Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Table One. <br /> <br />R2 Lot Reauirements VERSUS Existiill! Lot <br />Description R2 Minirnnm Rea. Existiill! Lot <br />1. Lot Area (sf) 11,000 8,250 <br />2. Lot Size (ft, width/depth) 85/120 55/150 <br />3. Height(ft) 35 22.75 <br />4. Lot Covered by Structure 25% 18.90% <br />5. Min. Landscaoe LotArea 65% 61.2% <br />6. Min. Building Setbacks <br />(ft) <br />Front Yard 40 67 <br />Rear Yarcl (princiole) 30 45 <br />Rear Yard (Accessory) 10 30 <br />Side Yard Interior - Principle 5/15 6.5/12 <br />(MinI total both yards on lot) <br />Side Yard Interior - Accessory 10 8.3 <br /> <br /> <br />Variance Request # 1: Required Side Lot Set Back of 15 Feet <br />The planned addition to the southeast corner of the single-family dwelling will change the <br />current south side yard set back from the 6.5.feet to 5.0 feet. No residences adjoin the <br />property on the south side of the house. The land immediately beyond the property line is <br />common area owned by the association; thus the proposed addition will not impact any <br />adjacent residences. <br /> <br />Review of Seven Hardship Criteria for Request # 1 <br />1. The property in question cannot l:x! put to a rf.'LISonabk use if used under II1I1fi:itiam alloo.ed by <br />the cffidal wntrds: <br />The property could still be put to a reasonable use without the proposed variance <br />to the required side-lot set back The house, however, is small (approximately <br />1,800 square feet) and does not meet the needs of our family. Without the <br />proposed addition, the house will remain unsuitable to our current needs as a <br />family, and we will necessarily have to move. <br /> <br />2. The plig,t if the landow1er is due to arrumtarllPS unique to the property not created by the <br />lartdmmer: <br />As stated above, the property was developed as part of a high-density <br />neighborhood. The property was constructed in 1975; the current owner <br />purchased the property in 1996, thus inheriting the current structure and lot size, <br />which is smaller than current lot size minimums allowed by the Gtyof Arden <br />Hills. The plight has been exacerbated by the adoption of the current R-2 zoning <br />requirements by the planned unit development rather than the original zoning <br />requirements that were in place when the planned unit development was <br />constructed. <br /> <br />2 <br />