07-06-11-PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? • Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? • Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? As was the case before the new legislation took effect, economic considerations alone cannot constitute a practical difficulty. Furthermore, the new law clarifies that conditions may be imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Findings of Fact Staff offers the following fourteen findings of fact for review: General Findings 1. 2. The lot size meets the requirements of the R -1 Zoning District. 3. The lot meets the width and depth requirements for the R -1 Zoning District. 4. The property is a corner lot. 5. The applicant is proposing a 408 square foot addition to the rear of the home, which would encroach 10 feet into the 40 -foot required side yard setback for corner lots. 6. The proposed addition meets all other zoning and setback requirements for principal structures in the R -1 Zoning District. 7. The proposed addition is outside of the 100 -year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. 8. Tree removal for the proposed garage would not require any mitigation under the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Variance Findings: 9. The variance would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City's ordinance because the request minimizes the impact of the addition by maintaining the homes existing setbacks. 10. The variance would be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan because it meets the City's housing goal of encouraging redevelopment that is complimentary to and enhances the character of the City's established neighborhoods. 11. The variance request would put the property to use in a reasonable manner because single - family homes are a reasonable use in the R -1 District, and the addition would maintain the home's existing setbacks. 12. The property is unique in the City because it is a corner lot, and the home was conforming when it was constructed. The practical difficulty was not created by the landowner, but rather the City when the Zoning Code was amended to require a 40 -foot setback on corner lots. Had the Zoning Code not been amended by the City, the proposal would not require a variance. 13. The proposal will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because it is a small addition, which would maintain the existing home's setbacks. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 6, 2011 I I Metro -inet. us l ardenhills IPlanningl Planning Cases 12011 111 -014 -1145 Amble Drive - Variance - (Pending)I07-06-11 - PC Reportdoc Page 4 of 6