12-05-07-WS/PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

property owner must show that they do not have reasonable use of their property without an approved variance. The difficulty with this standard is what counts as "reasonable use" of the property? Since most properties could be construed to have "reasonable use" without a variance, this standard was declared virtually insurmountable by the Court of Appeals. A revised interpretation of the "reasonable use" evaluation criteria has emerged from the Minnesota Court of Appeals. According to the City Attorney, a property 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. Findinl!s of Fact Staff offers the following sixteen findings of fact for review: General Findings 1. The lot depth and width exceed the minimum R-l requirements. The lot size of 13,939 square feet is nonconforming in the R -1 Zone. 2. The existing structure encroaches ten feet into the forty foot front yard setback along Skiles Lane. The structure meets all other R -1 setback requirements. 3. The proposed addition would encroach 24 feet into the front yard setback. Approximately 480 square feet of the proposed addition would encroach in to the front yard setback, of this only 96 square feet would be above grade and visible from Skiles Lane. The area of the addition outside of the setbacks does not require a variance. The proposed addition would be in line with the existing home, and the portion visible from Skiles Lane would step back with the existing structure. 4. The proposed addition does not encroach on the required front yard setback along Snelling Avenue. 5. The existing and proposed lot coverage meets the R -1 Zone requirements. 6. The existing garage does not meet the height requirements of the Building Code, thus the proposed garage would bring the property into greater conformance with modern building code requirements. 7. The dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height limit. 8. Dwellings are permitted structures within the R-l Zone. 9. The existing dwelling and the proposed garage are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor December 5, 2007 1 lAhdocsllAHlAHdata\PlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07~029 Wessberg Variance (PENDING) \120507 - PC Report - Wessberg Variance.doc Page 5of9