05-02-07-PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

owner does not need to show that reasonable use for a property only exists with an approved variance. Instead, the landowner must only demonstrate that the proposed variation is reasonable for a particular property in a given zone. For example, the property owner must only demonstrate that an addition that encroaches into a particular setback is reasonable as opposed to showing that the property would only have reasonable use with the addition. While this is a much softer interpretation of reasonable use, the applicant must still address all four variance criteria listed above. Findine:s of Fact Staff offers the following fourteen findings of fact for review: I. The lot size is between 13,939 and 14,057 square feet. A certified survey will be needed to determine if the lot is conforming or nonconforming. The status of the lot does not impact this variance application. 2. The lot meets all other dimension requirements for the R-l Zone. 3. The existing dwelling and attached garage conform to all setback and coverage requirements. 4. According to the applicant, the existing driveway up to the garage has a 16.2 percent grade. The proposed driveway would have a significantly reduced grade change. 5. The proposed garage would encroach 20 feet into the front yard setback. 6. The proposed garage would be 30 feet by 20 feet 3 inches for a total area of 607.5 square feet. 7. The proposed garage would not significantly change the impervious coverage on the lot. The structure coverage would increase from 15.8 percent to 20.2 percent, but the driveway size would be reduced. The overall impervious coverage would remain unchanged at approximately 34 percent. 8. The proposed addition along with the existing structure would not exceed the structure or overall impervious limits. 9. The existing dwelling and proposed garage are permitted uses in the R-l Zone. 10. The existing dwelling and the proposed garage are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. 11. The proposed garage itself is a reasonable use within the R - I Zone as compared to other single family homes in the City. 12. The proposed addition is unlikely to significantly impact the character of the neighborhood or the City. The larger structure would still be comparable in size to other structures in the adjacent neighborhood. 13. The topography ofthe lot is somewhat unique and it does appear to make it difficult to access the existing garage on the property. The slope up to the garage is steeper than most properties in the City, and new driveways with a similar slope would be discouraged on other properties in the City. 14. The proposed addition is not based on economic considerations alone. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor May 2, 2007 IlMetro-inet.us\ardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-012 Muller Variance (PENDING)\050207 - PC Report -Muller Variance.doc Page 6 of8