My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-03-2016 PC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2010-2019
>
PC Packets 2016
>
08-03-2016 PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/7/2017 10:00:03 AM
Creation date
6/7/2017 10:48:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />City of Arden Hills <br />Planning Commission Meeting for August 3, 2016 <br />P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2016\PC 16-017 - 1536 Edgewater Avenue - Variance\Memos_Reports_16-017 <br /> <br />Page 6 of 7 <br />Variance Findings: <br />10. The variance would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City’s Code <br />because the addition would maintain side yard setbacks consistent with other dwellings in <br />the neighborhood. <br />11. The variance would be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan because it meets <br />the City’s housing goal of encouraging property investment that complements and <br />enhances the character of the City’s established neighborhoods. <br />12. The proposed addition to allow for a second garage stall is a reasonable use of the <br />property that would not be allowed under the rules of the Zoning Code without the <br />requested variance. <br />13. The property is unique and presents development challenges because of its narrow width <br />of approximately 80 feet and its topography. The unique characteristics of the property <br />were not created by the property owners. <br />14. The proposed addition would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood <br />because it would result in a structure that is consistent and compatible with other <br />construction in the area. <br />15. The requested variance does not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. <br />The applicant has proposed construction plans that are more costly than an alternative <br />considered that would have resulted in a greater encroachment in the side yard setback. <br /> <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />The findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. If the <br />Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact would <br />need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. If the Planning Commission <br />recommends approval of this variance, staff recommends the following five conditions: <br /> <br />1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by <br />the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by <br />the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and <br />City Council. <br />2. A Grading and Erosion Control permit shall be required prior to the issuance of a <br />Building Permit. <br />3. If required, a Rice Creek Watershed District permit shall be obtained prior to the <br />issuance of any City permits. <br />4. A Building Permit shall be required prior to commencement of construction. <br />5. The addition shall match the color and architectural style of the rest of the principal <br />structure. <br />6. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. <br /> <br /> <br />Proposed Motion Language <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.