4B, Planning Case #11-014 for a Variance at 1145 Amble Drive

Home Browse Search

June 6, 201. �, Draft P�anning Commissian Minutes Planning Case 11-014; Variance; Sryan Liliehaugen; 1145 Amble Drive — Not a Puhlic Hearing City Planner Meagan Beekman stated the applicant has requested a variance to construct a 408 square foot addition in the rear and side yard of the home located at 1145 Amble Drive. The structure would encroach ten feet in the required side yard setback of 40-feet. She provided additional background information. City Planner Beekman stated Staff affers flie following findings o£ fact %r this proposal: General Findings: 1. The Iot size meets fihe requirements of the R-1 District. 2. The lat meets the width and dept reqniremen�s for ihe R-1 District. 3. The property is a corner lot. 4. The applicant is proposing a 408 square foot addition to the rear af the home, which would encroach 14-feet into th� 40-foot required side yard setback for corner lots. 5. The proposed additian meets all ather zaning and setback requirements far principal structures in the R-1 Zoning District. 6. The proposed addition is outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. 7. Tree removai for the proposed garage would not require any mitigatio� under the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Variance Findings: 8. The variance would be in harmony with the purpose and intent oi the City's ordinance because the request minimizes tkae impact of the addition by maintai�ing the homes existing seibacks. 9. The variance would be consisteni with the Ciiy's Compreher�sive Plan because it meets the City's housing goal of encouraging redevelopment that is complimentary to and enhances ihe character of the City's established neighborhoods. 10. The variance request vvould put ihe pxoperty to use in the R-1 District, at�d the additian would maintain the home's existing setbacks. 11. The property is unique in the City because it is a corner lot, and the home was con%rming when it was consiructed. The practical difficulty was not creaied by th� landowner, but rather by the City wher� the Zoning Cade was amended to require a 40-foot setback on corner lats. Had the Cify not amended the Zoning Code, the proposal would not require a va�riance. 12. The proposal will not alter the essential character of the neighbarhood because it is a small addition, which would maintain the exisiing harne's setbacks. 13. The constr�ction and location of the garage is not based on economic cansiderations alone, because the homeawner has increased their expense in order to zninimize the size of ihe addition that requires a variance, and enlarge another portion of the home that hoes not require a variance.