04-25-16-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CONSENT ITEM – 5G City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for April 25, 2016 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2016\PC 16-008 - 1865 County Road D - Variance\Memos_Reports_16-008 Page 5 of 7 9. That the proposed accessory structure would not exceed the 15 foot height limit. 10. That detached accessory structures are permitted within the R-2 Zoning District. 11. That the proposed detached accessory structure is outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. Variance Findings: 12. The proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as the Ordinance generally allows flexibility for unique parcels and situations when impacts to surrounding properties are minimized. 13. The proposal is consistent with the Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan as it allows the reasonable use of residential property. 14. That a detached accessory structure is a permitted accessory use and is reasonable within the R-2 Single and two Family Residential Zoning District. 15. The lot is unique in the fact that the lot’s width does not meet the City Code requirements. 16. The proposed accessory structure would be visible from neighboring properties; however, the placement would not be inconsistent in terms of setbacks and lot coverage requirements for typical lots in the surrounding neighborhood. The property owner would match the materials used for siding and roofing to the single family dwelling, which should minimize the impacts on surrounding property owners. 17. The proposed accessory structure is unlikely to have negative impacts to the property or to the neighborhood as a whole as many properties within the area have accessory structures that encroach in the setback requirements. 18. The proposed plans and variance request for the construction of a new accessory structure does not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. Recommendation The findings of fact for the variance support approval. However, if the City Council chooses to deny the application, the findings of fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 16-008 at their regular meeting on April 6, 2016, and unanimously recommends approval (7-0) for a variance to encroach five (5) feet into the ten (10) foot accessory building setback along the east property line in order to construct a new twenty-six (26) foot by twenty-eight (28) foot detached accessory structure/garage at 1865 County Road D West, based on the finding of fact and submitted plans, as amended by the five (5) conditions in the April 25, 2016, Report to the City Council 1. That 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