04-25-16-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for April 6, 2016 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2016\PC 16-008 - 1865 County Road D - Variance\Memos_Reports_16-008 Page 6 of 8 7. That the proposed detached accessory structure/garage would maintain the five (5) foot encroachment into the setback along the east property line. All other setbacks for the accessory structure meet Code requirements. 8. The proposed structure and landscape coverage on the property would be in conformance with the lot coverage requirements of the R-2 Zoning District. 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 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 this variance request support a recommendation for approval. However, 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. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this variance, Staff recommends the following five (5) conditions: