained the easement is proposed so that the present owner of Lot 2 can sell the property with a recorded easement, rather than to continue trespassing on the adjacent lot. Bergly noted the easement is between the two property owners and the City need not be involved in the procedure. The Planner recommended approval of the division as proposed for the reasons listed above, with the provision that a 10-foot-wide drainage and utility easement, centered on the new lot line, be provided. Member Martin questioned if the easement requested will be granted to the City. • The Planner advised the easement would be granted to the City. Mel Fish, applicant, explained the requested realignment is for aesthetic purposes. He questioned if the City Attorney will be responsible for drafting the easement document. Clerk Administrator Berger stated he will contact the Attorney to determine the procedure for submission of the document. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 9-6-89 Page 2 CASE #89-12 (Cont'd) Zehm moved, seconded by Martin, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case #89-12, Minor Subdivision to Realign a Lot Line between Lots 2 & 3, Block 1, Dalsoren Addition, 1975 Glenpaul • Avenue, Mel Fish, as shown on the survey submitted, based on the considerations outlined in the Planner's report of 9-6-89 and subject to the applicant providing the City a 10-foot-wide drainage and utility easement, centered on the new lot line, as approved by the City Attorney. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) CASE #89-13; LOT Planner Bergly reviewed the application to consolidate CONSOLIDATION, Lots 4 and 5, Block 3, Arden Oaks Addition, Pat and Raghu LOTS 4 & 5, BLK 3, Sharma, 1462 Arden Oaks Drive. He explained the applicant ARDEN OAKS ADDN, presently owns both lots, with Lot 5 containing the house 1462 ARDEN OAKS and Lot 4 being vacant, except for the curved driveway DRIVE, SHARMA crossing the corner of the lot which provides better access to the applicant's garage. The Planner stated the request is to combine the two lots and vacate the utility and drainage easement along the common property line in order to expand the house with a new attached garage and storage area. Bergly reviewed the following considerations as listed in his report of 9-6-89: 1. The vacant lot is very steep and would require extensive grading and the loss of trees if the lot were to be used for a separate house. 2. The vacant lot is needed to provide a driveway with a reasonable grade. 3. The proposed additions to the house are not at issue in this request. If the structure meets all ordinance and building code requirements, a building permit will be issued. • 4. The utility and drainage easement is not being utilized now for either utilities or drainage, and surface drainage can be routed around the building addition if needed. The Planner stated the size of the homes in the area and the size of the applicant's home with the proposed additions will be compatible with the new combined lot. He recommended approval of the proposed lot combination and vacation of the utility and drainage easement along the existing lot line that divides Lots 4 and 5. Member Martin questioned why the applicant was proposing a six stall garage and what type of use was proposed for the facility. He recalled that a previous request for a large garage resulted in a resident operating a business from the building. Mrs. Sharma explained that she collects cars and will utilize the six stalls for personal vehicles, not to operate a business. Chairman Probst questioned the process for vacation of the drainage and utility easement. He also asked if the City should make provision for replacement easement along one of the adjoining lot lines. Planner Bergly stated the Attorney will review and advise the Council on the procedure; Ramsey County will be advised of the vacation of the easement. He stated there are easementsacross all the remaining property lines on both lots. isMember Zehm suggested the Commission attach a provision for the City Engineer's approval of the vacation of the easement. Planner Bergly stated he has discussed the matter with the Engineer and was assured there were no problems with the vacation of the easement. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 9-6-89 Page 3 CASE #89-13 Petersen moved, seconded by Carlson, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case #89-13, Consolidation of Lots 4 and 5. Block 3, Arden Oaks Addition and vacation of the • utility and drainage easement along the existing lot line that divides lots 4 and 5, Pat and Raghu Sharma, 1462 Arden Oaks Drive. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) CASE #89-14; VAR. Planner Bergly explained the applicant proposes to ACCESSORY STRUCTURE construct a garage in the front yard of his residence LOCATION REQUIREMENT, at 3421 North Snelling Avenue. The Zoning Code does not 3421 NO. SNELLING allow accessory structures nearer to the front lot line AVENUE, JEFF FOG than the principal structure. Bergly reviewed the following considerations, as listed in his report of 9-6-89: 1. The lot has 85 ft. of frontage on Snelling Ave. and 65 ft. on Lake Johanna and is 500 ft. deep. The house is located on the high point of the lot, approximately 180 ft. from the street and 225 ft. from the lake and is over 50 ft. higher than the lake and 20 ft. higher than the street. 2. The proposed garage is to be located 80 ft. from the front lot line; the setback is twice as far as the standard 40-foot setback requirements. 3. A location for the garage to the rear of the house is not reasonable on a lakefront lot and the lot is too narrow to place the garage alongside the house. 4. Although there is a two-car garage underneath the house at the present time, the Ordinance allows one accessory structure on each lot. The owners feel the present garage is too small and it is difficult for cars to maneuver in and out; would like the storage space for boats, lawn tractor, canoes, etc. 5. The proposed garage meets all ordinance requirements other than being located • between the principal structure and the front lot line. 6. Neighboring properties will not be affected due to their location and elevation. No evidence has been provided stating the neighbors agreement to the proposed variance. 7. The requirement for location of accessory building is primarily for visual reasons--not allowing obstructions in the front yard and destroying the continuity of front yard open space. In this case, the front yards in the area are so heavily wooded the houses cannot be seen from the street. The Planner explained the provision for variances mentions specifically that variances may be granted due to such land factors as ". . . length of a side of a lot, the shape of the lot, or the unusual terrain prohibit reasonable development equivalent to that permitted without a variance on a similar lot. .but which has no unusual configuration." He noted in this case all three factors, the size, shape, and terrain of the lot, apply. Bergly added that lakefront lots probably were not considered when the provision governing accessory structure location was drafted; garages simply do not belong between the house and lake. Planner Bergly referred Commission to the Board of Appeals minutes dated 8-29-89, unanimously recommending approval of the Variance based on the narrow lot and the fact the site could not be viewed from the roadway due to the excessive landscaping. • The Planner recommended approval of the variance based on the lot dimensions, configuration and terrain and because lake lots are not appropriately developed with garages to the rear of the house. He advised the City Attorney has recommended that Commission and Council when taking action to approve or deny variances identify factors which explain the rationale for the action. Bergly suggested the considerations listed in his report or any others identified by Commission could be included in the action for approval or denial. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 9-6-89 Page 4 CASE #89-14 (Cont'd) Jeff Fog, applicant, explained the property terrain is not flat and limits the area where the garage could be • placed. He stated the existing garage was constructed in 1948 and is not large; it is hard to maneuver vehicles out of the driveway from the existing garage. Member Martin questioned where the two adjacent residences are located and if the garage would be visible from the adjacent properties. Fog described the location of the two neighboring homes; the garage would not be visible from the home to the south and the home to the north may be able to see the roofline of the garage. He stated he has discussed the variance request with both neighbors and can provide written approval from both parties if necessary. Zehm moved, seconded by McGraw, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case #89-14, Variance to allow an accessory structure between the house and the front property line as proposed, 3421 North Snelling Avenue, Jeff Fog, based on the following: 1. The narrow lot, the shape and terrain of the lot are identifiable hardships for placement of the garage structure on the side of the house. 2. The front of the lot, along the street is heavily landscaped and will prohibit any negative visual impact. 3. The garage is setback far enough from the street to prohibit visibility from vehicular traffic, as opposed to other lakeside lots that may have driveways abutting the street line. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) • COUNCIL REPORT Clerk Administrator Berger reported on recent Council actions of interest to the Commission. ADJOURN Petersen moved, seconded by Carlson, that the meeting be adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) Dennis Probst, Chairman •