HomeMy WebLinkAbout4D, Planning Case 09-022 - 1563 Edgewater Avenue�
�
_.: - : �
€
I
�
j
- ,.� EN HILLS
�
. . �
Re uest for Council Action �
q �
�
�
�
_.._.M.._..�.....�. �
�
Prepared By: Meagan Beekman � Council Meeting Date: April 26, 2010
Planning Case 09-022 for a Variance at 1563 Edgewater Avenue
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
NA NA NA
Recommendation:
1. Approve Planning Case 09-022 for a Variance at 3413 Snelling Avenue, Based on
the Findings of Fact and the Submitted Plans, as Amended by the Five Conditions in
the April 26, 2010, Report to the City Council.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................�----.--------......_...._._._........................_.._...__._._..._____.__._____..__....._..._..,..........._..............................-.-.---.---------------------------------------------------------------------------._...-------._.._....--.-----.---_._..._._..-.---.----�--
Supportin� Documents:
1. April 26, 2010, Report to the City Council
2. January 6 and Apri17, 2010, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
3. April 7, 2010, Report to the Planning Commission
_ ___ _ _
�;.� EN
HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: Apri126, 2010
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case #09-022
Variance
Brian and Vanessa Ranallo
1563 Edgewater Avenue
Back�round
The applicants are the owners of the property located at 1563 Edgewater Avenue, which is
located in the R-1 Zoning District. The property is a lakeshore property and is located on the
southeast side of Lake Johanna. The existing house was constructed in 195 5 and is a one and a
half story home that is 45 feet from the front property line, 100 feet from the OHW, 7.5 feet from
the west property line, and 8.8 feet from the east side property line. Most of the homes
constructed along this street were built in the early to mid 1950's; however, two homes along
this street were demolished and new homes constructed in their place in the late 1990's.
At the January 6 Planning Commission meeting the applicants proposed to demolish the existing
home and construct a new home in its place. The new home would have encroached into all four
property line setbacks. The Planning Commission voted to table the application at that time.
The applicants have since revised their plans, reducing their variance request to an encroachment
on only the east side yard setback. The proposed home would be centered on the lot and slightly
narrower than the existing home, increasing the setback on the west side to ten feet to meet the
minimum requirement. The setback on the east side would be increased to 9.1 feet. City Code
requires a minimum setback of ten feet on one side of a home with a combined setback of 25 feet
on both sides. In this case the required east side yard setback is 15 feet. The applicants are
requesting an encroachment of five feet, one inch.
The applicant has submitted a letter addressing the variance criteria, a letter of support from the
neighbor to the east, elevations of the proposed home, a survey of the existing property, and a
survey of the proposed property (Attachment B). An aerial photo and photographs of the site are
City of A�den Hills
City Council Meeting for Ap�il 26, 2010 .
IlMetro-inetlardenhillslAdminl CouncillAgendas � Packet Information1201014-26-10 RegularlPacket Information104-26-10 - Regular Meeting -
PC 09-022 - Memo.doc
Page 1 of 4
also attached. Please refer to the January 6, 2010, Planning Case report for the previously
proposed survey of the property — v�►�vwv.ci.arden-hills.mn.us/�lannin cases
Findin�s of Fact
The Planning Commission offers the following seventeen findings of fact for review:
Gene�al Findings
1. The lot size meets the requirements of the R-1 Zoning District.
2. The lot meets the depth requirements for the R-1 Zoning District.
3. The lot is only 70 feet wide which does not meet the 95 foot width requirement for the R-
1 Zoning District.
4. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing home and construct a new home in its
place.
5. The existing home currently encroaches into both side yard setbacks.
6. The proposed home would increase the setback on the west side of the property from 7.9
feet to ten feet, bringing it into conformance with the current Code. The front and lake
side setbacks would meet the minimum requirements of the Code.
7. The proposed home would encroach 5.1 feet into the required 15 foot side yard setback to
the east.
8. The proposed structure coverage meets the requirements of the R-1 Zoning District.
9. The proposed minimum landscape area meets the requirements of the R-1 Zoning
District.
10. The proposed home would not exceed 35 feet in height.
11. The proposed garage is outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements.
l 2. There is no proposed tree removal for this proj ect.
T�ariance Findings:
13 . Single-family homes are a reasonable use within the R-1 Zoning District because they are
permitted within the Zoning Code.
14. The property is unique in the City due to the narrowness of the lot and steep topography
to the north.
15. The circumstances of the property were not created by the landowner because the lot was
platted prior to their taking ownership.
16. The proposed east side yard setback encroachment would not alter the essential character
of the neighborhood because most homes in this area are nonconforming in terms of side
yard setbacks and the west side yard setback would be increased to meet the requirements
of the Code.
17. The construction and location of the home is not based on economic considerations alone,
because tree preservation, distance to the lake, location of neighboring properties, and
City ofArden Hills
City Council Meeting for Ap�il 26, 2010
IlMetro-inetlardenhillslAdminl CouncillAgendas & Packet Information1201014-26-10 RegularlPacket Information104-26-10 - Regular Meeting -
PC 09-022 - Memo.doc
Page 2 of 4
setback considerations were the primary reason for the proposed layout and location of
the home.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of Planning Case 09-022 for a
variance at 1563 Edgewater Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as
amended by the following five conditions:
1. The proj ect shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by
the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by
the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission.
2. Building, Grading and Erosion Control, and Demolition permits shall be obtained by
the property owner.
3. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code.
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 applicant shall submit a Shoreland Mitigation plan to the City in accordance with
S ection 13 3 0.03 Subd 7E subj ect to the approval of the City Planner.
Requested Action
Approve Planning Case 09-022 for a Variance at 3413 Snelling Avenue, Based on the Findings
of Fact and the Submitted Plans, as Amended by the Five Conditions in the April 26, 2010,
Report to the City Council.
O tions
l. 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. 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.
Deadline for A�enc_y Actions
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for April 26, 2010
IlMetro-inetlardenhillslAdminl CouncillAgendas �c Packet Information1201014-26-10 RegularlPacket Information104-26-10 - Regular Meeting -
PC 09-022 - Memo.doc
Page 3 of 4
The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on December 7,
2009. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the applicants have extended the City's review
deadline to April 27, 2010.
Attachments
A. January 6 and Apri17, 2010, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
B. April 7, 2010, Report to the Planning Commission
htt�://v�►�►�vw. ci. ardenhills.mn.us/�lannin�case
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for April 26, 2010
IIMet�o-inetlardenhillslAdminl CouncillAgendas 8i Packet Information1201014-26-10 RegularlPacket Information104-26-10 - Regular Meeting -
PC 09-022 - Memo.doc
Page 4 of 4
ac men
. .
anua an rl 2010 annln
� �
. . .
onr�misslon lnu es
The Planning Commission unanimously (�-o) recommended
approval for Planning Case o9-022 at their April �, 2010,
meeting.
April 26, 2010, City Council Meeting
January 6, 2010, Planning Commission Minutes
Planning Case 09-022; Variance; 1563 Edgewater Avenue; Mr. and Mrs. Ranallo —
Not a Public Hearing
City Planner Beekman reported that the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a
new home at the property located at 1563 Edgewater Avenue. She then provided
background information and said that Staff offers the following eighteen findings of fact
for consideration;
Gene�al Findings:
1. The lot size meets the requirements of the R-1 Zoning District.
2. The lot meets the depth requirements for the R-1 Zoning District.
3. The lot is only 70 feet wide which does not meet the 95 foot width
requirement for the R-1 Zoning District.
4. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing home and construct a
new home in its place.
5. The existing home currently encroaches into both side setbacks.
6. The proposed home would encroach into the side yard setback to the west
by nine feet five inches, the front yard setback by three feet seven inches,
and the required setback to the OHW level by seventeen feet six inches.
7. The proposed structure coverage meets the requirements of the R-1
Zoning District.
8. The proposed minimum landscape area meets the requirements of the R-1
Zoning District.
9. The proposed home would not exceed 3 5 feet in height.
10. The proposed garage is outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and
easements.
11. There is no proposed tree removal for this proj ect.
Va�iance Findings:
12. Single-family homes are a reasonable use within the R-1 Zoning District
because they are permitted within the Zoning Code.
13. The property is unique in the City due to the narrowness of the lot and
steep topography to the north.
14. The circumstances of the property were not created by the landowner
because the lot was platted prior to their taking ownership.
15. The proposed side yard setback would not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood because most homes in this area are non-conforming in
terms of side yard setbacks.
16. The proposed front yard setback would not likely alter the essential
character of the neighborhood because most homes in the neighborhood
have similar front yard setbacks.
17. The proposed setback to the lake may alter the essential character of the
neighborhood; however, because there are homes that are nearer the lake
than 100 feet as older homes in this community are rebuilt it is likely that
the prevailing setback will naturally move towards the lake.
18. The construction and location of the home is not based on economic
considerations alone, because tree preservation and setback considerations
were the primary reason for the proposed location of the home.
City Planner Beekman stated that with a motion to approve or deny the variance the
findings or reasons for the motion must be stated and if the Planning Commission
recommends approval of the variance, Staff recommends the following four conditions:
1. The proj ect shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as
amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these
plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and
approval by the Planning Commission.
2. Building, Grading, and Erosion Control, and Demolition permits shall be
obtained by the property owner.
3. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code.
4. The applicant shall obtain approval or a waiver from the Rice Creek
Watershed District prior to the issuance of any building permits.
Chair Larson opened the floor to Commission questions.
Commissioner Holewa asked how many phone calls had been received pertaining to this
planning case and what were the opinions expressed.
City Planner Beekman stated that she had received four phone calls and they were split
for or opposed to the proj ect.
Chair Larson stated that the regulations talked about the use of the adj acent properties
and undeveloped lots. There is an existing lot on the property. He asked how this would
be considered an undeveloped lot.
City Planner Beekman explained that once the existing house was demolished the lot
would then be considered undeveloped and the regulations would apply. The intent is to
apply the regulation to any lot where new construction is occurring.
Chair Larson asked why the house located at 1575 Edgewater Avenue was so close to the
lake.
City Planner Beekman explained that there had been an addition to the back of the house
and that the current City codes were not in place when the home was originally
constructed. The current regulations only apply to new construction.
Chair Larson asked what the front setbacks were for the other homes in the
neighborhood.
City Planner Beekman stated that 3 5 feet was about the average setback for the
neighborhood. The home that is currently on the property meets the front setback but the
adj acent homes do not.
Commissioner Reiff asked if the adj acent homes also encroached into the setbacks.
City Planner Beekman stated the adj acent homes encroach into the front and side
setbacks but not the rear setbacks.
Commissioner Modesette asked why the proposed home was being moved to one side so
that it increased the setbacks on one side and lessened them on the other rather than
leaving it closer to what it currently is.
Chair Larson clarified that part of the variance request was to use the house two lots over
to determine the front setback rather than the adj acent home.
Commissioner Holewa asked what the square footage was for the proposed home and the
adj acent homes.
City Planner Beekman stated that she did not have this information.
Mr. Brian Ranallo, 1563 Edgewater Avenue, Arden Hills, stated that there were no
specific reasons for placing the proposed home on the lot with the setbacks being less on
one side and more on the other. This was the way that the survey had placed it. They had
a footprint of a home with features that they liked. They have done some design
iterations from remodeling the current home to new construction and determined that the
proposed footprint meets what they would want and what they think is keeping with the
neighborhood. An alteration to the design would push the structure higher in the air.
Chair Larson granted Mr. Mike Mergens permission to make a short statement to the
Planning Commission even though this is not a public hearing.
l�Ir. Mike Mergens, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, & Lindgren, LTD., representing Mr. and
Mrs. Stanton at 1569 Edgewater Avenue, clarified with granting any of the variances the
Planning Commission would have to find that they meet the spirit and intent of the codes
that are currently in place. One of the things that need to be reviewed is the square
footage of the proposed home and making sure that it meets the floor area requirements
of the code and it reflects the size of the lot.
City Planner Beekman clarified that the floor area ratio was looked at by Staff. The
applicants are aware of this requirement and the home would not exceed the floor area
ratio. The only variances being requested at this time are for the setbacks and one of the
conditions of approval is that all other requirements of the code would have to be met.
Chair Larson stated that in his opinion after reviewing the submitted information and the
footprint it is possible to fit a home within the setbacks and granting a variance request
would not be in the spirit and intent of the code.
Commissioner Reiff disagreed with Chair Larson stating the other homes in the
neighborhood are non-conforming and encroach into the setbacks. This applicant should
not be asked to meet all the setbacks when there are no other homes in the neighborhood
that do. Granting the variance would be keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Thompson stated the homes that are non-conforming were built before the
regulations and code were in place and now that it is in place it should be followed. The
Planning Commission can take minor changes such as those due to topographical issues
into account for granting a variance. The floor area ratio does need to be taken into
consideration as well. A reasonable approach would be to not allow for these variance
requests due to the setbacks.
Commissioner Reiff stated denying this request would really be denying the applicants
the ability to build a new home on this lot and this would not be consistent with the intent
of the code. The applicants should not be required to be within all the setbacks when the
other homes in the neighborhood are not.
Commissioner Holewa stated a new home does not have to be built because the current
home is a legal non-conforming home. He further stated the applicant could put a new
home on the current foot print but when someone decides to build a new home then they
would need to work with the City's codes.
Chair Larson stated that there would be room for a home without changing the setbacks
and an architect would be able to work with the owners to design a suitable home for
them.
Commissioner Modesette stated she would not be comfortable with these variance
requests because it is encroaching so far on the one side and this would not be with the
spirit or intent of the code.
Chair Larson stated that the applicants have not been able to prove hardship in this
particular case because a home could be constructed on this lot that worked within the
setbacks.
Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Thompson to
recommend denial of Plannin� Case 09-022 for a variance at 1563 Ed�ewater
Avenue due to the setbacks.
City Planner Beekman clarified that if the request is denied then the applicants could not
come back to the Planning Commission for six months.
The motion was called to a vote.
The motion failed (0-5).
Ayes — none
Nays — Chair Larson, Commissioners Thompson, Holewa, Modesette, Reiff
Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded b_y Commissioner Modesette to recommend
tablin� Plannin� Case 09-022 for a variance at 1563 Ed�ewater Avenue for
additional information. The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
Apri17, 2010, Draft Planning Commission Minutes
Planning Case 09-022; Variance; 1563 Edgewater Avenue; Mr. and Mrs. Ranallo —
Not a Public Hearing
City Planner Meagan Beekman reported the applicants are requesting a variance to
construct a new home at the property located at 1563 Edgewater Avenue. The structure
would encroach 5.11 feet into the east yard setback. All other setback requirements
would be met. She then provided background information and said that Staff offers the
following seventeen findings of fact for review:
Gene�al Findings:
1. The lot size meets the requirements of the R-1 Zoning District.
2. The lot meets the depth requirements for the R-1 Zoning District.
3. The lot is only 70 feet wide which does not meet the 95 foot width
requirement for the R-1 Zoning District.
4. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing home and construct a
new home in its place.
5. The existing home currently encroaches into both side yard setbacks.
6. The proposed home would increase the setback on the west side of the
property from 7.9 feet to ten feet, bringing it into conformance with the
current Code. The front and lakeside setbacks would meet the minimum
requirements of the Code.
7. The proposed home would encroach 5.1 feet into the required 15-foot side
yard setback to the east.
8. The proposed structure coverage meets the requirements of the R-1
Zoning District.
9. The proposed minimum landscape area meets the requirements of the R-1
Zoning District.
10. The proposed home would not exceed 3 5 feet in height.
11. The proposed garage is outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and
easements.
12. There is no proposed tree removal for this project.
I�a�iance Findings:
13 e Single-family homes are a reasonable use within the R-1 Zoning District
because they are permitted within the Zoning Code.
14. The property is unique in the City due to the narrowness of the lot and
steep topography to the north.
1 S. The circumstances of the property were not created by the landowner
because the lost was platted prior to their taking ownership.
16. The proposed east side yard setback encroachment would not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood because most of the homes in this
area are nonconforming in terms of side yard setbacks and the west side
yard setback would be increased to meet the requirements of the Code.
17. The construction and location of the home is not based on economic
considerations alone, because tree preservation, distance to the lake,
location of neighboring properties, and setback considerations were the
primary reason for the proposed layout and location of the home.
City Planner �eekman stated that with a motion to approve or deny the variance the
findings or reasons for the motion must be stated and if the Planning Commission
recommends approval of the variance, Staff recommends the following iive conditions:
1. The proj ect shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as
amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these
plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and
approval by the Planning Commission.
2. Building, Grading, and Erosion Control, and Demolition permits shall be
obtained by the property owner.
3 o The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code.
4. The applicant shall obtain approval or waiver from the Rice Creek
Watershed District prior to the issuance of any building permits.
5. The applicant shall submit a Shoreland Mitigation plan to the City in
accordance with S ection 13 3 0.03 Subd. 7E subj ect to the approval of the
City Planner.
Chair Larson opened the floor to Commission questions.
Chair Larson asked the builder if this house was designed specifically for this lot and if it
could have been designed to meet all the setbacks.
Mr. Bob Moser, owner of Moser Homes, Inc., stated the home was designed for this
specific lot and was modified based on the comments of the Planning Commission when
it was previously submitted and the new Shoreland Regulations that were recently
adopted by the City. The home is utilizing the current footprint. It would have been
difficult to design a home that would meet all the setbacks for this particular lot and keep
with the aesthetics of the neighborhood and still meet the needs of the homeowner.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked what the square footage of the proposed home is
compared to the current home.
Mr. Moser stated the proposed square footage for the main level is about 1800 square
foot and the second level is less than this. There is not a significant gain in square
footage but the design of the home has features that the current home does not. He also
pointed out that the setback on one side of the home was being decreased from what it is
currently.
City Planner Beekman stated the current footprint for the existing home is 1753 square
feet on the main floor.
Chair Larson noted there is a two-car garage. He asked if this was correct.
Mr. Moser explained that in an effort to meet the setback requirements dictated that only
a two-car garage could be allowed.
Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded b_v Commissioner Modesette to
recommend approval of Plannin� Case 09-022 for a variance at 1563 Ed�ewater
.
Avenue based on the findin�s of fact and the submitted plans, as amended b_y the
five conditions in the April 7, 2010, plannin� case report.
Commissioner Scott stated the proposed home would be an added feature to the
neighborhood and is keeping with the neighborhood.
Chair Larson stated since the home had been designed for this lot it could have been
designed to meet all the setbacks.
Commissioner Zimmerman stated the applicants had done a lot of work to fit the design
of the proposed home within the footprint of the existing home and the setbacks are
consistent with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Modesette agreed with Commissioner Zimmerman.
The motion was called to a vote.
ac men
.
rl 2 1
00
� �
. ..
e or o e annln omr�r�lsslon
Available online at:
htt�: f ./v��ww.ci.arden-hills.mn.us
April 26, 2010, City Council Meeting