Laserfiche WebLink
9.The proposed accessory structure increases the footprint from twenty-two (22) feet by <br />twenty-two (22) feet or 484 square feet to twenty-four (24) feet by twenty-six (26) feet or <br />624 square feet. An increase of 140 square feet. <br />10.The proposed accessory structure would be rotated approximately fifteen (15) degrees to <br />align the garage with the western property line and the angle of the existing home. <br />11.The proposed accessory structure would change the direction of the rooflinefrom an <br />east/west orientation to a north/south orientation. <br />12.The existing single family dwelling and attached garage meet all property line setbacks. <br />13.The proposed structure and landscaping coveragesare within the zoning district <br />requirements. <br />14.The proposed accessory structure would not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. <br />15.Detached accessory structures arepermitted structures within the R-2Zoning District. <br />16.All structures on the lot areoutside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. <br />Variance Findings: <br />17.Detached accessory structuresare permitted anda reasonable use within the R-2Single & <br />Two Family Residential Zoning District. <br />18.The lot has rather unique characteristics as the property slopes towards Lake Johanna <br />approximately 18 feet from west to east leaving limited options for expansion or <br />movement of the accessory structure to an area that meets the setback regulations. <br />19.The proposed accessory structurewould be visible from neighboring properties; however, <br />the proposed design and the use of quality materials for the detached structure that match <br />the singlefamily dwelling should minimize the impacts on surrounding property owners. <br />20.The proposed plans and requested variances for the accessory structuredo not appear to <br />be based on economic considerations alone. <br />Discussion <br />A detached accessory structure is a permitted use in the R-2 Zoning District and is a reasonable <br />request for the subject property. However, it is unclear to staff if the expansion of this <br />nonconforming use meets the City’s Variance Criteria under theState’s Law for “Practical <br />Difficulties”. The variance is unlikely to negatively impact the neighborhood or the City as a <br />structure already exists in the proposed locationon the property, but the expansion to increase its <br />nonconforming status may or may not be warranted in this situation. Staff is not directly in <br />support of the proposal as submitted;however, with the conditionsstated in this report,staff’s <br />concernscould be mitigated. <br />City of Arden Hills <br />Planning Commission Meeting for June 4, 2014 <br />P:\\Planning\\Planning Cases\\2014\\PC 14-017 -Variance 3441 Lake Johanna Boulevard\\Memo_Reports_14-017 <br />811 <br />Page of <br />