03-28-16-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – March 9, 2016 3 14. The variance would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City’s Code because the request minimizes the impacts of the addition by maintaining the dwelling’s existing setbacks. 15. The variance would be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan because it meets the City’s housing goal of encouraging redevelopment that is complementary to and enhances the character of the City’s established neighborhoods. 16. The proposed addition to the house is a reasonable use of the property that would not be allowed under the rules of the Zoning Code without the requested variances. 17. The property is unique because of its small size and narrow depth. When the home was constructed a variance for a 10-foot front yard setback was required, however, it appears the dwelling was otherwise in conformance with the Zoning Code at that time. The unique characteristics of the property were not created by the property owners. 18. The proposed addition would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because it would maintain the existing dwelling’s setbacks and result in a structure that is consistent and compatible with other construction in the area. 19. The requested variance does not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. Senior Planner Bachler stated that the findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. If the Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. The property is unique compared to other properties in the R-2 District because of its small size of only 8,581 square feet and narrow depth of approximately 72.5 feet. Staff reviewed all properties within the R-2 District and only 17 are smaller in size than 3382 Lake Johanna Boulevard. The majority of these smaller lots were developed in the 1920s and 1930s. Because of the shallow depth of the lot and the required 40-foot front yard and 50-foot lakeshore setbacks, the lot would be considered unbuildable today. If the lot was in conformance with the minimum lot area and width requirements it is likely that minimal variation from the Zoning Code would be needed for the proposed addition. Senior Planner Bachler indicated that the design of the addition would minimize the expansion of existing and creation of new nonconforming conditions because most of the additional livable space will be constructed above the garage rather than expanding the footprint of the dwelling. The proposed addition and planned improvements to the siding, roof, and decks would be consistent and compatible with other single family homes in the area and would enhance the overall appearance of the structure. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this 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 and City Council. 2. The property owner shall obtain a Grading and Erosion Control Permit from the City before the building permit is issued. 3. A building permit shall be required prior to commencement of construction. 4. The addition shall match the color and architectural style of the rest of the principal structure. 5. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code.