HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-13-07 Agenda Item 4C
~
~HlLLS
Request for Council Action
6~e;~red By: i~~;~L;;'~~~a::.""
Council Mtg, Date: .8-13,07
Final Action Needed By:' .8:28:07
Agenda Item:
4.C
."."-"-------.--.-.-..-.BudgetecfAiiioiint:~~~~:::~::~~~=_=~~..~:::::~:=__=_--.._..
Actual Amount:
Funding Source: ...........____________ .....________.............______
f~Gtm~~~i&mRij:qlf~j.filIllSiw!tihtm5frr~~________._..,..,._._._.__.___~~____.,._..,..,._._._________.._._._.,..,._._._._._______.____..........u..__..__________m.___.............._____._.___...............________......._______...........____.
iMotion to Deny Planning Case 07~017 for a Variance at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard Based on the Findings of Fact in the August 13, 2007,r
i Planning Case Report. i
[~taftil&~tn6iJ~atjQn1l~jjjJi~Rf~~~1illt___.__..................._________....................._________................_._..~~__._................._...___________...m......_._...________._................_"________._..........._...____._................._~____........._.._
!Recommend Denial of Planning Case 07-017 for a Variance at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard Based on the Findings of Fact in the August 13,i
12007, Planning Case Report.
i Planning:
iPTRC:
'7-11,07
iApproval
,
,
,
.....---------.......
..........-.-.-,
;
'~m'li~ll<l1mlimElllist~IIll!i!lEllj'jm;.
1"",,,,,,,,A,9~~,,,,,, . '"''''''~''''''' ,..............,_"...,...,....,.,."_.,,, ,.,..........".._." ,.,.,.,.....,....".__,
' X ! Memo/Letter: i August 13, 2007, Memo to the City Council
iResolution No.:
---.-.............-!
iOrdinance No.:
rEngineering Recommendation:
'._.....L_____
iAttorney Recommendation:
..............---------- ..m......._.____ ..............T-4C---f:".pf~inn-ing-C()"mmissfon..M.eetlng-Mlnutes...------- ...........m_._____._ ............- ----. ..............----- ...........-----
i 4C-2: August 5, 2007, Letter from the Applicant
i 4C-3: July 11, 2007, Report to the Planning Commission
.................." ____...m............________ J..~~:1~_~~.Q.~.~_t1.L~Q9..?L~~p.Q!'!J~_~h.~...~J!~ni~_Q._~~.~.~J!~l~.~ ...........______ ............. _ ____..........._.._.__.
; f
<.__...1.
None.
None.
~
~~HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
August 13, 2007
CC Agenda Item 4.C
TO:
Mayor & City Council
James Lehnhoff, City Plannel J---
Planning Case #07-016
Variance
Richard Gonzalez
3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Request
Motion to Deny Planning Case 07-017 for a Variance at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard Based on
the Findings of Fact in the August 13,2007, Planning Case Report.
Backeround
The property has an existing 1,154 square foot dwelling that meets all setback requirements, The
applicant is proposing to demolish this building and construct a new dwelling with attached three
stall garage that encroaches twelve feet into the 30 foot rear setback. The July 11, 2007,
planning case report includes elevations and layouts for the proposed dwelling (Attachment 4C-
3),
The property also has a two stall, 485.4 square foot accessory structure that encroaches into the
southern side yard setback and the rear yard setback. The non-conforming accessory structure is
proposed to be demolished and rebuilt in place to the same dimensions, which does not require a
variance.
The applicant has submitted a project narrative and site plan (Attachment 3A-I ofthe August I,
2007, report to the Planning Commission). The applicant has submitted a letter to the City
Council in response to the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial (Attachment 4C-
2).
The July 11, 2007, planning case report and the August 1,2007, planning case report are
attached to this memo (Attachment 4C-3 and 4C-4). The Planning Commission tabled the
variance requests at their July 11, 2007, meeting, The applicant originally was requesting two
\\Metro-inet.uslardenhi/lslP/anninglP/anning Cases\2007\07-016 Gonzalez Variance (PC Denial)\081307 - CC Report- Gonzalez Variance.doc
Page 1 00
additional variances, which were withdrawn by the applicant prior to the August 1, 2007,
Planning Commission meeting, The withdrawn variances do not require any action by the City
Council.
Findinl!:s of Fact
The Planning Commission offers the following thirteen findings of fact for review:
General Findings:
1. The lot size of 15,241 square feet and the lot dimensions are conforming III the
underlying R.2 Zone,
2. The existing dwelling meetings all property line setbacks.
3. The proposed dwelling would be as close as 18 feet to the western property line, which is
a twelve foot encroachment into the rear setback.
4, The proposed dwelling does not encroach on any other required setbacks,
5, The existing detached accessory structure is nonconforming because it encroaches into
the southern side yard and western property line setbacks, The existing accessory
structure is inches from the western property line and approximately six feet from the
southern side property line.
6, Reconstructing the existing accessory structure to the same dimensions or less would not
require a variance.
7, The proposed new dwelling does not exceed the 35 foot height limit.
8, The proposed new dwelling and accessory structure are permitted uses in the R-2 Zone.
9, The existing dwelling and the proposed garage are outside of the 100-year flood plain,
wetlands, and easements.
On the Variance Request:
10. A dwelling with attached garage is a reasonable use within the R-2 Zone.
11, The lot does not have any unique characteristics that warrant the approval of the variance.
A structure can be built that respects all setback requirements in the underlying zone.
12. Given the location of the property and development characteristics of adjacent properties,
it is unlikely that the proposed dwelling and attached garage would negatively impact the
character of the surrounding neighborhood or City. The structure to the south is 40 feet
from the western property line while the structures to the north are close as ten feet to the
western property line,
13, The proposed plans and setback variance for the dwelling do not appear to be based
entirely on economic considerations,
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommends denial (6-0) of Planning Case 07-017 for a Variance at
3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard Based on the Findings of Fact in the August 13,2007, Planning
Case Report.
\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhi//slPlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-016 Gonzalez Variance (PCDenia/)\081307 - CC Report- Gonzalez Variance.doc
Page 2 00
Options
1, Approve the proposal as submitted,
2. Approve the proposal with conditions,
3, Deny the application with reasons for denial. If the City denies the petitioners request, "".it
must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time it denies the request."
4, Table for additional information.
The findings of fact in this planning case report support denial of the variance request. Ifthe
City Council chooses to approve the variance, findings that support the variance must be stated
for the record prior to approval.
If the variance is denied, Section 1355,05 Subd 4 of the Zoning Code would prohibit
resubmission of a similar variance request within six months of the date of denial.
Deadline for Agencv Actions
The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on June 28, 2007.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by August 28, 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
4C-l Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
4C-2 August 5, 2007, Letter from the Applicant
4C-3 July 11, 2007, Report to the Planning Commission-
http://www.ci.arden.hills.mn.us/planningcase
4C-4 August 1,2007, Report to the Planning Commission-
http://www.ci.arden.hills.mn.us/planningcase
IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillslP/anninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-016 Gonzalez Variance (PC Denial)\081307 - CC Report - Gonzalez Variance.doc
Page 3 of3
Attachment 4 C-l
August 1,2007, City Council Meeting
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes:
· July 11, 2007 (approved)
· August 1, 2007 (draft)
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 11, 2007
7
D. PLANNING CASE #07-016 - VARIANCE: RICHARD GONZALEZ; 3441 LAKE
JOHANNA BOULEVARD
Mr. Lehnhoff stated the applicant is requesting three variances for a proposal to
redevelop 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard, The first variance request is a rear/front yard
setback encroachment for a dwelling with an attached garage. The second variance
request is to relocate and reconstruct a nonconforming accessory structure, The third
variance request is to construct a new partial gravel driveway,
He indicated because this application involves three separate variance requests that are
not contingent upon each other, the analysis, recommendation, and conditions for each
variance is provided separately.
Variance 1: Dwelling Front/Rear Yard Setback Encroachment
The findings of fact for variance number one do not specifically support a
recommendation for denial or approvaL A single family home is a permitted use in the
R-2 Zone and it is a reasonable use for this property. The variance is unlikely to
negatively impact the neighborhood or City because there is already a structure on the
property. It does not appear that the variance is based on economic considerations alone,
As is often the case, the evaluation criterion that states, "The plight ofthe landowner is
due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner," is the difficult
evaluation criterion, While there is an existing conforming dwelling on the property, it is
smaller than the neighboring houses and the topography does present some unique
challenges for redevelopment The topography would require fill to redevelop the
property with the proposed plans and to meet a full 30 foot setback from Fairview
Avenue. Before making a motion for approval or denial, this specific variance evaluation
criterion must be addressed for the record,
If the Planning Commission recommends approval on this variance, Staff recommends
the following six 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. Existing retaining walls shall not be replaced and new retaining walls shall not be
constructed within the Lake Johanna Boulevard right-of-way without written approval
from Ramsey County.
5, The applicant shall obtain approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to
the issuance of any building permits,
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 11, 2007
8
6. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code,
Variance 2: Nonconforming Accessory Structure Relocation and Rebuilding Variance
Mr. Lehnhoff indicated this variance largely depends on the designation of the western
property line. If the western property line is determined to be the primary front property
line, then it would be difficult to construct a new accessory structure 40 feet from the
western property line, The applicant estimates three to five feet of fill would be needed,
which would be around 300 cubic yards of fill for just the accessory structure, A large
amount of fill may negatively impact drainage on the property to the south and change
the overall look of the property.
However, if the rear property line is designated as the rear property line, then the
accessory structure setback from Fairview Avenue is reduced from 40 feet to ten feet.
Moving the accessory structure 4.5 feet farther east and 3.25 feet farther north would
eliminate the need for the variance, though it would increase the need for fill. More
specific calculations would be needed to determine how much additional fill is required
to construct the accessory structure in a conforming location.
Since it appears to be possible to move the accessory structure into a conforming location
without significantly altering the topography, staff is unable to recommend approval of
variance number two. It may, however, be reasonable to table the application to allow
the applicant more time to determine how much additional fill would be needed to
construct the accessory structure in a conforming location. The application should only
be tabled ifthe additional fill information would affect the final decision of variance
number two,
To approve variance number two, the findings would need to be re.stated for the record
to support approval. If the Planning Commissions recommends variance number two for
approval, Staff recommends the following conditions be included with the motion:
L 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 detached accessory shall not exceed the dimensions of the existing accessory
structure, including height and eaves. The applicant shall submit detailed dimensions of
the existing structure prior to receiving a demolition permit.
4, The rebuilt accessory structure shall have similar exterior treatments as the principal
structure.
5, The applicant shall obtain approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to
the issuance of any building permits.
Variance 3: New Gravel Driveway Variance
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 11, 2007
9
Although drainage can be an issue during major rainfall events, the gravel driveway is
unlikely to significantly impact the existing stormwater issue in the neighborhood. The
drainage issue does need to be addressed separate from this property over the long-term,
Moreover, even with the gravel driveway counting as impervious surface, the property
does not require a reduction in the 65 percent landscaping requirement. The findings do
not support approval of this variance; therefore, Staff is not recommending approval of
the variance to construct a partial gravel driveway,
Mr. Lehnhoff indicated the applicant may want to consider pervious pavers in the
proposed gravel portion of the driveway. Pervious pavers would be considered an
improved surface, and it would provide a similar or, possibly, greater function for
stormwater then the gravel driveway.
Commissioner Holewa expressed concern about the address and emergency vehicle
access.
Commissioner Modesette stated she supported the western line being designated the rear
property line and thus requiring a 30 foot setback for the principle structure,
Chair Sand asked if this was a two car garage, would a variance be required, Mr.
Lehnhoff responded he did not have those measurements. Chair Sand stated he did not
believe they had to grant a variance for a third stall garage. He noted the variance would
be made substantially less by eliminating the third stall, especially since he already had
another garage.
Commissioner Modesette asked if the entire structure could be moved closer to Lake
Johanna would lessen the variance.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked if they had any information as to whether the height
would remain the same, Mr. Lehnhoff responded the accessory structure could not
exceed the dimensions it was now. He did not believe it would exceed the 15-foot height
limit.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked if the current structure could be reconstructed in the
same spot without a variance. Mr. Lehnhoffresponded it could.
Chair Sand asked if the current house met the setbacks, Mr. Lehnhoffresponded it did.
Chair Sand stated he would like to have this tabled to see how the house could be set on
the property differently so it did not require such a variance requirement. He did not
believe it was impossible to move the house to the east.
Commissioner Modesette asked for further information of a five-stall garage, She
wondered if something items could be stored inside,
Commissioner Stodola expressed concern about the gravel driveway request. She did not
believe a gravel driveway was necessary.
Richard Gonzalez, 3441 Lake Johanna Blvd, applicant, stated he bought the property
with the intention of redeveloping the property, He stated he did not want to clear the
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY II, 2007
10
land. He did not believe he could push the house closer to the lake because he had been
informed that he had to stay in line with the other homes. Mr. Lehnhoff responded there
was a provision in the zoning code which used the "string line" approach and they
considered that the limit. He noted generally that applied to lake lots in order to not
block site lines, but along Lake Johanna Boulevard that was an open question and he
would need to look at that further.
Mr. Gonzalez stated he believed the path of least resistance was to not block anyone's
view to the lake, but he would be willing to adjust this. Commissioners Holewa and
Modesette stated they would be more willing to look at this type of a variance rather than
the current variance request.
Chair Sand noted by addressing this in more detail, it might be possible he would not
need any variances.
Commissioner Zimmerman concurred that there were some other options that could be
looked at that might not require any variances. He stated he also would like to table this
and encouraged the applicant to come up with a solution that would not require any
variances, if possible.
Mr. Gonzalez asked for clarification as to what was the front yard and the rear yard.
Chair Sand noted staff was recommending the Fairview side was his rear yard, so he
would have 30 feet to deal with and not 40 feet.
Commissioner Holewa noted the Planning Commission could not determine what the
address would be for the home.
Chair Sand moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman to table Planning Case 07-
016 for 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard for further information from the applicant as to
location of main house and attached garage to determine whether or not a variance
request would be eliminated or minimized.
The motion carried unanimously (6-0).
....
LI..
<(
or::
C
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - AUGUST 1,2007
3
A. PLANNING CASE #07-016 - VARIANCE: RICHARD GONZALEZ: 3441 LAKE
JOHANNA BOULEVARD
Mr. Lehnhoff reported that the applicant submitted a revised variance request to construct
a new dwelling with attached garage that encroaches 12 feet in the 30-foot rear setback
for the principle structure. He then provided background information and said current
findings of fact neither fully support nor deny approval.
Chair Sand opened the floor to Commission questions.
Commissioner Larson asked if the existing free-standing garage would remain, and
Mr. Lehnhoff responded that it would.
Chair Sand inquired as to whether the garage would be rebuilt as a one-story structure,
and Mr. Lehnhoff responded that it could only be rebuilt to current or smaller
dimensions. Chair Sand commented that there appeared to be need to note, should the
Commission move to approve the application, any unique circumstances and criteria to
be met for code.
Commissioner Modesette stated she couldn't support the requested variance for the way
the property is sited and expressed disappointment that the request was being made for
one and that efforts aren't being made to site structures within the normal zoning code.
Chair Sand asked whether the deck addition met criteria and was within the extended
setback allowance. Mr. Lehnhoff responded that it does meet criteria and could possibly
extend a few feet further into the determined setback.
Commissioner Larson said he concurred with Commissioner Modesette and commented
that the request for variance of a five-car garage is more than the lot can support.
Chair Sand commented that last month one issue that came before the Commission was
whether the setback variance could be reduced by making a two-car garage rather than a
three-car garage and moving the house to the east. Chair Sand noted that the applicant
chose not to remove the third stall and asked whether removing the third garage stall
from the attached garage would make it possible for the building to meet the rear yard
setback. Mr. Lehnhoff responded that if one of the garage stalls were removed, the
proposal would be very close to meeting the required setback. It might be within 1-2
feet; however, there is additional space to work with on the front side ofthe property.
Commissioner Larson suggested that alternatives be explored so the applicant doesn't
have to come back to the City for a variance request.
Commissioner Stodola moved, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to recommend denial
of Planning Case 07-016 at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard based on findings of fact that
it does not meet the criteria for special circumstances and unique circumstances do not
exist. The motion carried unanimously (6-0).
Attachment 4C-2
August 5, 2007,
Letter from the Applicant
August 1,2007, City Council Meeting
Statement in Support of Variance Request
Planning Case 07-016
3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard
(Rear-yard set-back)
August 6, 2007
Members ofthe City Council:
I am writing to provide the Council with relevant information regarding my variance request for
a reduced rear-yard setback. The request for a rear-yard setback reduction from 30 to 18 feet is
tailored to accommodating my proposed new home construction.
My property at 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard has physical features which render it both
desirable from the standpoint of a site for a home, and also challenging with respect to the actual
siting of a dwelling. Accordingly, I have selected for my architect a nationally-recognized expert
in design of homes for sloping lots, and his firm has done a commendable job in developing a
very practical and site-conscious design, appropriate for both the property and the neighborhood.
In contrast to my architect experience, my dealings with the Planning Commission have been in
most part quite unsatisfactory. Although the Commission members were successful at the fust
hearing in determining which side of the lot is the front and which is the rear, at the second
hearing they were still wedded to the curious insistence that an attached garage must be at least
30 feet from the rear property line, although a detached garage can be constructed as close as 10
feet to the same line.
If the Planning Commission members had taken the time to visit the site, or study carefully the
survey maps provided in support of my variance application, it would have become readily
apparent to them that my property's significant change in elevation from west to east (27 ft)
compels a logical person to conclude that the only practical location for a garage is the western-
most portion ofthe lot, nearest Fairview Avenue. That is precisely why the garages for the three
houses immediately to the north are all located less than 20 ft from their rear property lines, and
why the existing garage on my property is located 8 inches from the property line.
Constructing a garage set back from Fairview Avenue at least 30 feet, as required by the Zoning
Code, would require:
. tremendous amounts of fill be hauled in;
. a high retaining wall be constructed on my property's northern border
. loss of the only existing level section of side yard.
I had thought that surely the variance process was intended to avoid the forcing of such
undesirable outcomes, and that the Planning Commission would be appreciative of carefully-
developed, site-sensitive plans. Alas, my confidence in the former has been dissipated by my
experience with the latter. The Commission appears quite fanatically insistent on the uniform
application of Zoning Code provisions upon all properties in the City, without regard to serious
consideration of any physical conditions present.
A well-detailed zoning code can be helpful in ensuring that a neighborhood consist of very
uniform, non-descript houses of neutral character mindlessly injected into the center of each
property. However, the reality is that some properties and neighborhoods do not satisfy the
underlying assumptions and preferences on which many ofthe Code's provisions are founded.
My property is not flat, nor rectangular in shape, and its intrinsic value makes it inappropriate to
construct upon it a house of average or typical characteristics. Similarly, the neighborhood
largely does not fit the present zoning code's demands, as many of the houses were constructed
long before the zoning code, and with some regard for logical and attractive layout.
The Planning Commission has noted that it would be possible for me to fit my proposed house
upon the property without resort to a variance, i[I were to reduce the size of the proposed garage
from three stalls to two stalls. Although this observation is absolutely correct, it is also entirely
irrelevant for several reasons:
. Regardless of whether the garage is to have one, two, or three stalls, it is logical to have
as much of the garage as possible located on the portion of the lot which is near street
level. It makes no sense whatever to push the garage site into the area of the lot where 4
to 6 feet of fill is required.
. Although the average house in Arden Hills may have a two-car garage, one would be
hard-pressed to identify many houses built adjacent to Lake Johanna during the past 10 or
15 years that do not have at least a 3-car attached garage. Indeed, a quick drive around
the lake reveals no lack of 4-car attached garages. This is not particularly surprising,
given that lakeside residents tend to acquire boats.
. One must consider "reasonable use" for the property. Given that the land value is
approximately $360,000 ($1,000,000 per acre) it should be expected that a house of
above-average value be constructed on it. A 3-car (or larger) garage is a standard feature
of houses in that category. If the Planning Commission has a "problem" with 3-car
garages, they should request that the Council amend the zoning code to prohibit them
throughout the City.
. If my request for the variance were to be denied, I could construct the house with a 2-stall
attached garage, and construct a one-stall garage adjacent to it, encroaching into the 30-ft
rear-yard setback, as far as the I O-ft point. This would be 8 feet closer to the property
line than what I am requesting in the variance application!
Considering the above information, I believe the variance request is based on a logical evaluation
of the site conditions, consideration of "reasonable use", and proper consideration of adjacent
properties. Consequently, I believe my variance request represents a reasonable and justifiable
departure from the Zoning Code's generic provisions, and urge that the Council approve it.
I look forward to the Council's consideration of this matter at its August 13 meeting.
Richard Gonzalez
Attachment 4C-3
Report to the Planning Commission
From July 11, 2007.
Available online at:
hUo:llwww.cLarden-hills.mn.us
August I, 2007, City Council Meeting
Attachment 4C-4
Report to the Planning Commission
From August 1, 2007.
Available online at:
http://www.cLarden-hills.mn.us
August 1,2007, City Council Meeting