HomeMy WebLinkAbout4B, Approve Planning Case 08-018
--
_I
Request for Council Action
~
Prepared By: Meagan Beekman, Planner I
Council Meeting Date: July 14, 2008
Site Plan Review for a Detached Garage at 1924 Grant Road
Budgeted Amount:
$0.00
Actual Amount:
$0.00
Funding Source:
Recommendation:
Approve Planning Case 08-018 for a Site Plan Review for a 988 square foot detached
garage located at 1924 Grant Road based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as
amended by the eight conditions in the July 14, 2008, Report to the City Council.
Supporting Documents:
1. Planning Commission Minutes - July 2, 2008
2. July 2, 2008, Planning Report to the Planning Commission
~
~~HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
July 14, 2008
TO:
Mayor & City Council
FROM:
Meagan Beekman, Planner I
#
SUBJECT: Planning Case #08-018
Site Plan Review
Jeffery Beard
1924 Grant Road
Request
Motion to approve Planning Case 08-018 for a Site Plan Review to construct a 988 square foot
detached garage at 1924 Grant Road, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as
amended by the eight conditions in the July 14, 2008, report to the City Council.
Back!!round
The applicant owns the property located at 1924 Grant Road. He is proposing to demolish his
existing 450 square foot garage and build a 988 square foot detached garage in his rear yard. No
variances are required for the proposed detached garage. The Zoning Code permits up to two
accessory structures on a property provided that neither exceeds 728 square feet in size. In
addition, Section 1325.01 Subd. 7 of the City's Zoning Code allows for a sil1gle accessory
structure, not to exceed 1,458 square feet, if approved through a Site Plan Review.
The proposed garage would be ten feet from the nearest side property line and fifteen feet from
the rear property line. The garage would not exceed fifteen feet in height. The siding of the
proposed garage would not match that of the existing home because the applicant is planning on
residing his home at a later date to match the new garage.
The home was constructed in 1954, likely the existing garage was constructed at the same time.
The existing garage is currently set back five feet from the side property line to the east and does
not meet setback regulations, which require a ten foot setback for accessory structures. Both the
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for July 14, 2008
\\Metro-inet.uslardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases12008\08-018 Beard Site Plan Review (PC Approved) \071408 - CC Report - Beard Site Plan
Review. doc
Page 1 of 4
home and garage were constructed prior to the current zoning regulations. While the structure
and existing garage are legally non-conforming, the proposed project would bring the property
into greater conformance with the present code.
The applicant has submitted a letter addressing the details of the application, a survey of the
property, elevations of the proposed structures, and photographs of the site (Attachment B). The
property is in the R-2 Zone. There are no known variance requests on file for this property.
Tree Preservation Ordinance
The applicant submitted a Tree Survey with the proposed Site Plan and Survey (Attachment B).
He is proposing to remove four coniferous trees to make way for the new garage. According to
the Tree Survey, there are seven significant trees on the site. Based on the measurements of the
trees, the applicant can remove 18.2 feet of coniferous trees (or 18.2 inches of deciduous trees)
without replacement, but anything above and beyond that needs to be replaced at a rate of one to
two. In this case the applicant is removing an additional 98 feet of coniferous trees, requiring the
replacement of 49 feet of new trees. At a minimum height of six feet each, the applicant would
be required to plant eight new trees on his lot.
The applicants have asked for a reduction in the amount of tree replacement, indicating that they
believe the requirement to be unreasonably excessive. While the applicant proposed to plant
three, six foot trees along the east property line, the Planning Commission considered the request
and decided that four replacement trees would be more appropriate. They agreed that 49 feet of
new trees was an extremely large amount, and recommended that 24 feet be required in light of
the fact that this would require four replacement trees for the four trees being removed. The City
Council does have the discretion to reduce the amount of replacement trees without the need for
a varIance.
This application marks the first test of the newly adopted Tree Preservation Ordinance. While
enacting this ordinance was an extremely important step in protecting the natural beauty and
property values of our community, it is likely that certain aspects of the ordinance may need to
be adjusted over time. It may be necessary to review the ordinance itself to determine if an
overall change is necessary for residential parcels, or if this particular application poses a unique
situation due to the very large size of the trees being removed, and thus a reduction is warranted.
Findine:s of Fact
The Planning Commission offers the following sixteen findings of fact for review:
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for July 14, 2008
\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2008\08-018 Beard Site Plan Review (PC Approved) \071408 - CC Report - Beard Site Plan
Review. doc
Page 2 of4
1. The lot is ten feet narrower than is required by Code, but meets all other minimum
requirements of the R-2 Zone.
2. The existing dwelling encroaches five feet into the front yard setback
3. The existing garage encroaches five feet into the side yard setback
4. A site plan review is required for the detached accessory structure.
5. The proposed accessory structure would reduce the existing non-conformity of the lot by
removing the non-conforming garage and constructing a new garage that meets all
setbacks.
6. The maximum structure coverage meets the requirements of the R-2 zone.
7. The minimum landscaped area exceeds the requirements of the R-2 zone.
8. The existing dwelling does not exceed the 35 foot height limit.
9. The proposed garage would not exceed the 15 foot height limit for accessory structures.
10. Garages and accessory structures are permitted within the R-2 Zone.
11. The existing dwelling and the proposed garage are outside of the 100-year flood plain,
wetlands, and easements.
12. This project requires a Tree Preservation Plan and a maximum tree mitigation amount of
49 feet of new trees, the applicant is proposing to plant 18 feet.
13. The proposed garage would be 988 square feet.
14. The exterior finish will match the principal structure when the existing home is resided in
the near future.
15. The lot is unusual in that there is room to construct two 728 square foot accessory
structures on the property without a variance.
16. The proposed garage would create less impact and be more attractive than what is
presently on the property.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval (7-0) of Planning Case 08-018
for a site plan review at 1924 Grant Road, based on the Findings of Fact and the submitted plans,
as amended by the following eight 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 obtain all necessary building permits prior to beginning
construction or demolition on the site.
3. The applicant shall use best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion at all
times during construction.
4. The applicant shall obtain approval or a waiver from the Rice Creek Watershed
District prior to the issuance of any building permits.
5. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code.
6. The property shall be limited to a single accessory structure.
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for July 14} 2008
\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2008\08-018 Beard Site Plan Review (PC Approved) \071408 - CC Report - Beard Site Plan
Review. doc
Page 3 of 4
7. The applicant shall plant 24 inches of deciduous trees, or 24 feet of coniferous trees,
or some combination thereof within one year of the building permit being issued.
8. The exterior finish of the principal structure, within three years, shall be resided to
match that of the garage.
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.
Deadline for A2encv Actions
The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on July 16, 2008.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by August 15, 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 - July 2, 2008, Report to the Planning Commission -
http://www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us/p lanningcase
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for July 14, 2008
\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2008\08-018 Beard Site Plan Review (PC Approved) \071408 - CC Report - Beard Site Plan
Review. doc
Page 4 of 4
Attachment A
July 14, 2008, City Council Meeting
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes:
· July 2, 2008 (draft)
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 4, 2008
A. PLANNING CASE #08-018 - SITE PLAN REVIEW: 1924 GRANT ROAD:
JEFFREY BEARD
Ms. Beekman reported that the applicant submitted a site plan review to construct
a 988 square foot detached garage on the property located at 1924 Grant Road.
The proposed structure would replace the existing 450 square foot garage and
would be the only accessory structure located on the site. She then provided
background information and said Staff is recommending approval with the
following seven 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 obtain all necessary building permits prior to beginning
construction or demolition on the site.
3. The applicant shall use best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion
at all times during construction.
4. The applicant shall obtain approval or a waiver from the Rice Creek
Watershed District prior to the issuance of any building permits.
5. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code.
6. The property shall be limited to a single accessory structure.
7. The applicant shall plant 49 inches of deciduous trees, 49 feet of coniferous
trees, or some combination thereof, in accordance with the Zoning Code
unless a letter from the utility company is submitted, subject to the approval of
the City Planner, indicating that any of the trees on site are a hazard to public
safety or would impede the electrical service to the property, in which case the
applicant shall plant three, six foot trees.
Chair Larson opened the floor to Commission questions.
Commissioner Zimmerman stated that it is difficult to transplant large trees. He
stated that the replacement calculation of the trees was based on planting smaller
trees now and accommodating their growth over time. He inquired if Xcel
Energy considers the existing trees to be a nuisance or in the right-of-way. He
stated that he doesn't think that the tree preservation ordinance needs to be
modified, but this situation needs to be looked at individually.
Commissioner Holewa stated that this is the first case before the Planning
Commission regarding the tree preservation and doesn't want to have precedence
set of caving in. He expressed concern about removing four trees and then
planting only three.
Chair Larson inquired about the requirements for the setbacks and height
regulations. Ms. Beekman stated that the proposed project meets the zoning code
regulations, but it is a site plan review which gives the Planning Commission
discretion in evaluating the aesthetics of the project, as well as how well it fits
with the character of the lot and neighborhood.
Commissioner Holewa stated that the hard surface coverage is close to the limits.
He stated that there is a future house addition indicated on the plans. He stated
that the addition would require a variance. Ms. Beekman stated that the applicant
is aware that they would need a variance for the addition or would need to remove
other impervious surfacing or reduce the size of there addition.
Commissioner Holewa stated that there should be an additional condition
requiring that there be a time frame within which the exterior of the garage would
match the exterior of the house.
Ms. Beekman stated that it could be added as a condition.
Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to add
condition eight, stating that the exterior finish of the principal structure, within
one year, shall be resided to match that of the garage.
Commissioner Modesette inquired about the timing of residing the house. Ms.
Beekman stated that the applicant could be asked if residing of the existing
principal structure would be completed within that timeframe.
Jeffery Beard, 1924 Grant Road, stated he would prefer to have a two year limit.
Commissioner Stodola suggested allowing a three year time limit to complete the
siding.
Chair Larson stated that there isn't a way to enforce that the existing principal
structure be resided within three years, therefore there isn't much "teeth" to the
condition.
The Planning Commission agreed to allow it to be done within three years.
The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
Commissioner Reiff stated that he thinks that the tree preservation ordinance is
ill-conceived. He would like to have condition seven removed.
Commissioner Stodola stated that there should be a minimum of a 1: 1
replacement requirement for the trees, and that the applicant's proposal to replace
three trees for the removal of four wasn't reasonable.
Commissioner Modesette stated that there would be a balance if there was a 1: 1
replacement based on the lot size, the current trees, and the zoning code
ordinance.
Commissioner Zimmerman stated that a compromise between what the ordinance
requires and what the applicant is asking for would be to replace four trees even if
the newly planted trees are smaller than what is currently on the property.
Commissioner Reiff moved, seconded by Commissioner Modesette, to strike
condition seven and include language indicating the applicant shall replace the
four trees being removed by planting four six-foot trees.
Commissioner Modesette stated that the trees could be coniferous or deciduous
trees.
Commissioner Holewa inquired about specifying the height of the trees.
Ms. Beekman suggested alternate language which would allow the trees to be
either coniferous or deciduous.
Mr. Lehnhoff stated that the language previously used for condition seven could
be altered to reflect the changes by the Planning Commission.
Chair Larson inquired if Commissioner Reiff would like to withdraw his motion.
Commissioner Reiff stated that he would.
Chair Larson inquired if Commissioner Modesette would like to withdraw the
second. Commissioner Modesette stated that she would.
Chair Larson moved, seconded by Commissioner Reiff, to change condition seven
to read: "The applicant shall plant 24 inches of deciduous trees, 24 feet of
coniferous trees, or some combination thereof."
Commissioner Modesette stated that eight deciduous trees on a lot that size would
be excessive.
Chair Larson stated that it is a new ordinance and that there may be room for
amending it as time goes by.
Commissioner Modesette stated that as a result of the ordinance and the
difference between caliper inches and height of coniferous trees, there could be
more coniferous trees than hardwoods planted within the City.
Commissioner Zimmerman stated that he agrees with Commissioner Modesette
and believes a compromise would be appropriate. He suggested that the condition
take into account the difference in size requirements for newly planted coniferous
trees versus deciduous trees.
Commissioner Holewa inquired if this situation is specific to this application or to
the tree ordinance.
The motion carried (5-2 Commissioners Modesette and Zimmerman).
Commissioner Holewa inquired if the applicant would be able to meet condition
seven as it has been changed.
Commissioner Reiff stated that he would like to know if the applicant can meet
the changes in the condition. He stated that he thinks the ordinance is ill
conceived. Chair Larson stated that the ordinance isn't open for discussion at this
meeting.
Mr. Beard stated that there is one very tall tree on the property. He stated that he
thinks that three trees will be enough to meet the intent of the ordinance due to the
height that they will grow to.
Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Stodola, to
recommend approval of Planning Case #08-018 for Site Plan Review at 1924
Grant Road based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, subject to the seven
conditions as listed in staff s July 2, 2008 report, and the additional condition
eight.
The motion carried unanimously (7-0).
This Planning Case will be reviewed at the Monday, July 14, 2008, City Council
meeting.
Attachment B
July 2,2008,
Report to the Planning Commission
Available online at:
http://www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us
July 14, 2008, City Council Meeting