07-06-11 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – July 6, 2011 2 3.A. Planning Case 11-014; Variance; Bryan Lillehaugen; 1145 Amble Drive – Not a Public Hearing (continued) Drive. The structure would encroach ten feet in the required side yard setback of 40-feet. She provided additional background information. City Planner Beekman stated Staff offers the following findings of fact for this proposal: General Findings: 1. The lot size meets the requirements of the R-1 District. 2. The lot meets the width and dept requirements for the R-1 District. 3. The property is a corner lot. 4. The applicant is proposing a 408 square foot addition to the rear of the home, which would encroach 10-feet into the 40-foot required side yard setback for corner lots. 5. The proposed addition meets all other zoning and setback requirements for principal structures in the R-1 Zoning District. 6. The proposed addition is outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. 7. Tree removal for the proposed garage would not require any mitigation under the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Variance Findings: 8. The variance would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City’s ordinance because the request minimizes the impact of the addition by maintaining the homes existing setbacks. 9. The variance would be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan because it meets the City’s housing goal of encouraging redevelopment that is complimentary to and enhances the character of the City’s established neighborhoods. 10. The variance request would put the property to use in the R-1 District, and the addition would maintain the home’s existing setbacks. 11. The property is unique in the City because it is a corner lot, and the home was conforming when it was constructed. The practical difficulty was not created by the landowner, but rather by the City when the Zoning Code was amended to require a 40-foot setback on corner lots. Had the City not amended the Zoning Code, the proposal would not require a variance. 12. The proposal will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because it is a small addition, which would maintain the existing home’s setbacks. 13. The construction and location of the garage is not based on economic considerations alone, because the homeowner has increased their expense in order to minimize the size of the addition that requires a variance, and enlarge another portion of the home that hoes not require a variance. City Planner Beekman stated the findings of fact for this variance support a recommendation for approval. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance, Staff recommends the following five conditions: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans 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.