HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-06-08-PCChair
Clayton Larson
It
1245 W. Highway 96
Commissioners
EN HILLS
Arden Hills, MN 55112
Andrew Holewa
651.792.7800
Liz Modesette
Janet Stodola
Arden Hills
www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us
Roberta Thompson
Clayton Zimmerman
Planning Commission
February 6, 2008
City Vision
A strong community that values our unique environment, our fiscal soundness,
and our tradition as a desirable city in which to live, work, and play,
Agenda
Regular Planning Commission Convenes 6:30 PM
Call to Order
1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
A. Election of a Vice Chair
2. MINUTES
A. December 5, 2007 Work Session
B. January 9, 2008 Regular Meeting
3. PLANNING CASES
A. Planning Case 07-029; Variance; Mathew & Ann Wessberg; 1455 Skiles Lane — Not a Public Hearing
B. Planning Case 08-003; Preliminary Plat of Christensen Estates; Richard J. Christensen; — Public Hearing
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
A. Year-in-Review 2007
5. REPORTS
A. Report from the City Council
B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests
6. ADJOURNMENT —A Planning Commission work session will immediately follow the regular Planning
Commission meeting.
A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting.
Planning Cases are available online at:
http://www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us/planningcases
lt
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 6, 2008 PC Agenda Item 3.A
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Meagan Beekman, Planner I
SUBJECT: Planning Case #07-029 - Tabled
Variance
Mathew and Ann Wessberg
1455 Skiles Lane
ATTACHMENTS: A— Revised Site Plan and Project Description
B — Air Photo and Maps
C — Site Plan and Supplementary Elevations
D — December 5, 2007, Report to the Planning Commission
Requested Action
The applicant has submitted a revised site plan and project description, and is requesting a
variance to construct a below grade garage and above grade addition that encroaches 24 feet into
the setback. Approximately 480 square feet of the proposed addition would encroach into the
front yard setback, of this 96 square feet would be above grade and visible from Skiles Lane.
Background
1. Overview of Request
At the December 5, 2007, meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a request to construct
a new below -grade two stall garage at 1455 Skiles Lane. The Planning Commission tabled
the application and asked that the applicant consider alternative locations for the proposed
garage. In addition, the Planning Commission asked that the applicant provide additional
information regarding the location of the oak tree on the lot. The applicant has since revised
his site plan to indicate the location of the tree; reconfigured the cantilevered deck and
driveway; and submitted a letter addressing the concerns raised by the Planning Commission
at the December, 5, 2007, meeting.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for February 6, 2008
IlAhdocst IahlAHdatalPlanninglPlanning Cases12007107-029 Wessberg Variance (PC TABLED) 1020608 - PC Report - Wessberg Variance.doc
Page 1 of 8
2. Revised Request
The property owner is proposing to construct a 576 square foot below grade garage and a 192
square foot above grade addition to the existing one story home at 1455 Skiles Lane
(Attachment A). In addition, the applicant proposes to construct a 144 square foot deck that
would cantilever over the back of the new garage that would also encroach two feet into the
permitted front yard setback for decks.
The existing home is a walkout with a tuck under garage that faces the back of the property
toward Snelling Avenue/Old Highway 10. The driveway enters the property from the south
and curves to the west to access the existing garage (Attachment A). The property is unique
compared to most other properties because the 40 foot front yard setback applies to the south,
east, and west property lines. This is due to the property's location along the curve of Skiles
Lane and adjacency to Snelling Avenue. If the lot were a traditional lot with a side yard, no
variance would be required. The grade change from the front to the back yard would permit
most of this addition to be located below grade and thus not be visible from Skiles Lane.
Because of this lot configuration, alternative locations for a two car garage that meets
building code are limited.
Along Skiles Lane, the existing structure encroaches ten feet into the 40 foot front yard
setback (Attachment A and B). The proposed addition would increase the encroachment by
13 feet; however, the above grade portion of the addition would remain in line with the
existing 30 foot setback. The dwelling was constructed under a different set of zoning
regulations and is likely a legally non -conforming structure.
There are no previous variances on file for this property. The subject lot was likely required
to meet different setback regulations when the dwelling was constructed in 1954; however,
those exact regulations are not available. Although being subject to different regulations
when the building was constructed does not automatically warrant the approval of a variance,
it may help provide context for why the structure was built with what would now be
considered front yard setback encroachments. Staff did additional research and found that a
30 foot setback is common along Skiles Lane; additionally, setback variances have been
approved for other properties in the neighborhood along Skiles Lane and Arden Place for
similarly shaped lots. While the granting of previous variance requests does not set a
precedent for approval of this variance request, it does help provide additional context to the
neighborhood. A full survey of the neighborhood would be needed to verify the exact
setbacks of other lots.
The applicant has submitted a revised site plan and elevations of the proposed addition, a
letter addressing the variance evaluation criteria, a letter describing the landscaping plan, and
a letter addressing alternative locations for the garage. (Attachment A).
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for February 6, 2008
I Uhdocsll ahWHdatalPlanninglPlanning Cases12007107-029 Wessberg Variance (PC TABLED)1020608 -PC Report - Wessberg Variance.doc
Page 2 of 8
3. Site Data
future LapdTse3'lan e
Low Density Residential
_
Xlsting Land Sse
Single Detached Home
_ ._
95/130
orung
R-1: Single -Family residential district
Curxitot SSzes
.32 acres (13,939 square feet)
.aa easy_ _s
The property drops approximately eight to ten feet from the west to the east
4. Surrounding Area
DtrecGon 'xtt
repand lyse1W,
q °r
7aRttlrig
nin
=Eatsfrng�an��Q ` t
2. Minimum Lot Size ft, width/depth)
95/130
3. Height ft.
35
North
Low Density Residential
R-1: Single -Family residential
Single Family Detached
6. Minimum Building Setbacks ft
district
Residential
South
Low Density Residential
R-1: Single -Family residential
Single Family Detached
Side Yard Interior - Principal
Min/total both yards on lot)
10/25
district
Residential
East
Low Density Residential
R-1: Single -Family residential
Single Family Detached
district
Residential
West
Low Density Residential
R-1: Single -Family residential
Single Family Detached
district
Residential
Plan Evaluation
1. R-1 Regulations, Existing Conditions, and Proposed Redevelopment
A. Lot Size & Dimensions
The lot is 13,939 square feet, 130 feet
wide and 108 feet long. The lot size is
nonconforming in the R-1 Zone.
B. Structure Setbacks — Variance Required
As noted above, the existing house
encroaches ten feet into the forty foot front
yard setback to Skiles Lane. The
proposed garage and addition would
extend 24 feet into the front yard setback,
ten feet of which would be above grade.
The rest of the structure meets all required
setbacks.
C. Lot Coverage— Meets Requirements.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for February 6, 2008
ai . 1a2 i_.
1. Minimum Lot Areas
14,000
2. Minimum Lot Size ft, width/depth)
95/130
3. Height ft.
35
4. Lot Covered by Structure
25%
5. Min. Landscape Lot Area
65%
6. Minimum Building Setbacks ft
Front yard
40
Rear Yard (Principle)
30
Rear Yard(Accessory)
10
Side Yard Interior - Principal
Min/total both yards on lot)
10/25
Side Yard Interior - Accessory
10
Side Yard Comer
40
IW hdocsllahlAHdatalPlanninglPlanning Cases12007107-019 Wessberg Variance (PC TABLED)1010608 - PC Report - Wessberg Variance.doc
Page 3 of 8
The existing and proposed lot coverages do not exceed the lot coverage limitations of the
R-1 Zone.
D. Structure Height — Meets Requirements
The existing dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height
limit.
2. Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements
The proposed addition is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements.
3. Additional Review
This application may require Rice Creek Watershed District approval prior to the issuance of
any building permits. If the variance is approved, a condition has been added requiring
RCWD review prior to the issuance of building permits.
Variance Evaluation Criteria
The criteria listed below must be used to evaluate each of the variance requests.
A. Variance Review Criteria— Section 1355.04 Subd. 4.C:
Variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code may be granted in instances
where the strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances
unique to the individual property under consideration. Variances shall only be granted
when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of
the Code. "Undue hardship," as used in connection with the granting of a variance,
means:
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for February 6, 2008
I MhdocsPahUHdatalPlanninglP[arming Cases12007107-029 Wessberg Variance (PC TABLED) 1020608 - PCReport - Wessberg Variance.doc
Page 4 of 8
_ Existin
Square Feet I
%
Propose
Square Feet
%
Houselgarage
1,497
10.7%
2,073
14.9%
Driveway
1,685
12.1%
1,685
12.1%
Sidewalk
179
1.3%
179
1.3%
Total Coverage
3,361
24.1%
3,937
28.2%
Lot Size
13,939
13,939
D. Structure Height — Meets Requirements
The existing dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height
limit.
2. Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements
The proposed addition is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements.
3. Additional Review
This application may require Rice Creek Watershed District approval prior to the issuance of
any building permits. If the variance is approved, a condition has been added requiring
RCWD review prior to the issuance of building permits.
Variance Evaluation Criteria
The criteria listed below must be used to evaluate each of the variance requests.
A. Variance Review Criteria— Section 1355.04 Subd. 4.C:
Variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code may be granted in instances
where the strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances
unique to the individual property under consideration. Variances shall only be granted
when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of
the Code. "Undue hardship," as used in connection with the granting of a variance,
means:
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for February 6, 2008
I MhdocsPahUHdatalPlanninglP[arming Cases12007107-029 Wessberg Variance (PC TABLED) 1020608 - PCReport - Wessberg Variance.doc
Page 4 of 8
■ 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,
• Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if
reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Code.
B. Additional Review Information:
Although State Statutes include guidelines for evaluating variances, the interpretation and
meaning of those Statutes have been impacted by various court decisions. A somewhat
common, though apparently incorrect, interpretation of the written Statutes is that a
property owner must show that they do not have reasonable use of their property without
an approved variance. The difficulty with this standard is what counts as "reasonable
use" of the property? Since most properties could be construed to have "reasonable use"
without a variance, this standard was declared virtually insurmountable by the Court of
Appeals.
A revised interpretation of the "reasonable use" evaluation criteria has emerged from the
Minnesota Court of Appeals. According to the City Attorney, a property owner does not
need to show that reasonable use for a property only exists with an approved variance.
Instead, the landowner must only demonstrate that the proposed variation is reasonable
for a particular property in a given zone. For example, the property owner must only
demonstrate that an addition that encroaches into a particular setback is reasonable as
opposed to showing that the property would only have reasonable use with the addition.
While this is a much softer interpretation of reasonable use, the applicant must still
address all four variance criteria listed above.
Findines of Fact
Staff offers the following fifteen findings of fact for review:
General Findings
1. The lot depth and width exceed the minimum R-1 requirements. The lot size of 13,939
square feet is nonconforming in the R-1 Zone.
2. The existing structure encroaches ten feet into the forty foot front yard setback along
Skiles Lane. The structure meets all other R-1 setback requirements.
3. The proposed addition would encroach 24 feet into the front yard setback.
Approximately 480 square feet of the proposed addition would encroach into the front
yard setback, of this 96 square feet would be above grade and visible from Skiles Lane.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for February 6, 2008
I UhdocsllahWHdatalPlanninglPlanning Cases12007W-029 Wessberg Variance (PC TABLED)1020608 -PC Report - Wessberg Variance.doc
Page 5 of 8
The area of the addition outside of the setbacks does not require a variance. The
proposed addition would be in line with the existing home, and the portion visible from
Skiles Lane would step back with the existing structure.
4. The proposed addition does not encroach on the required front yard setback along
Snelling Avenue.
5. The existing and proposed lot coverage meets the R-1 Zone requirements.
6. The existing garage does not meet the ceiling height requirements of the Building Code,
thus the proposed garage would bring the property into greater conformance with modern
building code requirements.
7. The dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height limit.
8. Dwellings and garages are permitted structures within the R-1 Zone.
9. The existing dwelling and the proposed garage are outside of the 100 -year flood plain,
wetlands, and easements.
Variance Findings:
10. A garage and addition are permitted and reasonable uses within the R-1 Zone.
11. The lot is comparably unique in the City. The property is situated on the curve of Skiles
Lane as it intersects with Snelling Avenue, thus creating three front yard setback
requirements to the south, east, and west sides of the lot.
12. The topographic conditions are unique in that there is a significant slope downward from
the west to the east which allows the majority of the addition to be built below grade.
13. Since the proposed above grade addition would not encroach any farther into the front
yard setback than the existing structure, the addition is unlikely to have a negative impact
on the property or the neighborhood. The continued encroachment would have a minimal
visual impact from Skiles Lane.
14. The addition would be visible from the rear of the property, which abuts Snelling
Avenue; however, the area is heavily wooded and the closest neighbor on this side is over
300 feet away.
15. The proposed plans and setback variance for the dwelling do not appear to be based on
economic considerations alone.
Staff Analysis
The applicant has submitted a revised plan that attempts to solve the issues of the site while
bringing the structure into greater conformance with the building code. By using the grade
changes that are already on site, the applicant has been able to build most of the addition below
grade, thus reducing its visibility from the street. The architecture and materials for the addition
appear to be in line with the character and style of the existing home, and the above grade
portion of the addition would be in line with the existing setback of the home. The applicant
feels that this location and configuration of the garage has the least impact on the neighborhood.
This addition will impact a spruce tree to the south of the property and an oak tree to the east.
Both trees are located within the footprint of the proposed changes. Presently, there are no
City ofArden Hills
Planning Commission Meetingfor February 6, 2008
IlAhdocsllahWHdatalP[anningWIanning Casesl2007107-029 Wessberg Variance (PC TABLED)1020608 - PCReport - Wessberg Variance.doc
Page 6 of 8
requirements for tree preservation or landscaping on existing residential lots; however, the
applicant is proposing to move the spruce tree farther to the south of the lot in order to save it.
The applicant is also showing plans to preserve the oak tree by wrapping the driveway around it
and minimizing the size of the deck so it will not impact the tree. While there can be no
guarantee that either tree will survive the construction process, the applicant has taken steps to
ensure that the trees will be preserved.
The findings of fact for this variance request do support a recommendation for approval. The
three front yard setbacks and topography do create a comparably unique situation. However, if
the Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact
would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial.
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. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District, and a
copy of the RCWD permit or a waiver shall be submitted to the City prior to the
issuance of any building permits.
4. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code.
5. The addition shall be the same color and use the same construction materials as the
existing structure.
6. All attempts shall be made by the applicant to move the spruce tree and preserve the
oak tree that will be impacted by the project.
Options
The findings in this report currently support approval of this variance. With a motion to deny the
variance, the findings must be amended.
1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case
07-029 for a variance at 1455 Skiles Lane based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans,
and the six conditions in the February 6, 2008, planning case report.
2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 07-
029 for a variance at 1455 Skiles Lane based on the findings of facts and the submitted plans
in the February 6, 2008, planning case report.
3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 07-029 for a variance at
1455 Skiles Lane based on the following findings of fact...
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for February 6, 2008
I Uhdocs/IahWHdatalPlanningIPlanning Cases11007107-029 Wessberg Variance (PC TABLED)1020608-PCReport- Wessberg Variance.doc
Page 7 of 8
4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 07-029 for a variance at 1455 Skiles Lane: a specific
reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table.
Notice
Although a variance does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by
the City and mailed to properties within three -hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property.
Resident Comment
The City has received letters from three of Mr. and Mrs. Wessberg's neighbors indicating their
support for the project (Attachment A).
Deadline for Agency Actions
The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on November 5,
2007. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City had 60 days to review the application or
provide the petitioner with a written reason for an additional 60 day review period. The City
extended the review period an additional 60 days and must now act on this request by March 4,
2008 (60 days), unless the petitioner consents to extending the review period beyond the 120
days.
Attachments
A — Application and Supporting Materials
B — Air Photo and Photographs of the Site
C — Site Plan and Supplementary Elevations
D — December 5, 2007, Report to the Planning Commission
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for February 6, 2008
lW hdocsllahUHdatalPlanninglPlanning Casesl2007107-029 Wessberg Variance (PC TABLED)1010608 - PC Report - Wessberg Variance.doc
Page 8 of 8
Attachment A
Application and
Supporting Materials
EN HUS
February 6, 2008, Planning Commission Meeting
i
EN HILLS
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112
Telephone (651) 634-5120
Fax (651) 634-5137
www.ei.arden-hills.mn.us
Planning Case No.
Submittal Date
Application Completed Date
Accepted by
Receipt Number J S
Council Decision
Council Decision Date
2007 LAND USE APPLICATION
07- O
Property Owner: t4 z 4�'k
Owner Address: Stl�
Owner Telephone No.
Address of Property Involved:
Legal Description: L`
Property ID No.:
Type of
Zone:
Type of Request*
❑ Apportionment of Assessments ($30)
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ($400)
❑ Conditional Use Permit or Amended CUP ($300)
❑ Final Plat ($200 + $25 per lot)
❑ Final Planned Unit Development ($200)
❑ Master Planned Unit Development ($600 + escrow)
❑ Minor Subdivision (lot splittconsolidation) ($300)
❑ Preliminary Plat ($400 + $25 per lot + escrow)
❑ Rezoning ($400)
❑ Site Plan Review ($400)
❑ Site Plan Review (Sign or Fence) ($250)
❑ acation of Easement or Right -of -Way ($250 + escrow)
Variance (Zoning Code) ($300)
❑ Zoning Code Amendment ($300 + escrow)
Revised: 12-12-2006
Page 1 of 3
*Applicants are responsible for
reimbursement of consultant fees associated
with filing, reviewing, and processing of this
application. Such fees are to be paid in
escrow up front or upon receipt of statement
from the City of Arden Hills. Fees include
costs for consultants retained by the City and
include consultant planning services, attorney,
and engineer. *Payment of park dedication
fees are required with the approval of most
subdivision applications.
*The land use application fees do not cover
building, sign, or other permit fees that may
be required upon approval of a land use
application.
*Certain applications are subject to review
and approval by the Rice Creek Watershed
District. Contact RCWD directly at 763-398-
3070 for additional information.
Agenda Deadline and Meeting Schedule
The deadline for submittal of land use applications is required according to the schedule outlined below.
There are no exceptions. Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the first Wednesday of
each month at 7:00 PM, though please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. City Council
meetings are held typically the last Monday of the same month at 7:00 PM. Meetings are held in the
Council Chambers at the City of Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112,
unless otherwise stated. Applicants are advised that additional meetings and/or workshops are
scheduled when necessary upon approval of the Planning Commission.
2007 SCHEDULE (*subject to change)
APPLICATION
DEADLINE
DATE*
TENTATIVE
PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING*
(Generally held on the
first Wednesday at 7:00 .m.)
TENTATIVE
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
DATE*
(Generally held on the
last Monday at 7:00 .m.
December 4 2006
January 10 2" Wednesday)
Janua ° 29
January 8
February 7
February 26
Februa 5 I'
March?
March 26
March 5
Aril 4
Aril 30
A ri12
May 2
May29
May 7
June 6
June 25
June 4,
Jul 11(2Wednesday)
Jul <30
July 2
August 1
August 27
Au ust 8
September 5
September 24
Se tember 4
October 3
October 29
October 8 '=
tNovember7
November 26'
November 5
December 5
December 10
December 3
January 2 2008
Jamua 28 2008
Acknowledgement and Signature
that I have read all of the information listed in the City of Arden Hills Land Use Application
stand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the pr cessing of
it o
r ignature Da
Applicant Signature (If different than the property owner) Date
Please contact the City Planner at (651) 634-5134 or by email at lames.lehnhoffa(i.arden-hills.mn.us if
you have any questions regarding this application.
Additional copies of this application form are available on the City's website:
http.*IA,vww.ci.arden-hills.mn.us
Revised: 12-12-2006
Page 3 of 3
Brief Description of Request
Filing & Information Requirements
The City requests that you make a pre -application meeting with the City Planner to discuss the
application process, requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the City Planner or Planning
Commission, a certified survey of the property is required for all applications. The Planning Commission
and/or City Council may still require a certified survey. A checklist for other required information is also
available.
Complete/Incomplete Applications
An incomplete application will delay the processing of land use requests. The application approval time
commences and an application is considered officially filed when the City Planner has received and
examined the application and determined that the application is complete. A decision on whether the
application is complete or incomplete shall be made within fifteen (15) working days following the
submittal of the application. When the application is deemed to be "complete" it shall be placed on the
agenda of the first possible Planning Commission meeting provided that all required public notices have
been sent and published.
Payment of Fees
The undersigned acknowledges that she/he understands that before a land use application can be
deemed complete, all required information and fees (including all deposits) must be paid to the City. If
additional fees are required to cover costs incurred by the City, the City Planner has the right to require
additional payment from one or more of the undersigned, who shall be jointly liable for such fees. Such
expenses may include (but are not limited to) direct city payroll and overhead costs, fees paid to
consultants and other professionals, and the cost of printing, mailing, and supplies. The City may
withhold final action on a land use application, withhold building permits, and/or rescind prior action until
all miscellaneous fees have been paid. Applicants are advised that an escrow deposit is required at the
time of the submittal of the land use application to offset costs associated with the proposed project.
Unused portions of an escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an
approved plan.
Notice of Meeting Attendance
In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a
designated representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled
until the next available agenda.
Revised: 12-12-2006
Page 2 of 3
December 31, 2007
Meagan Beekman
Planner I
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
Dear Meagan:
SENT VIA EMAIL
I have studied the option of correcting the code issue involving the door height with
my garage by moving the new garage to the rear of the home on the east side of the
property and feel for the following reasons a variance is needed and the new structure
is best located on the south side the home.
The lot is highly unique in the City of Arden Hills due to it close proximity to Lake
Johana and thus has three front yard setbacks. If the lot was not unique, and there
were two side yard setbacks, no variance would be required and the garage would
conform to the Zoning Code.
1. Architecturally the proposed plan keeps with the feel of surrounding properties.
2. The proposed plan would allow the oak tree to be saved, whereas any other
alternative would require it to be removed.
3. Placing a new 2 story garage off the back of the house eliminates most of the
usable back yard and creates a visual barrier.
4. The proposed project is far less visible from Skiles Lane and from neighbors than
a garage off the back of the house would be.
5. The portion of the garage that encroaches beyond the current setback of the house
is below grade and not visible from the front of the home.
6. Placing the garage off the back of the house would destroy the views from the
main common rooms of the home, reducing the property values for the property,
and possibly those of the surrounding neighborhood.
7. Neighborhood precedence to encroach in the 40' setback has been established at
addresses 1480 Skiles Lane & 1485 Arden Place, 1479 Arden Place all being with
in the 40' set back from the property line with above grade structure.
Thank you for your time in considering our request. I hope we have presented you a
strong enough argument to the permit this project with the requested variance.
beg
1455 Skiles Lane, Arden Hills MN 55112
To: The City of Arden Hills Board of Zoning Appeals
From: Robert Shaffer, AIA, CID
Date: 10/30/07
J -14E Ff3iJNDA11ON Re: Variance for the Wessberg Residence,1455 Skiles Lane, Arden Hills, MN
Archirecrs/Consudtailts PA. We have looked into alternatives to expand the existing undersized garage and feel that
the proposed option minimizes the impact to the neighborhood, reduces variance
212 Third Ave N requests and is the most pleasing.
Suite 460 The following hardships and site conditions are present on this site:
Minneapolis, MN
1. The existing garage ceiling height is very low with an interior height dimension of 6'-2"
55401 at the door. The existing garage door does not meet current State of Minnesota Building
Codes, which is a minimum of 6'-8". This low door height is also a concern for people's
safety. Many cars cannot even fit into this garage, including the homeowner's vehicle. An
Ph 612.340.5430 unusable existing garage with code issues is a hardship. By adding a new, building
Fax 612.340.5431 code -compliant garage addition, the reasonable use of this property has been
maintained.
2. The street presence and the impact to the neighborhood will be negligible. The design is
intended to extend the existing garage mostly below grade so that it will look as though it
is just landscaping terraces in the yard with a slightly raised deck attached to the home.
The deck then extends outward wrapping around the tree. The addition and the deck will
match the character of the existing home and maintain the scale and proportion of the
neighborhood.
3. The house sits on an unusual lot due to its three "front yards". The lot has frontages on
Old Snelling and a wrap-around frontage on two sides by Skiles Lane. This presents
difficulties to adding an addition while maintaining the reasonable use of the property.
4. The existing house on the unusually shaped lot already protrudes into the two front
setbacks on Skiles lane to what appears to be a historic thirty foot setback. The house
was built on the site to align with a north -south axis, rather than align with the curve of
the street. The original house design steps back with the curve of Skiles Lane and the
proposed garage/deck/sunroom addition design would repeat the stepping, staying well
within the historic thirty foot setback, thus creating a similar rhythm to the design already
in place. The goal of the design is to make it appear as though the addition was original
to the home.
5. The existing garage also creates issues with the existing mechanical systems of the
home. The mechanical system is uninsulated in the garage creating cold pipes and
ductwork in the kitchen and dining room directly above. The existing mechanical system
in the garage will be difficult to insulate properly because of the low ceiling height of the
garage.
6. To be environmentally conscious, the large tree at the southeast corner of the house
would ideally be spared by locating the addition to the south of the house.
I LOGICAL
APPROACH U
Logical Approach LLC
649 Hoyt Ave W
St Paul, MN 55117
651.489.4333 office
To:
The City of Arden Hills
Attention Meagon Beekmon
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
Direct: (651) 792-7828
Fax: (651) 634-5137
Re:
Wessberg Residence
I am writing this response in regards to the Wessberg request for variance and
the questions that have arouse about the process of tree preservation for the
Oak tree on the south side of the structure and the Spruce tree spading also on
the south side of the property. All preservation and spading will be done in
accordance with all standards according to the American Nursery Standards and
applicable recommendations from Minnesota Department of Transportation.
The Oak tree on the South East corner of the residence will have a tree
protection fence installed around its drip line prior to the onset of any construction
or demolition. The fence will stand until the completion of construction.
According to the American Nursery Standards the loss of 1/3 of the outer most
roots should not stress the tree to a point of killing the tree.
The spruce tree will be transplanted using a spade truck. The tree will originally
have a spade run through the soil around the drip line 2 -weeks before actual
moving of the tree. This cut allows the tree to get used to having its small outer
roots being trimmed and allows the tree to not have as much stress from one
movement. After 2 -weeks the tree will be moved, fertilized, and watered. The
process of pre -spading before moving reduces the stress and the likely hood of
death.
Please feel free to call with any questions or concerns.
Karl Kangas
Owner
Kangas Design Company LLC
649 Hoyt Avenue West
St. Paul, Minnesota 55117
651.489.4333 tele.
Kang006@netzero.com
November 4, 2007
Andrew Adams
1450 Skiles Lane
Arden Hills, MN 55112
RE: Wessberg Variance Request
To Whom it May Concern:
My wife Jennifer and I reside across the street from Matt and Ann Wessberg.
Their house and the variance they request are clearly visible from our home. I have
reviewed the plans for which Wessbergs request their variance and have no objection to
the variance they request.
Sincerely,
Andrew Adams
November 4, 2007
Lillian Michael
1454 Skiles Lane
Arden Hills, MN 55112
RE: 1455 Skiles Request for Variance
Dear Sir or Madam:
I live across the street from Matt and Ann Wessberg, who are requesting a variance to
build onto their home to correct the current garage, which cannot contain their cars. Matt
Wessberg has share the plans for the project with me, and it appears that the addition he
has planned is consistent with the neighborhood. I will be able to see the new addition
from my window, and I have no objection to the variance the Wessbergs seek.
Sincerely,
Lillian Michael Michael
November 4, 2007
James and Susan Bergan
1458 Skiles Lane
Arden Hills, MN 55112
RE: Wessberg Request for Variance
To Whom It May Concern:
We reside across the street from Matt and Ann Wessberg. We understand that the
Wessbergs are seeking a variance in order to build on their property so that they can have
a two -car garage to correct the current garage which is too low to accommodate their
cars. We have seen and discussed the plans with Matt Wessberg, and see no reason that
their plans would not suit the neighborhood. We have no objection to the plans for which
the Wessbergs seek their variance_
Sincerely,
J es an Susan Bergan
Attachment B
Air Photo and Photographs of the Site
EN HILLS
February 6, 2008, Planning Commission Meeting
t
R
v .,
i
11
r3
1
orD
t
�
o
l
lt,
� s3eao
A
U
aid,
>
i
N �o
// jj
LdN
F
-7
Im
i
m L\
SM
4a°
Wo
U
w
_
44
�
l
�t
snfl`
IM
. z.
M.
C U m
o m
FSI
y
\
iV.
9 79
�..
�t
ouE
;nom
d
o
t
d
INN
R
v .,
i
r3
1
orD
t
l
lt,
A
U
>
N �o
// jj
LdN
F
i
m L\
4
4a°
Wo
U
w
_
l
�t
snfl`
IM
. z.
M.
C U m
o m
FSI
y
P
iV.
�..
INN
R
v .,
r3
1
>
N �o
// jj
LdN
F
i
m L\
4
4a°
Wo
U
w
_
INN
i
tI+jM
.IS�
8
k
Uk
ax apy:'
•
a
i
k
i
VNIf44 .T'
`t4-.Ny��,lv;�{K
P �' yam._
�' �'i d
'9 §
._•�w'�.
,R.,
�
� x�
�.A l:F
4
"s�Y�,
tit
I "�,
x ijg
.p `fir'.'T
_
s `#5ih
, y .�u'$t . 2
r $�
�C -ih —
IL R S fk"r'
"''
s..
a
R
k"F
—VA. TOFA
tk$
P
eoEn
K
d
}
qiga
an,To
t t�§v
IM.•�
� y
rt a..4..i.'^ F
yA
#t
}�
�u
ti
JL", 4tf�
h} }"6
.moi
§
11""1E
Sy 'Ft�t
+MM
4 y t
b.. f
X59
4
Y&
?�
�
i ifit J �
M
�
4
_
417
SUN
r d
� ...
mP••*
W
R
�
:r
4
�.
��F.:,.
y-0 f.���
>>Ha
�� �p S ,
43
yy.fl
yK..
�,
i S
§
j1'! .
.'
Attachment C
Site Plan and Supplimentary Elevations
-11 LN HMLS
February 6, 2008, Planning Commission Meeting
I
SITE PLAN INFORMATION
APPROXIMATE LOT SIZE
13,900 SF
(COUNTY RECORDS)
1,478 SF
EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE
bfl G
2,054 SF
PROPOSED TOTAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE
APPROXIMATE BUILDING
14.8%
COVERAGE
APPROXIMATE IMPERVIOUS
28.9%
SURFACE COVERAGE
10/30/07
LOT
1) I'rop05ed 51te Plan
AO SCALE: 1 a = 29
THE FOUNDATION
Amidteas/Consultants P.A
2127h1,dAvem M.m k S.W 460
Mdme Pp 4 Af m -m 55401
w foundaOmnmchmm
ph. 612.34a5430
f. 61234a5431
1-,%Cmt pen vwfl.banv
MW wasPMPm bymeauitlarmy
Nrect supawsan 8 Eretl as aIX/y
WEaftlla laws IN the sbtk a
YdatA^JWfa
ona_ Raa. No. 20803
i R<vokn No. Oaly
U
N
"CJ
bfl G
N
NN.
N
capy ight 2007
Site Plan
Date
10/30/07
Project No.
07-21
I
New Addition- West Elevation
SCALE: 3/4" = P-0"
THE FOUNDATION
Architects1Coasaltaata RA
2127hlydA.a M.,d, Saite460
Minneapolis. M6mesom 55401
.fmmdatimunchcom
phone. 611340.5430
f. 612.340.5431
icewyCutM P�.q dhafiwi.a
sepaluavpap bymea Ma my
Gea2 ssyervkbn & Cut i am a aigy
regineteC �+nc*
wan Ma wxa ae"a nae or
east n was
oats _ t+ae. ho. 20803
N
U
C
N
b
_
C) N
ai O
y
h
rn
N
r
cnpydght 2007
Exterior Elevation—
Addition
Date 10/30/07
Project No. 07-21
Al
New Addition- South Elevation
5CALE: 314" = I' ff'
THE FOUNDATION
Architects/Consultants P.A.
2127W,dAvenue Nonh, Suim460
Minneppolu. Afmrsesota 55401
w fomdmion h.com
phone 612.340.5430
fa. 612.340.5431
I ceMy Mat am plan, spetlfraM1on, or
repos xas prepared by ma rc under my
GUM superveion6Matlam aCuly
rtylslered
urNer Me bwa d of Ma state d
wacar.
z�ee<a swats
20803
ft. No. peb
U
N
b
g
C4 0
p �
o
ti
ti
U
copyright 2007
Exterior Elevation—
Addition
Date 10/30/07
Project No_ 07-21
A2
t 5 i t k -T= --
x j
New`acldltton-Last Elevation
THE FOUNDATION
Architects7Canva&ants P.A.
212M,dA.Nosh, Smm460
ALmrape4s, Afien 55401
www.�mmdatiaw Acorn
ph.. 672.34&5430
f. 612.340.5431
,ma Y�epecfi w w
repwlwasw a 6)'me�
6 aPwvinea&tl 1amad*
reBslmed
� ame nam m
0. _ R,.Ao_ 20803
J
.PYd9ht 2007
Exterior Elevation—
Addition
Date 10/30/07
Project No. 07-21
A3
Attachment D
December 5, 2007, Report to the Planning
Commission
,AVEN HILLS
February 6, 2008, Planning Commission Meeting
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 5, 2007 PC Agenda Item 3.A
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Meagan Beekman, Planner I
SUBJECT: Planning Case #07-029
Variance
Mathew and Ann Wessberg
1455 Skiles Lane
ATTACHMENTS: 3A-1 Application and Supporting Materials
3A-2 Air Photo and Photographs of the Site
Requested Action
The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a 576 square foot below grade garage and a
192 square foot above grade addition along the southern side of the dwelling at 1455 Skiles Lane
that encroaches 24 feet into the setback. Approximately 480 square feet of the proposed addition
would encroach in to the front yard setback, of this only 96 square feet would be above grade
and visible from Skiles Lane
Background
1. Overview of Request
The property owner is proposing to construct a 576 square foot below grade garage and a 192
square foot above grade addition to the existing one story home at 1455 Skiles Lane
(Attachment 3A-1). In addition, the applicant proposes to construct a 240 square foot deck
over the back of the new garage that would also encroach two feet into the permitted front
yard setback for decks.
Presently, the dwelling has a two car attached garage that is below grade and does not meet
current building code requirements. It has a ceiling height of six feet two inches. Current
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for December 5, 2007
tL4hdocs/1ahWHdatalPlanninglPlanning Cases12007107-029 Wessberg Variance (PC TABLED) 1720507 -PC Report - Wessberg Variance.doc
Page 1 of 9
Minnesota Building Code requires six feet eight inches. As a result of the substandard
garage, the applicants cannot park their vehicles in their garage and must store them on the
driveway. The proposed addition would be constructed adjacent to the existing garage to the
south of the property and remain in line with the front and rear of the existing structure. The
addition would replace the existing garage, bringing it up to building code, and provide two
new garage stalls and a small addition to the dwelling. The current footprint of the structure
is 1,497 square feet.
The existing home is a walkout with a tuck under garage facing the back of the property.
The driveway enters the property from the south and curves to the west to access the existing
garage. The property is unique in that it has three front yard setbacks to the south, east, and
west. This is due to the property's location along the curve of Skiles Lane and adjacency to
Snelling Avenue. The extreme grade shifts from the front to the back yard would permit
most of this addition to be located below grade and thus not be visible from Skiles Lane.
Because of this lot configuration, alternative locations for a two car garage that meets
building code are extremely limited. The only other alternative would be a detached garage
located in the rear of the property; however, this configuration would also require the garage
to meet a forty foot setback to Snelling Avenue, thus requiring that it be placed within a few
feet of the existing dwelling and be above grade.
Along Skiles Lane, the existing structure encroaches ten feet into the 40 foot front yard
setback (Attachment 3A-1 and 2). The applicant is proposing to step back the above grade
addition in line with the curve of Skiles Lane and to maintain the architectural lines and
continuity of the structure. The below grade garage would remain in line with the front and
rear of the existing structure. The cantilevered deck would extend into the rear of the
property over the proposed new garage. In total, approximately 480 square feet of the
proposed addition would encroach in to the front yard setback, of this only 96 square feet
would be above grade and visible from Skiles Lane.
There are no previous variances on file for this property.
The applicant has submitted a description of the proposed addition, a response to the variance
evaluation criteria, a letter describing the landscaping plan, and a site plan of the property
(Attachment 3A-1).
2. Site Data
Tnfirc t a 1d Y7se batt _ µ
Low Density Residential
ESingl andi7$sSingle
Detached Home
,(t?hiig e.s�
R-1: Single -Family residential district
urs ert1140-lies.-NO, �eff �
acres (13,939 square feet)
.32
The property drops approximately eight to ten feet from the west to the east
City of Arden Hilts
Planning Commission Meeting for December 5, 2007
I L4hdocs/1ahL4HdatalPlanningIPlanning Cases12007107-029 Wessberg Variance (PC TABLED)1/20507-PC Report- Wessberg Variance.doc
Page 2 of 9
3. Surrounding Area
nn
b m w
nvfiwivua tsf Ilse tan
k66G� din n14 a
EnSkthgn$ USB
95/130
3. Height ft.
e a t
4. Lot Covered by Structure
North
Low Density Residential
R-1: Single -Family residential
Single Family Detached
12.1%
Front yard
district
Residential
South
Low Density Residential
R-1: Single -Family residential
Single Family Detached
10/25
Side Yard Interior - Accessory
district
Residential
East
Low Density Residential
R-1: Single -Family residential
Single Family Detached
13,939
district
Residential
West
Low Density Residential
R-1: Single -Family residential
Single Family Detached
district
Residential
Plan Evaluation
1. R-1 Regulations, Existing Conditions, and
Proposed Redevelopment
A. Lot Size & Dimensions
The lot is 13,939 square feet, 130 feet wide
and 108 feet long. The lot size is
nonconforming in the R-1 Zone.
B. Structure Setbacks — Variance Required
As noted above, the existing house
encroaches ten feet into the forty foot front
yard setback to Skiles Lane. The proposed
garage and addition would extend 24 feet
1. Minimum Lot Areas
Existing
Square Feet
14,000
2. Minimum Lot Size ft, width/depth)
95/130
3. Height ft.
35
4. Lot Covered by Structure
25%
5. Min. Landscape Lot Area
65%
6. Minimum Building Setbacks ft
12.1%
Front yard
40
Rear Yard (Principle)
30
Rear Yard (Accessory)
10
Side Yard Interior - Principal
(Min/total both yards on lot)
10/25
Side Yard Interior - Accessory
10
Side Yard Corner
40
into the front yard setback, ten feet of which would be above grade. The rest of the
structure meets all required setbacks.
C. Lot Coverage — Meets Requirements.
The existing and proposed lot coverages do not exceed the lot coverage limitations of the
R-1 Zone.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for December 5, 2007
lUhdocsllahlAHdatalPlanninglPlanning Cases12007W-029 Wessberg Variance (PC TABLED)1120507 - PC Report - We sberg Variance.doc
Page 3 of 9
Existing
Square Feet
%
Pro osed
Square Feet
%
House/garage
1,497
10.7%
2,073
14.9%
Driveway
1,685
12.1%
1,685
12.1%
Sidewalk
179
1.3%
179
1.3%
Total Coverage
3,361
24.1%
3,937
28.2%
Lot Size
13,939
13,939
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for December 5, 2007
lUhdocsllahlAHdatalPlanninglPlanning Cases12007W-029 Wessberg Variance (PC TABLED)1120507 - PC Report - We sberg Variance.doc
Page 3 of 9
D. Structure Height — Meets Requirements
The existing dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height
limit.
2. Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements
The proposed addition is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements.
3. Additional Review
This application may require Rice Creek Watershed District approval prior to the issuance of
any building permits. If the variance is approved, a condition has been added requiring
RCWD review prior to the issuance of building permits.
Variance Evaluation Criteria
The criteria listed below must be used to evaluate each of the variance requests.
A. Variance Review Criteria— Section 1355.04 Subd. 4.0
Variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code may be granted in instances
where the strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances
unique to the individual property under consideration. Variances shall only be granted
when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of
the Code. "Undue hardship," as used in connection with the granting of a variance,
means:
• 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,
• Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if
reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Code.
B. Additional Review Information:
Although State Statutes include guidelines for evaluating variances, the interpretation and
meaning of those Statutes have been impacted by various court decisions. A somewhat
common, though apparently incorrect, interpretation of the written Statutes is that a
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for December 5, 2007
ll 4hdocsll ahL4HdatalPlanninglPlanning Cases12007107-029 Wessberg Variance (PC TABLED)1120507 - PC Report - Wessberg Variance.doc
Page 4 of 9
property owner must show that they do not have reasonable use of their property without
an approved variance. The difficulty with this standard is what counts as "reasonable
use" of the property? Since most properties could be construed to have "reasonable use"
without a variance, this standard was declared virtually insurmountable by the Court of
Appeals.
A revised interpretation of the "reasonable use" evaluation criteria has emerged from the
Minnesota Court of Appeals. According to the City Attorney, a property owner does not
need to show that reasonable use for a property only exists with an approved variance.
Instead, the landowner must only demonstrate that the proposed variation is reasonable
for a particular property in a given zone. For example, the property owner must only
demonstrate that an addition that encroaches into a particular setback is reasonable as
opposed to showing that the property would only have reasonable use with the addition.
While this is a much softer interpretation of reasonable use, the applicant must still
address all four variance criteria listed above.
FindinEs of Fact
Staff offers the following sixteen findings of fact for review:
General Findings
1. The lot depth and width exceed the minimum R-1 requirements. The lot size of 13,939
square feet is nonconforming in the R-1 Zone.
2. The existing structure encroaches ten feet into the forty foot front yard setback along
Skiles Lane. The structure meets all other R-1 setback requirements.
3. The proposed addition would encroach 24 feet into the front yard setback.
Approximately 480 square feet of the proposed addition would encroach in to the front
yard setback, of this only 96 square feet would be above grade and visible from Skiles
Lane. The area of the addition outside of the setbacks does not require a variance. The
proposed addition would be in line with the existing home, and the portion visible from
Skiles Lane would step back with the existing structure.
4. The proposed addition does not encroach on the required front yard setback along
Snelling Avenue.
5. The existing and proposed lot coverage meets the R-1 Zone requirements.
6. The existing garage does not meet the height requirements of the Building Code, thus the
proposed garage would bring the property into greater conformance with modern
building code requirements.
7. The dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height limit.
8. Dwellings are permitted structures within the R-1 Zone.
9. The existing dwelling and the proposed garage are outside of the 100 -year flood plain,
wetlands, and easements.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for December 5, 2007
IlAhdocsllahW HdatalPlanninglPlanning Cases12007107-029 Wessberg Variance (PC TABLED)V20507 -PC Report - Wessberg Variance.doc
Page 5 of 9
10. The lot was platted prior to the incorporation of Arden Hills and the structure was built
prior to the current R-1 zoning district requirements. The lot was platted in 1944 and the
structure was built in 1954.
Variance Findings:
11. A garage and addition are permitted and reasonable uses within the R-1 Zone.
12. There are unique lot configuration conditions that may warrant the variance. The
property is situated on the curve of Skiles Lane as it intersects with Snelling Avenue, thus
creating three front yard setback requirements to the south, east, and west sides of the lot.
13. The topographic conditions are unique in that there is a significant slope downward from
the west to the east which allows the majority of the addition to be built below grade.
14. Since the proposed above grade addition would not encroach any farther into the front
yard setback than the existing structure, the addition is unlikely to have a negative impact
on the property or the neighborhood. The continued encroachment would not have a
noticeable visual impact from Skiles Lane.
15. The addition would be visible from the rear of the property, which abuts Snelling
Avenue; however the closest neighbor on this side is over 300 feet away.
16. The proposed plans and setback variance for the dwelling do not appear to be based on
economic considerations alone.
Staff Analysis
The findings of fact for this variance request do not specifically support a recommendation for
denial or approval. A single family home is a permitted use in the R-1 Zone, and the addition is
not an unreasonable use in the R-1 Zone. The existing tuck under garage does not meet building
code, and as such the applicants cannot store their vehicles in it. As a result the vehicles are now
being stored outside. The variance is unlikely to cause a negative impact to the neighborhood or
City because there is already a structure on the property, the proposed above grade addition will
not be closer to the front lot line than the existing structure, and all other coverage requirements
are met. The below grade portion of the addition would only be visible from the rear of the
structure. 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 of the landowner is due to
circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner," is the difficult evaluation
criterion. The three front yard setback requirements make alternative placement of a new garage
extremely difficult; however, there presently exists a two car garage on the property. According
to the applicant, this garage cannot be used to store their vehicles. While the proposed variance
is unlikely to have a negative impact on the neighborhood, the Planning Commission must still
consider all of the variance criteria.
The applicant has submitted a plan that attempts to solve the issues of the site while bringing the
structure into greater conformance with the building code. By using the grade changes that are
already on site the applicant has been able to build most of the addition below grade, thus
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for December 5, 2007
lUhdocs/IahLlHdatalPlanninglPtanning Cases12007107-029 Wessberg Variance (PC TABLED)1120507-PCReport- Wessberg Variance.doc
Page 6 of 9
reducing its visibility from the street. The architecture and materials for the addition appear to
be in line with the character and style of the existing home, and the above grade portion of the
addition would be in line with the existing setback of the home.
This addition will impact a spruce tree to the south of the property and an oak tree to the east.
Both trees are located within the footprint of the proposed changes. Presently, there are no
requirements for tree preservation or landscaping on existing residential lots; however, the
applicant is proposing to move the spruce tree farther to the south of the lot in order to save it.
The applicant is also showing plans to preserve the oak tree by wrapping the driveway and deck
around it. While there can be no guaranty that either tree will survive the construction process,
the applicant has taken steps to ensure that the trees will be preserved.
It should be noted that most of the homes along Skiles Lane were built in the early 1950s. The
subject lot was likely required to meet different setback regulations when the dwelling was
constructed in 1954; however, those exact regulations are not available. Although being subject
to different regulations when the building was constructed does not automatically warrant the
approval of a variance, it may help provide context for why the structure was built with what
would now be considered front yard setback encroachments. Based on a quick review of the
neighborhood, the 30 foot front yard setbacks appear to be common features on a number of
dwellings along Skiles Lane. A full survey of the neighborhood would be needed to verify the
exact setbacks of other lots.
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. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District, and a
copy of the RCWD permit or a waiver shall be submitted to the City prior to the
issuance of any building permits.
4. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code.
5. The addition shall be the same color and use the same construction materials as the
existing structure.
6. All attempts shall be made by the applicant to move the spruce tree and preserve the
oak tree that will be impacted by the project.
options
The findings in this report are not specific enough to fully support approval or denial of this
variance. With a motion to approve or deny the variance, the italicized criteria must be
addressed for the record:
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for December 5, 2007
IL4hdocsllahL4HdatalPlanningnanning Casesl2007107-029 Wessberg Variance (PC TABLED)1/20507 - PCReport - Wessberg Variance.doc
Page 7 of 9
1. The proposed addition is/is not a reasonable use in the R-1 Zone because ...
2. The proposed addition will/will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or
the City because...
3. The circumstances in this planning case are/are not unique to the property because...
4. The variance is/is not based on economic considerations alone because ...
Criteria 1, 2, and 4 are already addressed in the findings. Criteria three must be addressed for the
record prior to making a motion.
1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend ap rp oval of Planning Case
07-029 for a variance at 1455 Skiles Lane based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans,
and the six conditions in the December 5, 2007, planning case report.
2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend ap rp oval of Planning Case 07-
029 for a variance at 1455 Skiles Lane based on the findings of facts and the submitted plans
in the December 5, 2007, planning case report.
3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 07-029 for a variance at
1455 Skiles Lane based on the following findings of fact...
4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 07-029 for a variance at 1455 Skiles Lane: a specific
reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table.
Notice
Although a variance does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by
the City and mailed to properties within three -hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property.
Resident Comment
The City has received letters from three of Mr. and Mrs. Wessberg's neighbors indicating their
support for the project (Attachment 3A-2).
Deadline for Agency Actions
The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on November 5,
2007. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by January 4, 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.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for December 5, 2007
I L4hdocsll ahWHdatalPlanninglPlanning Cases12007107-029 Wessberg Variance (PC TABLED)1120507 -PC Report - Wessberg Variance.doc
Page 8 of 9
Attachments
3A-1 Application and Supporting Materials
3A-2 Air Photo and Photographs of the Site
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for December 5, 2007
IWhdocsPahL4HdatalPlanninglPlanning Cases12007107-029 Wessberg Variance (PC TABLED)1120507- PC Repon - Wessberg Variance.doc
Page 9 of 9
-1iI�EN�HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 6, 2008 PC Agenda Item 4.A
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: 2007 Community Development Department Year -in -Review
Overview
The Community Development Department had a challenging but highly productive year in 2007.
The Department provides several important community functions, including planning & zoning,
building, code enforcement, recycling, development, and economic development. There was no
shortage of projects in 2007, and virtually every part of the City was touched. Notable projects
and events from 2007 include:
o Continued to update the Zoning Code to make it clearer and easier for residents;
o Continued to archive planning and building files in the electronic Laserfiche system to
make it easier to search for property records, surveys, and planning cases;
o Approved seventeen net new residential lots in 2007;
o Adopted basic design standards for the B-2 District;
o Enacted a one year moratorium on new development and most redevelopment for the B-2
District to start a community planning process for that zone.
o Met with the community for the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update, and the
Comprehensive Plan is on track to be fully drafted for review in the first half of 2008;
o Received a $20,000 grant from the Metropolitan Council to help complete the 2008
Comprehensive Plan update;
o Started a community planning process for redeveloping the former City Hall/Public
Works property;
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for January 9, 2008
Il Metro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanningIPlanning Cases12007IYaar in ReviewV21807 - 2007 Year in Review.doc
Page 1 of 7
o Held a series of community planning meetings to develop a land use plan for the
proposed TCAAP redevelopment;
o Issued 1,361 permits for a total value of $40,964,131;
o Resolved the City Hall arbitration case;
o Approved plans to construct 465,000 square feet of office space for the Traverse Business
Center at the northeast corner of Interstates 35W and 694;
o Selected a new recycling provider for residential curbside recycling (the service will
begin in March 2008);
o Reviewed 33 planning cases with 41 land use requests;
o Resolved 117 code enforcement complaints;
o Successfully completed the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Active Community Living training
course and received an approximately $26,000 grant for planning purposes;
o Hired a new assistance planner, Meagan Beekman, in September.
Planning and Zoning
In 2007, the City processed 33 planning cases that incorporated 41 different land use requests, of
these two continued into 2008. In comparison, there were 40 planning cases in 2006 with 45
land use requests, and 23 planning cases in 2005. The following chart displays the number of
planning requests by type and their outcome:
Type
Approved
Continued
Denied to 2008
Withdrawn
Total
Conditional Use Permit
2
2
CUP Amendments
4
4
Preliminary Plat
2
1
3
Final Plat
1
1
2
Minor Subdivision
1
1
Ordinance Amendment
3
1
4
PUD Master & Final)
3
2
5
PUD Amendment
2
2
Site Plan Review
2
2
Site Plan Review (Signs & Fences)
3
3
Vacation
2
2
Variance
6
2 1
1
10
Total
31
2 2
6
41
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for February 6, 2008
Il Metro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanningl Planning Cases12007IYear in Review1121807 - 2007 Year in Review.doc
Page 2 of 7
Conditional Use Permits
In 2007, the City approved two conditional use permits (CUPs) and four CUP
amendments. Two of the conditional use permits were for modifying the exterior of a
building. One of these was an amendment to a prior conditional use permit that the
building had been operating under; the other was a new CUP, required because the
applicant wanted to modify the building's exterior. Two of the CUP amendments were
for parking lot expansions. The City approved its one and only recreational vehicle
conditional use permit, and the remaining CUP was an amendment to reconfigure cell
antennas on the City's water tower.
Preliminary/Final Plats and Minor Subdivisions
There were two plats approved in 2007. Hazelnut Park P Addition, which has received
final plat approval, created seventeen new residential lots, which was a net increase in
sixteen additional lots in the City. The other preliminary plat, Christensen Estates,
created four residential lots from one existing property. However, The Christensen Estate
preliminary plat approval expired before final plat approval was received. A new
preliminary plat has since been resubmitted and will be subject to a new City review in
2008. There was one minor subdivision that was approved in 2007, which had been
approved in 2006 but expired before the applicant filed the subdivision with Ramsey
County. The Arden Plaza redevelopment proposal includes an application for a
preliminary plat and final plat; however, it was withdrawn before it could be reviewed by
the City Council.
The slowdown in the real estate market in 2007 and the relatively scarcity of available
land in Arden Hills would suggest that fewer residential lots will be created in 20008.
Zoning Code and Code Amendments
In 2006 the Zoning Code was re -codified to be updated with State Statutes. However, as
new situations are brought forward it is necessary to make amendments to the Code from
time to time in order to continually improve the Code and keep it in conformance with
State laws. In 2007, three zoning ordinance amendments were approved:
1. Design standards were adopted in the B-2 zone;
2. The definition of Floor Area Ratio was amended; and,
3. The ordinance pertaining to permitted encroachments for buildings was amended.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for February 6, 2008
Il Metro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases120071Year in Reviawll2/807- 2007 Year in Revie .doc
Page 3 of 7
In addition, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a new Recreational
Vehicle, Utility Trailer, and Watercraft Outdoor Storage Ordinance that would replace
the City's current Recreational Vehicle ordinance. The updated Ordinance was approved
by the City Council in January 2008.
In addition to these zoning code changes, the City also adopted a new Garbage, Refuse,
and Recycling Ordinance, re -adopted the Minnesota State Building Code for 2008, and
adopted a development moratorium in the B-2 District that will expire in December of
2008. All of these changes were initiated by the City.
Planned Unit Developments
There were three Planned Unit Developments that were reviewed by the City in 2007.
Northwestern College submitted an updated Master PUD for their campus near the end of
2006. It was reviewed and subsequently approved by the City in November of 2007.
Their Master Plan will guide development for the next ten to twenty years. Additionally,
there was one PUD Master Plan and Final PUD submitted in 2007 for a proposed
redevelopment of the Arden Plaza property. This project was reviewed by the Planning
Commission and ultimately withdrawn by the applicant prior to City Council review.
Two PUD Amendments were submitted this past year. One was for additional signage at
the Cub Foods on Lexington Avenue, and the other was for outdoor storage tanks in the
Gateway Business District. Both projects were approved by the City.
Site Plan Reviews
All five of the site plan review applications in 2007 were approved. Bethel University
received site plan approval for a parking lot expansion and for the new University
Commons, which is currently under construction.
One of the residential site plan reviews was to construct an eight foot high fence. The
remaining two were for deviations from the sign code, which included banner signs at
Mounds View Public Schools and Valentine Hills Elementary as well as additional wall
signage on the Health Partners Building on Northwoods Drive.
Variances
Of the ten variance applications in 2007, six were approved, two were denied, one was
withdrawn, and one is still pending. One of the variances was for height while eight were
for setback encroachments. The remaining variance was for reduced landscape coverage.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meetingfor February 6, 2008
Il Metra-inet.usl ardenhillsWIanninglPlanning Cases12007IYear in Review1121807 - 2007 Year in Review.doe
Page 4 of 7
All of the setback variances were related to residential properties. One variance
applications included a request for three variances to redevelopment a lot on the west side
of Lake Johanna, which was denied. The height variance was for the Bethel University
Commons building, and the reduced landscape coverage was for a commercial building.
Both of the applications that were denied were for setback encroachments on residential
properties, as was the variance that was withdrawn. One of the approved variances for
setback encroachments was for the Hazelnut 3rd Addition subdivision. This variance
created a 30 foot front yard setback for all seventeen residential lots in this subdivision.
One variance request for a setback encroachment was tabled in December 2007 and will
likely be resolved in 2008.
Vacation
Two vacation requests were approved in 2007. One was for a partial utility easement that
the City did not use. The other was to correct a drainage pipe easement that did not
encompass the entire drainage pipe.
Building
A total of 465 building permits were in 2007, which is an 18.5 percent decrease from the 551
building permits issued in 2006. The number of plumbing, water, sewer, mechanical, electrical,
fire, zoning, and sign permits decreased to 896 from 947 in 2006, which is a 5.4 percent
decrease. In total, 1,361 permits were issued in 2007 compared to 1,498 permits in 2006.
Despite the decrease in issued permits, the total value of new construction in 2007 almost
doubled from 2006. In 2007, the total value of all permits was $40,964,131 compared to just
$20,055,349.47 in 2006, which is a 104 percent increase! This significant increase is almost
entirely due to the University Commons project at the Bethel University campus. There were
also three new homes constructed for a total value of value of $955,545 with an average value of
$318,515.
Notable building/remodeling projects from 2007 include:
� R� � � IMIN— M �- � p
S ONE
s= P k r�..'xv vro` `c-- .`'� Fv`D rQ�t�d�iv�
cis y
"University Commons" $25,845,976
3900 Bethel Drive ;Bethel University Mechanical/Plumbing $1,064,880
General Remodels i $316,400
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for February 6, 2008
I tMetro-inet.uslurdenhillslPlanningWIanning Cases120071Year in Review1121807 - 2007 Year in Review.doc
Page 5 of 7
Currently they are 1,320 open permits. Of the open permits, 178 are greater than two years old,
198 are one to two years old, and 278 permits are less than one year old. The remaining 666
open permits are various construction permits (electrical, mechanical, plumbing, water, sewer,
fire, sign, and zoning). Staff is continuously working to close out old permits.. With the
addition of a residential building inspector/code enforcement officer in 2005, the City has
reduced the percentage of open permits from previous years and progress is continuing to be
made.
Code Enforcement
There were a total of 191 code enforcement cases involving 255 issues in 2007. Of those cases,
117 were completed and closed while 74 are pending cases. The majority of the pending cases
are unresolved parking issues, container screening, and situations that require ongoing
monitoring and are therefore not considered closed. Most complaints are effectively handled in
person or via telephone. The number of issues is down from 325 in 2006.
The majority of complaints were related to the improper storage of outdoor equipment, RVs,
other vehicles, and refuse; illegal signs; and, various health/safety issues. Over the course of a
year, however, the City received a myriad of complaints, including:
o Too many vehicles parked on a driveway;
o Inoperable/junk vehicle storage;
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for February 6, 2008
IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillsPlanninglPlanning Cases120071Year in RevieM121807 - 2007 Year in Review.doc
Page 6 of 7
4100 Hamline Avenue
i Boston Scientific
General Remodels
$1,652,780
: Mechanical/Plumbing_
$391,730
2001-2015 Gateway Blvd._
_ ---------
UPS
General Remodels
$60,000
1238 Grey Fox RoadAPr
_ _
i
New Tenant Remodel
$117,000
1900 Lake Valentine Road
— ........... -
MVHS
Remodel
$613,000
3900 Northwoods Drive
St Paul Advisory;
Remodel
$60,000
Collis America
1411 Paul Kirkwold Drive
Ramsey County
County Dispatch 911 ... ;.....----------------..
$396 850
...........
2 Pine Tree Drive
Country Insurance
Remodel
$262,299
Mechanical/Plumbing_ 1
$32,140
6 Pine Tree Drive
Residential Mortgage
Remodel
$128,000
Group; Wedell & Reed
MSI;
43004480 Round Lake Road
Frandsen Financial;
Various Remodels
$545,490
Grainger _
3003 Snelling Avenue
! Northwestern College
!Remodels
$99,000
Currently they are 1,320 open permits. Of the open permits, 178 are greater than two years old,
198 are one to two years old, and 278 permits are less than one year old. The remaining 666
open permits are various construction permits (electrical, mechanical, plumbing, water, sewer,
fire, sign, and zoning). Staff is continuously working to close out old permits.. With the
addition of a residential building inspector/code enforcement officer in 2005, the City has
reduced the percentage of open permits from previous years and progress is continuing to be
made.
Code Enforcement
There were a total of 191 code enforcement cases involving 255 issues in 2007. Of those cases,
117 were completed and closed while 74 are pending cases. The majority of the pending cases
are unresolved parking issues, container screening, and situations that require ongoing
monitoring and are therefore not considered closed. Most complaints are effectively handled in
person or via telephone. The number of issues is down from 325 in 2006.
The majority of complaints were related to the improper storage of outdoor equipment, RVs,
other vehicles, and refuse; illegal signs; and, various health/safety issues. Over the course of a
year, however, the City received a myriad of complaints, including:
o Too many vehicles parked on a driveway;
o Inoperable/junk vehicle storage;
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for February 6, 2008
IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillsPlanninglPlanning Cases120071Year in RevieM121807 - 2007 Year in Review.doc
Page 6 of 7
o Improper placement of refuse/recycling containers;
o Open burning and/or burning of garbage;
o Exterior storage of materials and equipment;
o Accumulation of branches;
o Excessive plant growth/fallen trees, and weeds;
o Dilapidated structures;
o Membrane structures;
o Drainage/erosion control problems;
o Improper landscaping;
o Obstruction of the clear vision area;
o Construction without a permit;
o Animal control (barking, dog off a leash)
o Feeding wild animals;
o Miscellaneous zoning violations;
Anticipated Activities for 2008
While 2007 was a busy year for the Community Development Department, we fully expect 2008
to be just as busy if not more so. The City will continue its search for a new Community
Develop director as well as a new City Administrator. While the TCAAP planning process
slowed in the last half of 2007, it will continue in 2008. In addition to the on-going planning
cases, City Staff is hard at work on a number of other projects, which include:
o Completing the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update;
o Developing a Small Area Plan for the B2 District;
o Completing the community planning process and issuing a request for proposals (RFP) to
redevelop the old City Hall/Public Works property;
o Continue work on the Master Plan for the proposed TCAAP redevelopment;
o Implementing a tree preservation ordinance and amended landscape requirements;
o Amending the sign regulations;
o Exploring adopting a rental licensing program for residential properties within the City;
o Exploring the implementation of an administrative fining program for violations to the
City Code;
o Updating the Site Plan Review process;
o Revising the Shoreland Regulations chapter in the Zoning Code;
o Continuing outreach to educate residents on City regulations and code enforcement;
o Reviewing the business licensing program;
o Continuing to close out old permits and complaints;
o Continue to find ways to make services more efficient and streamlined;
o Any other projects that come up as the need arises!
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting far February 6, 2008
IlMetro-inet.uslardenhilislPlanninglPlanning Cases120071 Year in Review1121807 - 2007 Year in Review.doc
Page 7 of 7
A:!C
C
0
LL
Z)
c
0
a
c
Q
U
co
L
m
3
O
L
a
1
Q
0 -
CL Q
Q)
CD
0)
c
0
Qs
co
C:
0
m
U
4=
a
O
2
0
O
Q)
19
C
O
U
L
0 3
0 0
U '>
L NN
LL
a U
C Co
(D a
N
U)
N co
O co
E
E O
Ut
w�
-Fn j
> O
O Q
Z) N
N
0
O
E
E
0
U
T
N
N
C
O
L
O
O
LL
w
LL