Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – March 9, 2016 4 <br /> <br />9. The proposal would expand structure area by 151 square feet for proposed structure <br />coverage on the lot of 26.37 percent. The maximum structure coverage permitted in the <br />R-2 District is 25 percent. <br />10. The proposal would expand nonconforming impervious surface coverage by 8 square feet <br />for proposed impervious coverage on the lot of 36.37 percent. <br />11. The proposal would expand nonconforming floor area by 585 square feet for proposed <br />floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.38. <br />12. The proposed construction would not encroach on any flood plains, wetlands, or <br />easements. <br />13. The proposed construction is not expected to impact any significant trees on the property. <br /> <br />Variance Findings: <br />14. The variance would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City’s Code <br />because the request minimizes the impacts of the addition by maintaining the dwelling’s <br />existing setbacks. <br />15. The variance would be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan because it meets <br />the City’s housing goal of encouraging redevelopment that is complementary to and <br />enhances the character of the City’s established neighborhoods. <br />16. The proposed addition to the house is a reasonable use of the property that would not be <br />allowed under the rules of the Zoning Code without the requested variances. <br />17. The property is unique because of its small size and narrow depth. When the home was <br />constructed a variance for a 10-foot front yard setback was required, however, it appears <br />the dwelling was otherwise in conformance with the Zoning Code at that time. The <br />unique characteristics of the property were not created by the property owners. <br />18. The proposed addition would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood <br />because it would maintain the existing dwelling’s setbacks and result in a structure that is <br />consistent and compatible with other construction in the area. <br />19. The requested variance does not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. <br /> <br />Senior Planner Bachler stated that the findings of fact for this variance request support a <br />recommendation for approval. If the Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation <br />for denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. <br />The property is unique compared to other properties in the R-2 District because of its small size <br />of only 8,581 square feet and narrow depth of approximately 72.5 feet. Staff reviewed all <br />properties within the R-2 District and only 17 are smaller in size than 3382 Lake Johanna <br />Boulevard. The majority of these smaller lots were developed in the 1920s and 1930s. Because of <br />the shallow depth of the lot and the required 40-foot front yard and 50-foot lakeshore setbacks, <br />the lot would be considered unbuildable today. If the lot was in conformance with the minimum <br />lot area and width requirements it is likely that minimal variation from the Zoning Code would <br />be needed for the proposed addition. <br /> <br />Senior Planner Bachler indicated that the design of the addition would minimize the expansion <br />of existing and creation of new nonconforming conditions because most of the additional livable <br />space will be constructed above the garage rather than expanding the footprint of the dwelling. <br />The proposed addition and planned improvements to the siding, roof, and decks would be <br />consistent and compatible with other single family homes in the area and would enhance the <br />overall appearance of the structure. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this <br />variance, staff recommends the following five conditions: