The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4D, Variance 1249 Tiller Lane ~ ~HILLS Request for Council Action Prepared By: M~~9an_B~~~man _________ Dept.: -~~o~rii_iniJr!ih~_ t)evfifo.pi11~,r1t Council Mtg. Date: . ... "" "." ... "01:28:08" ..... Final Action Needed By: 02:08=08 Budgeted Amount Actual Amount: Funding Source: ......... ........"." ".,". """""_____________________n____________n_ !~~:Hlli~[f~,g~J~~Uj3Jf.9Y~~~tR1J~Jlf[jIDJJlillE~i\111fillt_"____"__,._____"_"________________________________________________________00___________________________________________________.___._.mm........."......."."."...............".......",.""__.""_",.._"_",""__"_______________________________________."_____.................,,.., !Motion to Approve Planning Case 08-002for a Variance at 1249 Tiller Lane, Based on the Findings of Fact and the Submitted Plans, as! iAmended by the Six Conditions in the January 9,2008, Planning Case Report. Approve Planning Case 08-002 for Variance at 1249 Tiller Lane, Based on the Findings of Fact and the Submitted Plans, as Amended by the' Six Conditions in the January 9, 2008, Planning Case Report. January 28, 2008, Memo to the City Council i Resolution No.: 'Ordinance No.: !Engineering Recommendation: [Attorney Recommendation: I X :Other: ,....... ........."".... ....... .. .". "".... A:"'orii'tfpiannlng'-Com"iillssl-on-'iViinutes"thim'"'j'an'iJ"a'iy'"g";'""2'o6if . . .. i. .,~,:..,.~.I,~,~,~,i_~,9,_,~~~~,_R_':!,PQ,I'!,.9_~,~.9_Q.t._,,_ None. ~ ~HlLLS MEMORANDUM DATE: January 28,2008 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Meagan Beekman, Planner I SUBJECT: Planning Case #08-002 Variance Roger and Diana Ettel 1249 Tiller Lane Request Motion to approve Planning Case 08-002 for a variance at 1249 Tiller Lane, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the six conditions in the January 9,2008, planning case report, Backl!round The applicants own the dwelling at 1249 Tiller Lane, which is a located in the southeastern part ofthe City in the R-l Zoning District. The home is situated on the corner of Tiller Lane and Dellwood A venue at an angle, The driveway access into the property is from Dellwood Avenue, which presently dead ends just north ofthe applicant's lot (Attachment B). The existing entry into the home is located on the northwest side of the home, from what visually would be considered the rear yard. The applicants are proposing to construct a 118 square foot enclosed front entryway and stoop to the southeast side of the home facing Dellwood Avenue and Tiller Lane. The home currently encroaches nine feet into the required 40 foot front yard setback on Dellwood Avenue, The applicants are requesting a variance to construct an enclosed portion of the addition that would encroach eight feet into the required setback and be 32 feet from the property line. The proposed addition would not increase the setback encroachment of the existing dwelling, The open air stoop portion would not be considered an encroachment as it meets the regulations ofthe Front Porch Ordinance in the City's Zoning Code, and so is not included in this calculation, The rest of the dwelling and attached garage would remain unchanged, \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\PlanninglPlanning Cases\2008\08-002 Eitel Variance (PC Approved)\012808 - CC Report - Ettel Varianceodoc Page 1 of3 The applicant has submitted a letter addressing the variance criteria, a site plan ofthe property, and elevations of the existing and proposed structure (Attachment B), Findinl!s of Fact Staff offers the following sixteen findings of fact for review: General Findings 1. The lot meets the requirements ofthe R -1 Zoning District regulations. 2, The property is a comer lot and subject to the front yard 40 foot setback on two sides, 3, The existing dwelling does not meet all property line setbacks. The attached garage encroaches nine feet into the front yard setback along Dellwood Avenue, 4, The proposed addition would encroach eight feet into the front yard setback along Dellwood Avenue, While this would not decrease the existing structure's setback, a variance is required because the footprint of the home within the encroachment is . , mcreasmg. 5. The proposed addition does not encroach on the rear setback, 6, The structure coverage meets Zoning Code requirements. 7, The minimum landscape area requirements meet Zoning Code regulations. 8, The dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height limit. 9, The existing home was not built according to approved plans. 10, Dwellings are permitted structures within the R-I Zone. 11. The existing dwelling and the proposed addition are outside of the lOO-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements, Variance Findings: 12. A dwelling and addition are reasonable uses within the R-1 Zone, 13. The property itself is not unique in the City, The way the home is situated on the lot could be considered unique, as it limits any alternative locations for the addition. 14, The circumstances of the property were not created by the landowner. 15, It is unlikely the proposed addition would have a negative impact on the property or the neighborhood, 16. The proposed plans and setback variance for the dwelling do not appear to be based on economic considerations alone, Recommendation The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval (6-0) of Planning Case 08-002 for a variance at 1249 Tiller Lane, based on the Findings of Fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the following six conditions in the January 9,2008, Planning Case Report, I, The proj ect 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. \\Metro-inetouslardenhi/lsIP/anninglP/anning Cases\2008108-002 Ettel Variance (PC Approved) \012808 - CC Report - Ette/ Varianceodoc Page 2 of3 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. 5. The addition will match the color and siding of the existing structure. 6. A walkway shall be constructed with the addition that connects the front entryway with the driveway. 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, n...it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time it denies the request. n 4, Table for additional information. The findings offact in this planning case report support approval ofthe variance request. If the City Council chooses to deny the variance, findings that deny the variance must be stated for the record prior to voting on the motion, Deadline for Al!ency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on December 6th, 2007. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by February 4, 2008 (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 A Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes B January 9, 2008, Report to the Planning Commission- htm:/ /www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us/planningcase \\Metro-inetouslardenhills\Planning\P/anning Cases\2008\08-002 Ettel Variance (PC Approved)\012808 - CC Report - Ettel Variance. doc Page 3 of3 Attachment A January 28,2008, City Council Meeting Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: · January 9, 2008 (draft) PLANNING CASE # 08-002 - Variance; ROl!er & Diana Ertel; 1249 Tiller Lane Ms. Beekman reported that the applicant submitted a variance request to construct a 118 square foot enclosed entryway and stoop to the dwelling at 1249 Tiller Lane that would encroach eight feet into the required front yard setback. She then provided background information and said the findings of fact do not specifically support a recommendation for denial or approval. She stated if the Planning Commission recommends approval, staff recommends the following five 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, 5. The addition will match the color and siding of the existing structure, Chair Sand opened the floor to Commission questions, Commissioner Holewa inquired if a portion of the house was an addition, Ms, Beekman stated it is an addition, Commissioner Holewa inquired when the original home was built. Ms. Beekman stated it was built in 1955. Commissioner Holewa inquired when the addition was built. Ms, Beekman stated it was built in 1993. Commissioner Holewa inquired about the length of time the homeowners have owned the home, Ms, Beekman stated the homeowners were the applicant for the addition. Commissioner Larson inquired if the garage is original to the house, Ms. Beekman stated it appears to be, Commissioner Larson inquired if the setback for the garage has changed. Ms. Beekman stated that information is unavailable. Commissioner Larson inquired about the amount of the encroachment. Ms. Beekman stated the current encroachment is nine feet. Commissioner Larson noted that the proposed entryway encroaches less than the current garage. Ms, Beekman state that was correct and that the proposed encroachment would be eight feet. Commissioner Larson inquired ifthey currently allow for the base of the porch to be built on post footings, Mr. Lehnhoff stated it would be a question for the Building Official. Commissioner Holewa inquired ifthere will be a walkway. Ms, Beekman stated her understanding is that a walkway will be built. Commissioner Holewa inquired if the walkway is part ofthe plan, Ms. Beekman stated it is. Commissioner Holewa inquired about the type of surface for the walkway, Ms. Beekman stated she didn't know, Commissioner Larson stated he would like to know about the type of surface, Roger Ettel, 1249 Tiller Lane, stated the plan is to have a permanent walkway near the top of a small retaining wall. Commissioner Larson inquired about the foundation for the addition. Mr. Ettel stated he is proposing the addition be on posts and not on block. Commissioner Larson inquired if it was related to the costs, Mr. Ettel stated he did not know, that his contractor had recommended it be built that way. Commissioner Zimmerman stated it would be the most expedient. Chair Sand inquired about a drawing of the proposed addition and the encroachment. Ms. Beekman stated the home is on an angle and the layout results in an eight foot encroachment. Chair Sand stated there were three submissions by the neighbors, all expressing their approval ofthe application. He stated the letter of hardship submitted by the applicants suggests that part ofthe problem could be solved by changing their address to Dellwood instead of Tiller. Ms, Beekman explained the code and how the front yard is designated, Mr. Lehnhoff stated the applicant could choose to change their address and it is an issue for the Building Official. Commissioner Holewa stated he assumes the impervious surface and landscape area won't change significantly with the addition of the sidewalk in the calculation, Mr. Lehnhoff stated a percentage of the sidewalks are considered landscaped area, and that it would likely not change the calculation significantly. Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Holewa, to recommend approval of Planning Case #08-002, Roger & Diana Ettel; 1249 Tiller Lane, subject to the five conditions as listed in staffs January 9, 2008 report and an additional condition for a walkway from the driveway to the garage based on the location of the house and the way the house is sited. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). This Planning Case will be reviewed at the Monday, January 28,2008, City Council meeting, Attachment B January 9,2008, Report to the Planning Commission Available online at: http://www.cLarden-hills.mn.us January 28,2008, City Council Meeting