Laserfiche WebLink
intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive <br /> plan." <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 /> 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 /> Findings of Fact <br /> The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 16-015 at their regular meeting on June 8, <br /> 2016. Draft minutes from the meeting are included in Attachment H. The Planning Commission <br /> offers the following findings of fact for consideration: <br /> General Findings: <br /> 1. The property at 1494 Keithson Drive is located in the R-1 Single Family Residential <br /> Zoning District. <br /> 2. The lot is in conformance with the minimum lot size and dimensions for the R-1 District. <br /> 3. The existing conditions on the property are in conformance with the setback and structure <br /> and lot coverage requirements for properties in the R-1 District. <br /> 4. The proposed porch addition would encroach 3 feet— 6 inches into the rear yard setback <br /> creating a setback of 26 feet — 6inches from the rear property line. The minimum rear <br /> yard setback in the R-I District is 30 feet. The proposed porch addition would meet all <br /> other setback requirements for the R-1 District. <br /> 5. The proposed deck is in conformance with the Zoning Code as Section 1325.03, Subd. 2 <br /> (A) permits decks to extend six feet into the rear yard setback as long as the <br /> encroachment is not closer than six feet from the rear lot line. The proposed deck would <br /> be setback 26 feet—6 inches from the rear property line. <br /> 6. All other aspects of the proposed porch and deck addition are in conformance with the <br /> Zoning Code requirements for the R-1 District. <br /> 7. The proposed addition would not encroach on any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. <br /> 8. The proposed addition is not expected to impact any significant trees on the property. <br /> City of Arden Hills <br /> City Council Meeting for June 27, 2016 <br /> PAPlanningTIanning Cases\2016\PC 16-015-1494 Keithson Drive-Variance\lemos Reports_16-015 <br /> Page 3 of 5 <br />