07-06-11-PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

14. The construction and location of the garage is not based on economic considerations alone, because the homeowner has increased their expense in order to minimize the size of the addition that requires a variance, and enlarge another portion of the home that does not require a variance. Staff Analysis The findings of fact for this variance support a recommendation for approval. The applicants originally planned a much larger addition off the rear of their garage that included a second story. After the variance process and review criteria were discussed, the applicant redesigned their project to reduce the size of the addition and minimize the encroachment. Furthermore, the home was originally constructed in conformance with the City's ordinances. When the City amended the Code to require a 40 -foot setback in the side yard of corner lots, it made the home nonconforming. Had the City not amended the setback regulations, the proposal would not require a variance. Therefore, the need for the variance was not created by the landowner. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance, Staff recommends the following five 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 addition shall match the color and architectural styling of the rest of the primary structure. 5. The applicant shall obtain approval or a waiver from the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to the issuance of any building permits. Options 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 11 -014 for a variance at 1145 Amble Drive based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the five conditions in the July 6, 2011, report to the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 11 -014 for a variance at 1145 Amble Drive based on the following findings... 3. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 11 -014 for a variance at 1145 Amble Drive: a specific reason and /or information request should be included with a motion to table. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for July 6, 2011 IlMetro- inet. uslardenhills\PlanninglPlanning CasesI2011111 -014 -1145 Amble Drive - Variance - (Pending)I07 -06 -11 - PC Report.doc Page 5 of 6