05-02-07-PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Staff Analvsis Based on the variance criteria, the proposed garage could be considered a reasonable use for a single family home in the R-1 Zone. Although no other homes in the immediate vicinity encroach on the front yard setback, it is unlikely that the proposed garage would cause any significant negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. As noted above, there are a handful of other homes in the neighborhood with driveways that have similar driveway challenges. Due to the topography, the proposed garage would not have a large visual impact. While approving this variance may trigger future variance applications of a similar nature, approving or denying this variance would not set a legal precedent since each variance application is evaluated on its own merits and circumstances. Finally, the remaining variance criterion asks if the undue hardship is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. This property was platted in 1982; however, the basic zoning and subdivision requirements for the R-1 Zone have not changed significantly since that time. Nevertheless, plats that meet the subdivision requirements can have unforeseen future difficulties. Topographic challenges are often the basis for legitimate variance requests. In this planning case, the consequences of a north facing steep driveway may not have been considered when the plat was approved. These circumstances do create somewhat of a unique situation as compared to most other properties in the R-l Zone. If the Planning Commission recommends approval on this variance, Staff recommends the following four conditions: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission. 2. The applicant shall use best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion at all times during construction. 3. Retaining walls greater than four feet in height shall be engineered and shall require a building permit. 4. Unless deemed necessary by the City Engineer, the applicant shall not extend the retaining walls into the public right-of-way. Options The findings in this report are not specific enough to fully support approval or denial ofthe variance. With a motion to approve or deny, the findings or the reasons for the motion must be stated. The following three criteria must be addressed: . The proposed garage is/is not a reasonable use in the R -1 Zone because ... . The proposed garage will/will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or the City because... . The circumstances in this planning case are/are not unique to the property because... City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor May 2, 2007 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\PlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07~012 Muller Variance (PENDING) \050207 - PC Report - Muller Variance.doc Page 7 of 8