09-09-2020 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 9th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2020\20-014 1434 County Road E - Var\PC Packets Page 5 of 7 b. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. According to the Applicants’ application, the nonconforming nature of the width of the lot is unique to the property. c. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. According to the Applicant, the existing neighborhood has homes with a variety of different garages and the proposed variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The previous owner designed the garage with a three (3) foot setback and received a variance for the structure. The neighboring garage at 1426 County Road E has been granted a variance for a garage with a similar three (3) foot three (3) inch setback (PC 97-011) and has been a neighborhood feature for many years. 3. Economic Consideration. Economic consideration alone does not constitute a practical difficulty. The proposed variance is not based on economic consideration. 4. Access to Sunlight. Inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems shall be considered a practical difficulty. A solar energy system is not proposed. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following findings for consideration: General Findings: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a request to build a bigger garage for a single family dwelling at the Subject Property 1434 County Road E. 2. A garage for a single-family detached dwelling is a permitted use in the R-1 Single Family Residential District. 3. The Subject Property is a legal nonconforming lot due to the lot not meeting the minimum width requirement for the R-1 District. 4. The Subject Property is non-conforming with the R-1 District’s standards for minimum lot length requirements. 5. The proposed development of the Subject Property would conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-1district. 6. The Subject Property was previously granted a side yard setback variance of three (3) feet for a garage under Planning Case 00-004. 7. The proposed structure would not exceed the three (3) foot variance distance previously approved. 8. A variance may be granted if enforcement of a provision in the zoning ordinance would cause the landowner practical difficulties.