My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-08-25 PC Packet
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2025
>
10-08-25 PC Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/2/2025 2:46:25 PM
Creation date
10/2/2025 2:46:15 PM
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.
/
38
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
Page 7 of 10 <br /> <br />According to the Applicant, the proposed expanded deck would allow for the property to <br />be used in a reasonable manner. The narrative explains that the existing deck needs to be <br />replaced and that the dwelling requires a wheelchair accessible entrance. The proposed <br />deck includes a wheelchair ramp but the ramp dimensions would result in a deck expansion <br />within the required rear yard setback. The expansion of the existing deck within the <br />nonconforming setback would not be permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The variance is <br />requested to allow for the expanded deck with the wheelchair accessible ramp. <br /> <br />b. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to <br />the property not created by the landowner. <br /> <br />According to the Applicant’s written narrative, the circumstances that necessitate a <br />variance are unique to the property as the location of the house and deck predate their <br />ownership. The Applicant also explains that it is reasonable for the deck to go in the same <br />location as the existing deck, since there is an entrance to the house accessible only from <br />the current deck location. <br /> <br />c. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character <br />of the neighborhood. <br /> <br />The Applicant states that the proposed would not alter the essential character of the city <br />because it will not be any closer to the lot line than the current deck and the replacement <br />deck will be of a reasonable size for the house. <br /> <br />3. Economic Consideration. Economic consideration alone does not constitute a practical <br />difficulty. <br /> <br />The Applicant states that the variance request is primarily for safety and quality of life on the <br />property, not for economic reasons alone. <br /> <br />4. Access to Sunlight. Inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems shall be <br />considered a practical difficulty. <br /> <br />This standard is not applicable to the proposed variance request. <br /> <br />Additional Review <br /> <br />Building Official <br />The Building Official has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments. A Building Permit <br />will be required prior to construction. <br /> <br />Public Works Director/City Engineer <br />The Public Works Director/City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments <br />at this time. Public Works permits will be required prior to any land disturbance, utility, or right- <br />of-way work. These items have been included in the drafted conditions of approval. <br /> <br />Rice Creek Watershed District <br />The Rice Creek Watershed District has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments. <br />RCWD determined that a RCWD permit is not required as the deck is outside of the current RCWD <br />regulatory floodplain elevation.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.