Laserfiche WebLink
CONSENT ITEM – 5G <br /> <br />City of Arden Hills <br />City Council Meeting for April 25, 2016 <br /> <br />P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2016\PC 16-008 - 1865 County Road D - Variance\Memos_Reports_16-008 <br /> <br />Page 4 of 7 <br /> <br />• Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? <br />• Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? <br />• Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? <br /> <br />As was the case before the new legislation took effect, economic considerations alone cannot <br />constitute a practical difficulty. Furthermore, the new law clarifies that conditions may be <br />imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to and bear a rough <br />proportionality to the impact created by the variance. <br /> <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />The findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. Detached <br />accessory structures are permitted as accessory uses within the R-2 Zoning District, and the new <br />structure as proposed is not an unreasonable use of the propert y in this district. If approved the <br />variance is unlikely to create a negative impact on the neighborhood or City as the lot would <br />continue to function as a typical residential lot in the R-2 Zoning District. It does not appear that <br />the variance is based on economic considerations alone. <br /> <br /> <br />Findings of Fact <br />The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 16-008 at their regular meeting on April 6, <br />2016. Draft minutes from the meeting are included in Attachment G. The Planning Commission <br />offers the following eighteen (18) findings of fact for consideration: <br /> <br /> <br />General Findings <br /> <br />1. That the property is in the R-2 Single & Two Family Residential Zoning District. <br />2. That the lot is 12,155 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 65 feet in width <br />by 187 feet in depth. <br />3. That the total square footage of the lot meets the requirements in the R-2 Zoning District; <br />however, the actual dimensions of the lot do not meet the minimum size requirements. <br />4. That the existing accessory structure is non-conforming because the structure encroaches <br />five (5) feet into the required ten (10) foot setback along the east property line. <br />5. That the existing accessory structure on the property would be removed. <br />6. That a variance is required to encroach into the ten (10) foot accessory structure setback. <br />7. That the proposed detached accessory structure/garage would maintain the five (5) foot <br />encroachment into the setback along the east property line. All other setbacks for the <br />accessory structure meet Code requirements. <br />8. The proposed structure and landscape coverage on the property would be in conformance <br />with the lot coverage requirements of the R-2 Zoning District.