01-13-2020-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for December 4th, 2019 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-015 - 3244 Sandeen Road\Memos Reports Page 3 of 6 Plan Evaluation Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 1.District Provisions (R-2 Single Family Residential District) – Section 1320.06 Lot Size and Dimensions Per the submitted survey, the Subject Property is 9,900 square feet or 0.24 acres in size. The proposed Subject Property is on a legal non-conforming lot given the R-2 District's 11,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement. In addition, the lot features a bluff on the north size of the property that further restricts the buildable area allowed under City Code. Lots within an R-2 District have a minimum length and width requirement of 85 feet and 120 feet. The Subject Property meets the length requirement for a parcel in the R-2 district, which is approximately 180 feet long, but the lot is only 50 feet wide and does not meet the minimum width requirement. Structure Setbacks - Flexibility Requested In the R-2 District, the minimum front and rear setback requirements for a property are forty (40) feet and thirty (30) feet, respectively. The minimum side yard setback is five (5) feet and the combined side yard setbacks shall total 15 feet or more. As previously stated, the Applicant is requesting flexibility to encroach ten (10) feet into the front yard for a thirty (30) foot front yard setback. Otherwise, the proposed development would meet setback requirements for the R-2 district. Moving the house forward ten (10) feet will also preserve existing lake views for both neighboring homes. It would also decrease the size of the driveway required to get to the house, thus decreasing the amount of impervious cover required for the project. If granted a variance for flexibility with the front setback, the Applicant’s proposal would meet all other district provisions. 2.Variance Review The role of the Planning Commission is to determine and consider how the facts presented to them compare with the city’s articulated standards. The Commission should base their decision on the facts presented and then apply those facts to the legal standards contained in city ordinances and relevant state law. Neighborhood opinion alone is not a valid basis for granting or denying a variance request. While the Planning Commission may feel their decision should reflect the overall will of the residents, the task in considering a variance request is limited to evaluating how the variance application meets the statutory practical difficulties factors. Residents can often provide important facts that may help in addressing these factors, however, unsubstantiated opinions and reactions to a request do not form a legitimate basis for a variance decision. The Planning Commission may impose conditions when granting variances as long as the conditions are directly related and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. For instance, if a variance is granted to exceed the front setback limit, any conditions attached should presumably relate to mitigating the effect of the encroachment.