Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4C, Planning Case 09-006, Conditional Use PErmit Amendment at 3900 Bethel Road .--- _HIttS Request for Council Action ~ Prepared By: Meagan Beekman Council Meeting Date: May 11, 2009 Approve Planning Case 09-008 for a Variance at 1156 Amble Drive, Based on the Findings of Fact and the Submitted Plans, as Amended by the Four Conditions in the May 11, 2009, Report to the City Council. Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Recommendation: Approve Planning Case 09-008 for a Variance at 1156 Amble Drive, Based on the Findings of Fact and the Submitted Plans, as Amended by the Four Conditions in the May 11, 2009, Report to the City Council. Supportine: Documents: 1. Memo from Meagan Beekman 2. Planning Commission Minutes for May 6, 2009 3. May 6, 2009, Report to the Planning Commission - http://www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us ~ ~~HILLS MEMORANDUM DA TE: May 11,2009 FROM: Mayor & City Council Meagan Beekman, City Planner ~ TO: SUBJECT: Planning Case #09-008 Variance Elaine Francis and David Yauch 1156 Amble Drive Request Motion to Approve Planning Case 09-008 for a Variance at 1156 Amble Drive, Based on the Findings of Fact and the Submitted Plans, as Amended by the Four Conditions in the May 11, 2009, Report to the City Council. Back2round The applicant owns the dwelling at 1156 Amble Drive, which is a located in the R-l Zoning District. In early 2008, the existing dwelling, built in 1979, was destroyed in a fire and the applicant has since obtained the necessary permits from the City to construct a new dwelling with attached two-stall garage on the existing footprint. The new dwelling will continue to have legally non-conforming front and lakefront (OHW) setbacks. The west or front side of the structure encroaches 10.4 feet into the 40-foot front yard setback while the garage attached on the south side of the structure encroaches 6.4 feet. The east or rear side of the structure encroaches within the 50-foot setback from the Karth Lake OHW by as much as 20.3 feet at one point. The new dwelling will include a series of dormers on the second story along the front side of the structure. The dormers on the dwelling would not increase the volume within the front yard setback as the former dwelling had similar features. However, to complement the house, the City of Arden Hills City Council Meetingfor May 11,2009 I I1IJetro-inet.uslardenhillsIPlanningIPlanning CasesI2()09\09-()()8 Yauch Variance (pending) 1051 109 - CC Report - Yauch Variance.doc Page 1 of4 attached garage would be increased in height and also include a dormer, extending to the front of the garage itself The dormer is purely decorative and would not be an occupied space. While a majority of the garage, including the raised roof, is outside of the setbacks, the portion within the 6.4 feet front yard encroachment would be noticeably enlarged by the addition of the dormer. While the City allows legally nonconforming structures to be rebuilt on the existing footprint with a similar volume, Section 1350.04 states that nonconforming buildings shall not be enlarged to occupy a greater area or height that augments its nonconformity. Thus, a variance is required to allow the dormer to be constructed on the second story of the garage. When the home was originally constructed in 1979 it met both the front and shoreland setbacks at the time. The front yard setback appears to have been 30 feet at the time, since most of the homes in this area are setback similarly. In addition, Karth Lake has increased in depth dramatically over the years due to the absence of adequate drainage out of the lake. A water pump has since been installed to stop the encroachment of the lake into the surrounding properties. The result of this geographic anomaly is that the homes around the lake have lost between 20 and 30 feet of property, making most of them non-conforming. Had the lake not risen the applicants' home could have simply been rebuilt to meet the front and shoreland setbacks and the dormer would not have become an issue. Staff has included an aerial photograph of the property from 1953 that indicates the water level change (Attachment B) The applicant has submitted a letter addressing the variance criteria, a survey of the property, and elevations of the dormer (Attachment B). Findin2S of Fact The Planning Commission offers the following fifteen findings of fact for review: General Findings 1. The lot size meets the requirements of the R-l Zoning District. 2. The lot meets the width and depth requirements for the R-l Zoning District. 3. The new dwelling does not meet all property line setbacks. The dwelling and garage will encroach 10.4 and 6.4 feet into the front yard setback respectively. Portions of the dwelling will also encroach on the 50-foot OHW setback from Karth Lake. 4. The dwelling and garage meets all side yard setbacks for the R-I Zoning District. 5. The structure coverage meets the requirements of the R-l Zoning District. 6. The minimum landscape area meets the requirements of the R -I Zoning District. 7. The new dwelling will not exceed the 35 foot height limit. 8. Dormers are permitted features within the R-l Zoning District. 9. The existing dwelling is outside of the IOO-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. 10. The applicant has been issued all the necessary building permits by the City to construct the dwelling with the exception of the garage dormer. Ci~y of Arden Hills City Council Meeting.for May 11, 2009 \ IMetro-inet.uslardenhillsIPlanningIPlanning Cases12009\09-008 Yauch Variance (pending) \05 1 109 - CC Report - Yauch Variance.doc Page 2 of 4 Variance Findings: 11. The garage and dormer are reasonable uses within the R - I Zoning District. 12. The property is unique due to the fact that the water level has risen so dramatically on this lake making the house non-conforming. 13. The circumstances of the property were not created by the landowner. 14. It is unlikely the dormer would have a negative impact on the property or the neighborhood. The presence of the dormer adds to the aesthetic appeal of the home and may have a positive impact on the property and surrounding community. 15. The installation of the dormer is not based on economic considerations alone, since the cost to install the dormer is greater than if the dormer were not installed at all. Recommendation The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of Planning Case 09-008 for a variance at I 156 Amble Drive, based on the Findings of Fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the following four conditions: I . 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 structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 4. The dormer shall match the architectural styling of the rest of the primary structure. Options I . 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 approval of the variance request. If the City Council chooses to deny the variance, findings that support this motion must be stated for the record prior to voting on the motion. City of Arden Hills City Council Meetingfor May 11,2009 I IMetro-inet.uslardenhillsIP/anningIP/anning Cases12009109-008 Yauch Variance (pending)105/109 - CC Report - Yauch Variance.doc Page 3 of4 Deadline for A2encv Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on March 16, 2009. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by May 15,2009 (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 - May 6, 2009, Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes B - May 6, 2009, Report to the Planning Commission http://www.ci.ardenhills.mn.us/planningcase City of Arden Hills City Council Meetingfor May 117 2009 \ \Metro-inet.uslardenhills\Planning\Planning CasesI2()()9109-()()8 Yauch Variance (pending)\051109 - CC Report - Yauch Variance. doc Page 4 of 4 Attachment A Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes From May 6, 2009 May 11, 2009, City Council Meeting Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 6, 2009 Plannin2 Case 09-008: Variance: 1156 Amble Drive: Elaine Francis and David Yauch - Not a Public Hearinf! City Planner Beekman stated the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a second- story decorative dormer over an attached garage on a dwelling under construction at 1156 Amble Drive. While the new dwelling is being built in the legally non-conforming footprint of the former, the addition of the dormer over the garage would increase the volume of the structure within the front yard setback. City Planner Beekman then described the application and the reason for the variance request. City Planner Beekman presented an aerial photograph taken in 1953, which depicts the significant changes in the water level of the lake. She stated expansion of the lakeshore is a unique feature of the lot and impacts others homes in the area; however, the findings of fact for this variance do not specifically support a recommendation for approval or denial. She indicated the proposal appears to meet most of the variance review criteria, however, the evaluation criterion that states '"'"the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property.. .01' is the difficult evaluation criterion. She added the property itself is not unique; however, the rising of Karth Lake has made it nearly impossible to situate the garage any differently, while requiring the dormer to be pushed back to avoid encroaching in the front yard setback would make it infeasible to construct, presenting a potentially unique situation. City Planner Beekman stated if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance, Staff recommends the following four 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 structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 4. The dormer shall match the architectural styling of the rest of the primary structure. Commissioner Zimmerman requested confirmation that the dormer on the garage would be strictly aesthetic and would not increase the space above the main garage itself or be used for sleeping purposes. City Planner Beekman replied the dormer is for decorative purposes only. Commissioner Zimmerman stated he did not see any reason why the variance should not be granted since it appears this is an architectural issue that ties the garage into the rest of the main house without adding any livable space to the dwelling. Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to recommend approval of Planning Case 09-008 for a variance at 1156 Amble Drive with conditions based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, as proposed in the April 8, 2009 planning case report. Further discussion: City Planner Beekman stated a finding needs to be made as to the criteria listed with respect to the circumstances in this case being unique to the property. Commissioner Holewa amended his motion to include a finding that the circumstances in this planning case are unique to the property because of the architectural nature of the house. Commissioner Zimmerman seconded the amended motion. The amended motion carried unanimously (5-0). This Planning Case will be reviewed at the Monday, May 11, 2009, City Council meeting. Attachment B May 6, 2009, Report to the Planning Commission Available online at: http://www.ci.arden-hills.rnn.us May 11, 2009, City Council Meeting