Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7C, Planning Case 08-020 -- _HILLS Request for Council Action Prepared By: Meagan Beekman, Planner I Council Meeting Date: July 14, 2008 Variance to Construct a Garage Addition at 1518 Briarknoll Drive that would Encroach Five Feet into the Required Setback Budgeted Amount: $0.00 Actual Amount: $0.00 Funding Source: Recommendation: Deny Planning Case 08-020 for a variance to construct an attached garage at 1518 Briarknoll Drive that would encroach five feet into the required side yard setback based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans 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 Meagan Beekman, Planner I ~ FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Case #08-020 Variance Nicholas and Leann Walker 1518 Briarkknoll Drive Reauest Motion to deny Planning Case 08-020 for a Variance at 1518 Briarknoll Drive, Based on the Findings of Fact and the Submitted Plans in the July 14, 2008, Report to the City Council. Back2round The applicant owns the dwelling at 1518 Briaknoll Drive, which is a located in the R-l Zoning District. It has an attached two-stall garage. The existing dwelling and garage were constructed in 1983 and are currently conforming and meet all setback regulations in the district. The existing garage is ten feet, ten inches from the east side property line. The City's Zoning Code requires a minimum ten foot side yard setback in the R-l Zone. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing garage and rebuilt it as a three-stall garage five feet, ten inches nearer to the lot line. This would reduce the side setback to five feet. In addition to widening the garage the applicant proposes to extend the garage back an additional 22 feet off the rear in order to create a fourth stall. The rear addition would wrap around an existing deck that is currently off the back of the garage, and is proposed to remain. The proposed addition would remain in line with the existing 40 foot front yard setback. The rest of the dwelling would remain unchanged. City of Arden Hills City Council MeetingforJuly 14,2008 \ \Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2008108-020 Walker Variance (PC Denied) 1071408 - CC Report - Walker Variance.doc Page 10f3 The applicant has submitted a letter addressing the variance criteria, a certified survey of the property, and elevations of the existing and proposed structure (Attachments B). There are no known variance requests on file for this property. Findinf!s of Fact The Planning Commission offers the following seventeen findings of fact for review: General Findings 1. The lot size does not meet the requirements of the R -1 Zoning District. 2. The lot does meet the dimensional requirements of the R-l Zoning District. 3. The existing dwelling and garage meet all property line setbacks. 4. The proposed addition would encroach five feet into the side yard setback, and be five feet from the side property line. 5. The proposed addition would maintain the existing front yard setback of forty feet. 6. The proposed addition does not encroach on the rear setback. 7. The structure coverage meets Zoning Code requirements. 8. The minimum landscape area requirements meet Zoning Code regulations. 9. The dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height limit. 10. The existing dwelling and the proposed addition are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. 11. The proposed addition would not impact any significant trees on the property. Variance Findings: 12. A proposed garage expansion is a reasonable use within the R-l Zone. 13. The property is not unique in the City. Alternative solutions exist that would not require the need for a variance. 14. The circumstances of the property were not created by the landowner. 15. The proposed proj ect would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood because most of the homes have two-stall garages that meet setbacks 16. The proposed plans and setback variance for the dwelling do not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. Recommendation The Planning Commission unanimously recommends denial (6-1) of Planning Case 08-020 for a variance at 1518 Briarknoll Drive, based on the Findings of Fact and the submitted plans. If the City Council wishes to approve this variance request, Staff offers the following eight conditions for approvaL City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for July 14, 2008 \ IMetro-inet.uslardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases12008108-020 Walker Variance (PC Denied) 1071408 - CC Report - Walker Variance.doc Page 2 of3 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 any construction or demolition commencing. 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 addition will match the color and siding of the rest of the primary structure. 7. The applicant shall obtain prior written permission from adjacent property owners if any equipment or construction activity is to cross any property lines. 8. The shed located in the rear yard shall be moved to meet setback requirements according to the Zoning Code. Options 1. Approve the proposal as submitted. 2. Approve the proposal with conditions. 3. Deny the application with reasons for denial. If the City denies the petitioners request, ".. .it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time it denies the request. " 4. Table for additional information. The findings of fact in this planning case report support denial of the variance request. If the City Council chooses to approve the variance, findings that approve the variance must be stated for the record prior to voting on the motion. Deadline for Ai!encv Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on June 20, 2008. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by August 19, 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 \08-020 Walker Variance (PC Denied) \071408 - CC Report - Walker Variance.doc Page 3 of3 Attachment A July 14, 2008, City Council Meeting Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: · July 2, 2008 (draft) Draft Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2008 B. PLANNING CASE # 08-020 - VARIANCE: 1518 BRAIRKNOLL DRIVE: NICHOLAS AND LEANN WALKER Ms. Beekman reported that the applicant submitted a request for a variance to construct a 404 square foot addition to the garage on the east and rear sides of the dwelling at 1518 Briarknoll Drive, creating a four-stall garage. The proposed garage addition would encroach five feet into the required ten foot side yard setback. The proposed addition would be five feet from the side property line. She then provided background information and said if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance, Staff recommends 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 pnor to any construction or demolition commencing. 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 addition will match the color and siding of the rest of the primary structure. 7. The applicant shall obtain prior written permission from adjacent property owners if any equipment or construction activity is to cross any property lines. 8. The shed located in the rear yard shall be moved to meet setback requirements according to the Zoning Code. Chair Larson opened the floor to Commission questions. Commissioner Modesette inquired if the existing garage would be removed or added on to. Ms. Beekman stated that her understanding is that it would be removed. Chair Larson inquired about the number of garage stalls on the other houses in the neighborhood. Ms. Beekman stated that most of the houses have two stalls. Chair Larson inquired if the setbacks are met on the neighboring houses. Ms. Beekman stated that she couldn't find any variances for the setbacks, but the aerial photos indicate that some of the setbacks are encroached upon. Commissioner Reiff inquired about the allegations of the decreased property values. Chair Larson stated that the decreased property values are typically speculation. Commissioner Thompson stated that she is concerned about the setback because it narrows the distance between the houses. She stated she is not in support of this application because of the encroachment. She stated that not having four garage stalls isn't detrimental to the property owners. Commissioner Zimmerman stated that he concurs with Commissioner Thompson. Commissioner Reiff stated that three car garages are becoming more popular and it isn't an application that should be denied. He stated that there are surrounding properties with three stalls. Commissioner Thompson noted that there were letters received from the neighbors including the next door neighbor. She inquired about the length of the encroachment. Ms. Beekman stated that the property angles and the encroachment would increase toward the front of the property. Chair Larson stated that there were three letters received by the City from neighbors stating their opposition.to the variance. Commissioner Modesette stated that the applicant is willing to consider alternatives. She stated that there would be a way to have a three or four stall garage without encroaching on the setback. She stated that she is not in favor of the application as it is presented. Commissioner Stodola inquired if the driveway would be right up to the property line. Ms. Beekman stated that the intent would be to apron in the driveway, but residents are allowed to have the driveway right up to the property line. Commissioner Holewa stated that throughout the Twin Cities there are three and four stall garages and large homes. He stated that the structures need to fit the property and the neighbors shouldn't be encroached upon. He inquired if the applicant and others could comment on the application. Chair Larson stated that it isn't a public hearing and it would be irregular to allow them to speak. The Planning Commissioners indicated that they would like to have public comment. Chair Larson opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. Chair Larson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. Nick Walker, 1518 Briarknoll Drive, stated that he is aware that there are other options. He stated that the unusual shape of the lot and the deck create difficulty when considering the other options. He stated that there are 9 out of 32 homes in the neighborhood that have three stall garages. Dianne Torres stated that she lives to the east of the Walkers. She stated that she is not opposed to a three stall garage, but is opposed to the encroachment on their property line. She stated that there are discrepancies in the amount of encroachment. Chair Larson stated that the Certificate of Survey is an official document that defines the location of the property line. Ms. Torres stated that the disagreement is about the location of the property line. She stated that the surveyors hired by the Walkers weren't able to find the appropriate marker. She stated that they have hired a surveyor to survey their lot. Chair Larson stated that the surveyors are legally able to replace the irons that are mIsSIng. Ms. Torres stated that the problem is that the irons aren't in a line. She inquired about how to contest the markers. Chair Larson explained that the building official would use the markers for the setbacks. He stated that if Ms. Torres would dispute the markers it would stop the process of building the garage until the dispute was resolved. Ms. Torres stated that they aren't disputing the location of the marker in the northwest comer, but they are disputing the locations of the other markers. Mr. Walker described the markers on the lot left by the surveyor and the purpose of the markers. Chair Larson closed the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. Commissioner Stodola inquired about the requirement for written permission from adjacent property owners if any equipment or construction crosses the property lines. Chair Larson stated that the adjacent land owners aren't under any obligation to allow the equipment on their property. Commissioner Reiff moved to recommend approval of Planning Case #08-020 for a variance at 1518 Briarknoll Drive based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans and subject to the eight conditions in the July 2, 2008, planning case report and to amend the findings to add that the proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or the City because a three car garage is in keeping with the essential character of the City, and the specific circumstances are unique to the property due to dimensions of the property and the shape of the property. Motion failed due to a lack of a second. Commissioner Stodola moved, seconded by Holewa, to recommend denial of Planning Case #08-020 for a variance at 1518 Briarknoll Drive based on the finings of fact in the July 2, 2008, planning case report and to amend the findings to add that the proposed addition is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood because it is far too close to the adjoining property and there are alternative ways to enlarged the garage without the need for a variance, thus the setback requirements, and the circumstances are not unique to the property. The motion carried unanimously (6-1 Commissioner Reiff). 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