10-08-25 PC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 8 of 10 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has received the submitted plans for review and had not shared comments prior to report printing. Staff will share an update at the meeting. Staff has prepared a drafted condition of approval that the Applicant shall obtain any required DNR approvals prior to the start of any site activities. 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 variance request to the required R-1 Zoning District rear yard setback for decks at the Subject Property 3254 Hamline Avenue North. 2. The principal structure and existing deck on the Subject Property are nonconforming with the required rear yard setback and have a setback of 8.8 feet. 3. The proposed new deck would expand the footprint of the existing deck and therefore a variance is required. 4. The proposed new deck would not extend beyond the existing nonconforming 8.8-foot rear yard setback. 5. The proposed deck would not require variances for front yard, side yard setbacks, impervious surface coverage, or structure coverage. 6. The Subject Property is a riparian lot with frontage on Lake Josephine and is subject to Shoreland Regulations. 7. The proposed deck would be set back 153.78 feet from Ordinary High Water Level and would be located outside of the required structure setback of 50 feet and the shore impact zone of 25 feet as measured from OHW. 8. The Applicant has submitted a shoreland mitigation plan for the proposed deck. 9. The proposed deck on the Subject Property would conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-1 Zoning District and the Shoreland Regulations. Variance Findings: 10. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 11. The proposed deck is a reasonable use of the property that would not be allowed under the rules of the Zoning Code without the requested variance. 12. The proposed deck would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 13. The variance request is not based on economic considerations alone. Options and Motion Language Staff has provided the following options and motion language for this case. The Planning Commission should consider providing additional findings of fact as part of the motion to support their recommendation for approval or denial. • Recommend Approval with Conditions: Move to recommend approval with conditions of Planning Case 25-011 for a variance to construct a new deck with a 8.8-foot rear yard setback at 3254 Hamline Avenue North, based on the findings of fact and the submitted