The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-11-07 Item 7C, PC 07-012, Variance at 1486 Arden Oaks Drive ~ ~HlLLS Request for Council Action Prepared By: Dept.: Council Mtg. Date: Final Action Needed By: James Lehnhoff ____C;;,2~.r.!l_~!!!ty__!;?~y."."_ _!!l_~_l!~ 6.11 7 6=1"5:07' " Agenda Item: 7.C - ----....-.,....".-.,..,..------Budgete(fAmou-nE~ Actual Amount: Funding Source: ~Q~lfE~1~iB~f!~~~svhd1~:B.].g.~~________._._._.,..,..,.._._____________.......................___._______._______............"........_..___________,,___......................___._._______________......................_.___________"_m.......'..........____________..._"_,,.............._______________n_._.....................__________, iMotion to Deny Planning Case 07-012 for a Variance at 1486 Arden Oaks Drive Based on the Findings of Fact in the June 11, 2007, Planning! I Case Report. ' ~!l~lqg_fJ1me1fQg~1K~2b'Vz?j!I0ili1~ig]l.,....."._._._._______________._..............______________._._._..............____ iStaff supports the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial. ~K!W~~ru~2@]!l!f!Ii~l!l[a@~l!1J~rji~ i X i Memo/Letter: June 11, 2007, Memo to the City Council esolution No.: Ordinance No.: f-----r- 'Engineering Recommendation: !Attorney Recommendation: i X lother: ......... . - - - - - - - --..... ...... - - - - - - ----.. ......,.. 7C~1 :"'DrafCpiiinni"ng'C-om-mission mlrllites'.". ------ 7C~2: Supplementary Information Submitted by the Applicant 7C-3: Public Comments/Letters """".._ " """- .."iI<:::4:_l'la"n~i~9_<:~~~~~p~rtO?:(J1:!,___ "" __""__. _""""__ None. None. ~ ---A~ HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 11, 2007 CC Agenda Item 7.C TO: Mayor & City Council James Lehnhoff, City Planner { Planning Case #07-012 Variance Barbara Muller 1486 Arden Oaks Drive FROM: SUBJECT: Request Motion to Deny Planning Case 07-012 for a Variance at 1486 Arden Oaks Drive Based on the Findings of Fact in the June 11,2007, Planning Case Report. Backl!round The applicant is proposing to construct a new attached garage in front of the existing garage at 1486 Arden Oaks Drive. The proposed garage would be 30 feet by 20 feet 3 inches for a total area of 607.5 square feet. A variance would be needed because the proposed garage would encroach 20 feet into the 40 foot front yard setback. The existing garage and dwelling meet the required 40 foot setback from the front property line. The applicant has submitted a letter explaining the reasons for the variance request and addressing the variance evaluation criteria (Attachment 3C-l ofthe report to the Planning Commission). In summary, the applicant states that the slope of the driveway up to the existing garage is a hazard due to its steepness. The driveway is estimated to have a 16 percent slope. In order to eliminate the steep driveway, the applicant is proposing to dig out the existing driveway and construct a new garage at a lower elevation in front of the existing garage. The new garage would l)e two to three feet higher than the elevation of the street with a significantly moderated slope. If the variance is approved, the old garage would presumably be incorporated into the dwelling since it would no longer be able to access the street. The applicant has indicated she would use the old garage for storage; however, it would be difficult to regulate future use ofthe old garage. Retaining walls would be constructed on both sides of the new driveway, which would help lower the visual impact from the adjacent properties. The submitted designs show that the new garage would have a flat roof that is a few feet higher than floor of the existing garage. The IlMetro-inet.us\ardenhillslPlanning\Planning Cases\2007\07-012 Muller Variance (PENDING)\061107 - CC Report -Muller Variance. doc Page lof4 applicant recently submitted a letter that states the flat roof on the new garage would not be used as a deck; however, the drawings appear to show that the roof could be used as a deck (Attachment 7C-2). Additional Information The applicant has submitted additional information in support of the variance request (Attachment 7C-2). At the Planning Commission meeting, there was a brief discussion regarding the possibility oflowering the existing garage to reduce the driveway slope and maintain the 40 foot front yard setback. At the meeting, the applicant stated that it would not be structurally possible to lower the existing garage. The applicant did not have any information to support her claim at that time. The applicant has now submitted a letter from her builder for the City's review (Attachment 7C-2). The letter does suggest that lowering the existing garage and maintaining the integrity of the existing structure would be difficult. This information was submitted after the Planning Commission review. In addition to the letter from the applicant and her builder, the applicant has also submitted additional drawings of the proposed garage (Attachment 7C-2). The design is the same design reviewed by the Planning Commission. Two letters were submitted to the City via email after the reports were sent to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission did review the emails at their meeting. Copies of the emails are included in Attachment 7C-3. Findinl!s of Fact The Planning Commission offers the following fourteen findings of fact for review (the italicized findings are particularly important for the variance): 1. The lot size is between 13,939 and 14,057 square feet. A certified survey will be needed to determine if the lot is conforming or nonconforming. The status of the lot does not impact this variance application. 2. The lot meets all other dimension requirements for the R-I Zone. 3. The existing dwelling and attached garage conform to all setback and coverage requirements. 4. According to the applicant, the existing driveway up to the garage has a 16.2 percent grade. The proposed driveway would have a significantly reduced grade change. 5. The proposed garage would encroach 20 feet into the front yard setback. 6. The proposed garage would be 30 feet by 20 feet 3 inches for a total area of 607.5 square feet. 7. The proposed garage would not significantly change the impervious coverage on the lot. The structure coverage would increase from 15.8 percent to 20.2 percent, but the driveway size would be reduced. The overall impervious coverage would remain nnchanged at approximately 34 percent. \\Metro-inet.uslardenhil/slPlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-0J2 Muller Variance (PENDING)106JJ07 - CCReport - Muller Variance.doc Page 2 of4 8. The proposed addition along with the existing structure would not exceed the structure or overall impervious limits. 9. The existing dwelling and proposed garage are permitted uses in the R -I Zone. 10. The existing dwelling and the proposed garage are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. 11. The property is currently put to reasonable use. 12. The proposed addition would negatively impact the character of the neighborhood with the reduced setback. 13. The circumstances of this property are not unique. 14. The proposed addition is not based on economic considerations alone. Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 07-0 II and recommends (5-1) denial of the variance at 1486 Arden Oaks Drive based on the findings of fact in the June 11, 2007, Planning Case Report. Options I. Approve the proposal as submitted. 2. Approve the proposal with conditions. 3. Deny the application based on the findings submitted by the Planning Commission. 4. Remand the application back to the Planning Commission for further review based on the newly submitted information. 5. Table for additional information. The findings of fact from the Planning Commission currently support denial ofthe variance. If the City Council chooses to approve the variance, the findings of fact must be amended to support approval. Prior to making a motion for approval, new findings addressing all three ofthe following variance evaluation criteria must be stated for the official record: . The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under conditions permitted by the Zoning Code; . The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; . The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and, If the City Council accepts the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial, it is not necessary to modify the current findings of fact. \lMetro-inet.uslardenhil/sIPlanning1Planning Cases\2007\07-0J2 Muller Variance (PENDING)\061107 - CC Report -Muller Variance.doc Page3 of 4 Deadline for Al!encv Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April IS, 2007. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by June IS, 2007 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day review period. The City may with the petitioners' consent extend the review period beyond the 120 days. Attachments 7C-l Draft Planning Commission Minutes 7C-2 Supplementary Information Submitted by the Applicant 7C-3 Public Comments/Letters 7C-4 May 2,2007, Report to the Planning Commission- htto://www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us \\Metro~inet.uslardenhills\PlanninglPlannjng Cases\2007\Ol-012 Muller Variance (PENDING)\061 107 - CCReport ~ Muller Variance.doc Page 4 of 4 Attachment 7C-l Draft Planning Commission Minutes June 11,2007, City Council Meeting ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 2, 2007 3 C. PLANNING CASE #07-012 - VARIANCE; BARBARA MULLER; 1486 ARDEN OAKS DRIVE Mr. Lehnhoff stated the applicant was requesting a variance to construct a new attached garage in front of the existing garage that will extend 20 feet into the 40 foot front yard setback. Staff recommended approval subject to the following 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. Retaining walls greater than four feet in height shall be engineered and shall require a building permit. 4. Unless deemed necessary by the City Engineer, the applicant shall not extend the retaining walls into the public right-of-way. He noted he had received two emails, one from Kathy Wehking, 1475 Arden Oaks Drive dated May 2, 2007 stating: "I do not have issues with Barbara Muller adding/changing to her garage as described in the Public Meeting Notice. They have taken a house that was an eye sore, and made it into a beautiful home. I have no question that the changes made to the garage will be just as nice. I agree the driveway is very steep and I believe the former owners had an injury accident due to the driveway as well." The second email was from: David and Nancy Beamish, 1377 Arden Oaks Drive, dated May 2, 2007 stating: "We were sent a public meeting notice regarding the variance application to construct a new two car garage @ 1486 Arden Oaks Drive. We do not think it should be approved with this great of an encroachment on the regular 40 foot setback. We think it will look bad going that close to the street. Can they revise their plans? (possibly removing the original garage so that they could dig out under it to put in a new garage with an addition on top?) I know it would cost more but 20 feet out seems to be encroaching a lot on the setback." He stated he had also received a phone call from Janet Kuhl, 1392 Arden Oaks Drive, in support of the variance. Chair Sand stated he believed the safety issues had been addressed by the steps however he was concerned about the encroachment issue and setting precedent. Barbara Muller, 1486 Arden Oaks Drive, stated it has been difficult to get into and out of her driveway in the winter due to the steepness. She stated she had spoken with some of the neighbors and they were also concerned about the safety of her driveway. She believed her proposal was the best resolution to address the safety issue. Commissioner Modesette stated she was concerned about the encroachment request. She acknowledged her situation was significant, but she believed there was an answer to deal with the garage and not encroach so much into the setback. Ms. Muller responded she ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 2, 2007 4 had spoken with a builder and they were recommending a flat roof so it would blend into rest ofthe home and to keep the encroaclunent to a minimum. Commissioner Stodola asked if they did this, how they would get from the garage into the house. Ms. Muller responded stairways inside the structure would be built. Commissioner Modesette asked if the garage was heated. Ms. Muller responded it was not and she did not plan to heat it. Chair Sand stated it would be helpful if they had a side view. Councilmember Thompson asked what the area above the garage would be used for. Ms. Muller responded it would not be used for living space, but more likely for storage space. She noted it would be minimally heated and cooled. Chair Sand asked if there was any concern about using the old garage as storage or if there were any building regulations that would restrict its use. Commissioner Modesette stated the use could change over time and there was no guarantee that this would remain as storage space. Mr. Lehnhoff stated he was not able to give an answer at this time and he would need to have the Building Official look at this. Dennis Foster. 1415 Arden Oaks Drive stated he had no problem that the garage was at a lower level. He acknowledged the driveway was very steep, but he had a concern about the setback. He noted the entire neighborhood was consistent and had abided by the setback requirements. He stated the request was to cut the setback in half, which was a considerable amount. He indicated if it was a 3-5 foot variance that it would not be an issue. He noted there were other homes in the same situation with steep driveways that could make the same request. He indicated the driveway did face north, so it did get ice and snow buildup which he sympathized with, but the setback was the issue. He stated the ordinance had been there for some time and the owner should have recognized the steep driveway when purchased and he was sure the price reflected the undesirable steep driveway. He indicated there was nothing that was out of the owner's control and he believed she should abide by the setbacks as the rest of the residents were required to do. Ms. Muller stated the neighbors directly adjacent to her property and across the street were in favor of this application and they believed it would increase the look of the neighborhood. She acknowledged that she knew the driveway was steep prior to her purchasing the home, but being from another country, she did not realize how difficult the driveway would be in the winter. Commissioner Stodola noted a north facing driveway also added difficulties in the winter. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 2, 2007 5 Commissioner Larson moved, seconded by Commissioner Modesette to recommend denial of Planning Case 07-012 for a Variance at 1486 Arden Oaks Drive based on the stated failure to meet three ofthe four variance criteria: I. The property is put to reasonable use at this time. 2. The circumstances are not unique. 3. The essential character of the neighborhood would be changed by the reduced setback. The motion carried (5-1 Commissioner Stodola opposed). Attachment 7C-2 Supplementary Information Submitted by the Applicant June 11,2007, City Council Meeting Barbara Miiller 1486 Arden Oaks Drive Arden Hills, MN 55112 May 30, 2007 To Mayor Harpstead and Councilmembers Grant, Holden, Holmes and McClung Re: Application for a Variance from the Setback Requirement for 1486 Arden Oaks Drive Dear Mayor Harpstead and Councilmembers: I am requesting a front-yard setback variance for my property at 1486 Arden Oaks Drive to construct a new attached garage in front ofthe existing garage as shown on the attachments. The new garage would extend 20 feet into the 40 foot front yard setback area. The Planning Commission has recommended denial of the variance and I respectfully request that you grant the variance despite such recommendation. My existing north-facing driveway is very steep, with a grade of approximately 16%. In his report to the Planning Commission, the City Planner mentioned that according to the City Engineer standard engineering practice for new residential development would nowadays limit driveways to no more than a ten percent grade. The steep, North-facing slope of my driveway creates a significant safety hazard for me and for people and automobiles on my street. Many times during the winter, despite diligent efforts to keep my driveway clear, I am unable to stop my car after exiting the garage and before running into the street. Although I check the street carefully before getting into my car to exit the garage, there have been several times when a pedestrian or a car has entered the area at the end of my driveway after I have checked. My house is located close to the exit of Arden Oaks Drive to Old Snelling; there is only one other property between my house and Old Snelling. On the other side of my property, Arden Oaks Drive curves around; there is also only one property on the other side of the street before this curve. The steep increase of my driveway creates a wider than usual blind angle for any driver going down my driveway. During fair weather conditions, a slow and careful exit from my garage and down the driveway makes it possible to prevent any injury to pedestrians, or any accidents with cars passing by, that may have been hidden or may have come into Arden Oaks Drive while a car goes down my driveway. However, any precipitation at temperatures around 32 degrees or lower turns the driveway into an ice track that can only partially, if at all, be controlled by means such as traction grit or ice melting liquids. The North-facing driveway ensures the longevity of any such ice build-up during Minnesota winters. Driving down the driveway under such conditions makes a slow and careful exit from the garage often impossible because cars cannot be controlled on the lower part of the driveway and simply slide into the street. The floor of the new garage I propose would be at a much lower level, about 2 feet over street level compared to the floor of the existing garage that is more than 8 feet above street level. The new garage would allow me to exit the garage and enter the street in my car under full control and without risk to people and vehicles in the street. Some of my neighbors expressed their delight about my intent to address the current situation through the construction of a low- level new garage. The Planning Commission decided at its meeting on May 2, 2007 to recommend the denial of my request. I urge you not to follow this recommendation and to grant the variance, since I believe the Planning Commission did not adequately consider the hazards that the current driveway poses for the safety of people living in, or visiting, the neighborhood. I believe that the safety issues created by the topography of my lot and the location of my lot on the street presents an instance where strict enforcement of the zoning code causes undue hardship. Use of my property with the existence of such a material safety hazard to the neighborhood is not reasonable, and not a prudent decision by the City for its own citizens. I have investigated alternatives to constructing a new garage as proposed. My builder advised me that the current garage floor cannot be lowered because any attempt to underpin the existing garage would endanger the structural integrity of the existing house. I so advised the Planning Commission. Attached is a letter from my contractor, Michael Lee who has done significant work in Arden Hills, further explaining the impracticability oflowering the existing garage floor. The suggested design for the new garage is aimed at limiting the visual impact on the neighborhood to a minimum and making the new garage blend into the existing front yard. The neighbors I have spoken with have expressed their approval of the design. The flat roof is intended to make the new garage less imposing; the flat roof is not intended to be used as a deck. My contractor advises that the railing around the roofwill be required as a safety matter, whether or not the roof is used as a deck. I will be attending the City Council meeting on June 11, 2007, at which my variance will be considered, and I will be happy to respond to any questions you may have. Thank you for your consideration. Yours sincerely, (/) 0 (1\ __ Il/} -:b~~ Encl. cc (with enclosures): James Lehnhoff, City Planner ) MAY-25-2007 10:12A FRDM:MICHAEL LEE REMODELI 6517315152 TO: 6124927077 P.2/3 . MICHAEL LEE REMODELING May 25, 2007 Barbara Muller 1486 Arden Oaks Drive Arden Hills, MN 55112 Dear Ms. Muller: You have asked us to evaluate the feasibility of lowering the floor of your existing garage such that the grade of your driveway would be within a reasonable range. The project would involve the following: 1. Remove overhead garage doors, tear out concrete floor. Tear out asphalt driveway. 2. Hire an experienced house moving company to support the garage walls and roof, and the house walls, floors and roof in common with the garage. This would have to be accomplished with all supports located outside the exterior walls and with 6 feet clear in order to leave room for the over-dig and tear-out and installation of new foundation. 3. Once the house is supported, excavate interior of garage to desired depth of new garage floor and excavate driveway to new depth and grade. "-P;:',/""J) 4. Tear out all existing garage footin~, and foundatio? Excavate to a ~9'~'9t4 A/~'.'? feet below new garage floor elevation for frost footings. Includes oy,er Pig on /''' /, outside to at least 6 feet outside exterior waIls, since the depth fr9Jt( t\xi~ing.gr~/ will range from approximately 4 feet to 12 feet. J/ ,.</ .;;7;// 5. Excavate under house/garage common walls to a dept of 4 ~.DelOVjlnewflqo~/We.. estimate this to be between 2 feet and 4 feet below existi~g;hou'~ bfi!lllmeri0Iopr."' -'."; 6. Ins~1 new garage fo.otings and fo~dation u~ to bottoIWbf ~,geiilll~1 }'lew A footings and foundation must be 12 mches thick dueJcf exc,e~SIV~1.Vall p.eJghf. /1 Install new footing and foundation waIlljl'idp- exi~tIDg ho,f,se ~all. ) (~~-=7::: /~.-~ 7. Add water proofing and insulation board'tql!-~!!rlor of ml~alid old f9uft~J!PoQn/>/;/' waIls. Backfill exterior waIls. Backfill interior frost trench. Pour *~w garage - /// floor. \ \ / ./ .o/;<,y:y';- 8. Add engineered retaining waIls to each side of driveway at front of gBtage. Add' /~ ,. guard rails on top. "~~_./ /~ 9. Remove all shoring from house and garage. //1 .:?,,,,=-.,, 10. Tear down garage front wall, and rebuild to a new total wall height of abolin5 l7 )1 J/ 1/ feet. (=-~.f... ._:;.:::/ *-.~.~--5- '-';;:"~~-:-~';:::-:~'~ 731 BIELENBERG DRIVE, SUITE 108 . WOODBURY, MN 55125 Main: (651) 731-2345 . Fax: (651) 731-5152 . www.michaelleeremodeling.com MN Builder License: #20416226 ) MAY-25-2007 10:13A FROM:MICHAEL LEE REMODELI 5517315152 TO: 5124927077 The project would require an extensive engineering evaluation of the existing home and foundations, and although not usually required for a residential structure, the new footings and foundations must be designed by a professional engineer. This project cannot be builder-designed. We are uncertain whether a system can be designed to support the existing house and garage while leaving room for the excavation work needed. CertaiIlly the best available house moving or engineering firm should be engaged. Whoever does the design and support work, they will not guarantee that structural damage to the house will not occur. Approximately 40 truck loads offill will need to be exported from the site, initially, and following installation of footings approximately 15 loads of fill will need to be returned to the site to fill in excavations. The site has no room for temporary storage of fill. If it rains during the project, work will need to stop because of local soils conditions- typical Arden Hills' clay. There will be significant risk of washouts and cave-ins if there are significant rains, requiring further excavations and making siltation control very difficult. Any builder that undertakes the job will either insist on a "cost plus" contract or require very significant contingency allowances because of unknown subsurface conditions and weather risks. It may be difficult to get builders to bid on the job because of the significant contingencies that must be considered. Architectural design for the front of the house will be a challenge, because of the two- story f~e of the garage adjacent to a raised entrance. We believe that a variance from the front set-back lines may be required for the engineered retaining walls and associated guard rails that will need to project a signficant distance from the front of the house, and you should review possible variance requirements with the City planning department. Significant engineering design work would be necessary before even rough estimates of the project cost could be prepared. However, we believe that the cost of such a project would be at least $75,000 greater than constructing a new garage in front of the house as previously proposed, and possibly much more. In our opinion, the cost of such a project, in comparison to the value of the existing home would make the project practically unfeasible. Michael Lee, Inc. is not willing to take on this project of lowering the existing garage floor and driveway due to the complexity, risks and unknowns. ~_ODa P.Y3 Attachment 7C- 3 Public Comments/Letters June 11, 2007, City Council Meeting Page 1 of 1 James Lehnhoff From: bmish5@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 9:32 AM To: James Lehnhoff Subject: FW: Project PC#:07-012 -------------- Forwarded Message: -------------- From: "Nancy Beamish" <Nancy.Beamish@childrensmn.org> To: <james.1ehnhoff@ci.arden-hi1l.mn.us> Cc: <bmish5@comcast.net> Subject: Project PC#:07-012 Date; Wed, 2 May 200713:57:12 +0000 We were sent a public meeting notice regarding the variance application to construct a new two car garage @ 1486 Arden Oaks Drive. We do not think it should be approved with this great of an encroachment on the regular 40 foot setback. We think it will look bad going that close to the street. Can they revise their plans? (possibly removing the original garage so they could dig out under it to put in a new garage with an addition on top?) I know it would cost more but 20 feet out seems to be encroaching a lot on the setback. Thank you, Dave & Nancy Beamish 1377 Arden 0 aks Dr ive Arden Hills, MN 55112 651-638-9179 bmish5@comcast.net Confidentiality Statement: This email/fax, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this email/fax is not the intended recipient or his or her agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying ofthis email/fax is prohibited. If you have received this email/fax in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and deleting this email or destroying this facsimile immediately. 6/112007 Page 1 of 1 James Lehnhoff From: Kathy Wehking [kwehking@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 5:52 PM To: James Lehnhoff Subject: PC#07-012 James Lehnhoff, [ do not have any issues with Barbara Muller adding/changing to her garage as described in the Public Meeting Notice. They have taken a house that was an eye sore, and made [t into a beautiful home. I have no question that the changes made to the garage will be just as nice. I agree the driveway is very steep and I believe the former owners had an injury accident due to the driveway as we[1. Sincerely, Kathy Wehking 1476 Arden Oaks Drive Arden Hills, MN 55112 651-639-8348 5/30/2007 Attachment 7C-4 Report to the Planning Commission Available online at: http:f fwww.ci.arden-hills.mn.us June 11,2007, City Council Meeting