10-28-13-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistentwith the comprehensive plan.” Therefore, in evaluating variance requests under the new law, in order to find a practical difficulty, cities should adopt findings addressing the following questions: Is the variance in harmony withthe purposes and intent of the ordinance? Is the variance consistent withthe comprehensive plan? Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Are there unique circumstancesto the property not created by the landowner? Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential characterof 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. Discussion The property is unique compared to most other properties because the forty (40)foot front yard setback applies to thenorth, south and west property lines. This is due to the property’s location along the curve of Ingerson Court as it intersects with Ingerson Road. With the current setback requirements the lot would be considered unbuildable. If the lot were a traditional lot with a side yard minimal variation from the zoning code would be needed. Because of this lot configuration,options for expansion of this home are very limited.Due to the scope of the project and size of the proposed additions to the existing home,the character of the neighborhood isnot expected to be negativity affected. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their October 9, 2013, meeting and have offered the following findings of fact for your consideration: General Findings 1.The lot size of 9,923square feet is considered non-conforming in the R-1Single Family Residential District. 2.The existing structureencroachesapproximately fourteen (14) feet along Ingerson Road, and thirty-three (33)feet along Ingerson Court. As built the existing structure meets all other R-1setback requirements. 3.The proposed entrance roof addition to the north would not encroach any further into the front yard setbackalong Ingerson Road than the existing structure.The proposed addition would be inlinewith the existing home. City of Arden Hills City CouncilMeeting for October 28, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-016 -Variance_1226 Ingerson RD\Memos_Reports_13-016 Page 3of 6