09-12-16-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – August 3, 2016 2 1. The property at 1536 Edgewater Avenue is located in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The lot is nonconforming due to lot size and width. 3. The existing conditions on the property are in conformance with the setback and structure and lot coverage requirements for properties in the R-1 District. 4. The proposed addition would encroach 1 foot – 7 inches into the east side yard setback, creating a setback of 8 feet – 5 inches from the property line. The minimum side yard setback in the R-1 District is 10 feet. 5. The proposed addition would result in a combined side yard setback of 20 feet – 7 inches. The existing dwelling is setback 12 feet – 2 inches from the west side property line and the proposed addition would be setback 8 feet – 5 inches from the east side property line. The minimum combined side yard setback in the R-1 District is 25 feet. 6. A variance is required in this case to allow for an encroachment in the minimum side yard setback and for a combined side yard setback of less than 25 feet. 7. All other aspects of the proposed addition are in conformance with the Zoning Code requirements for the R-1 District. 8. The proposed addition would not encroach on any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. 9. The proposed addition is not expected to impact any significant trees on the property. Variance Findings: 10. The variance would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City’s Code because the addition would maintain side yard setbacks consistent with other dwellings in the neighborhood. 11. The variance would be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan because it meets the City’s housing goal of encouraging property investment that complements and enhances the character of the City’s established neighborhoods. 12. The proposed addition to allow for a second garage stall is a reasonable use of the property that would not be allowed under the rules of the Zoning Code without the requested variance. 13. The property is unique and presents development challenges because of its narrow width of approximately 80 feet and its topography. The unique characteristics of the property were not created by the property owners. 14. The proposed addition would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because it would result in a structure that is consistent and compatible with other construction in the area. 15. The requested variance does not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. The applicant has proposed construction plans that are more costly than an alternative considered that would have resulted in a greater encroachment in the side yard setback. Senior Planner Bachler indicated 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. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this variance, staff recommends the following six 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