Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City of Arden Hills <br />Planning Commission Meeting for April 6, 2016 <br /> <br />P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2016\PC 16-008 - 1865 County Road D - Variance\Memos_Reports_16-008 <br /> <br />Page 5 of 8 <br /> <br />intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive <br />plan”. <br /> <br />Therefore, in evaluating variance requests under the new law, in order to find a practical <br />difficulty, cities should adopt findings addressing the following questions: <br />• Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance? <br />• Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? <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 property 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 /> <br />Staff offers the following eighteen (18) findings of fact for review: <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.