06-27-16-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5. The proposed deck is in conformance with the Zoning Code as Section 1325.03, Subd. 2 (A) permits decks to extend six feet into the rear yard setback as long as the encroachment is not closer than six feet from the rear lot line. The proposed deck would be setback 26 feet—6 inches from the rear property line. 6. All other aspects of the proposed porch and deck addition are in conformance with the Zoning Code requirements for the R-I District. 7. The proposed addition would not encroach on any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. 8. The proposed addition is not expected to impact any significant trees on the property. Variance Findings: 9. The variance would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City's Code because the impact of the addition on adjacent properties would be mitigated by the location of the addition at the rear of the house, the elevation change between the subject property and the adjacent property to the east, and the presence of several large trees along the rear property line that provide screening. 10. 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. 11. The proposed porch addition is a reasonable use of the property that would not be allowed under the rules of the Zoning Code without the requested variance. 12. The property is unique because of the wetland area that covers a large portion of the site. A drainage and utility easement covers the wetland area and a 5-foot buffer along the wetland's edge, limiting where additions to the home can be constructed. The unique characteristics of the property were not created by the property owners. 13. 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. 14. The requested variance does not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. Recommendation 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 five conditions: I. 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 Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. A building permit shall be required prior to commencement of construction. 3. The porch addition shall match the color and architectural style of the rest of the principal structure. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for June 8, 2016 PAPlanningTIanning Cases\2016\PC 16-015-1494 Keithson Drive-Variance\lemos Reports_16-015 Page 6 of 8