Laserfiche WebLink
■ The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property <br />not created by the landowner; <br />■ The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; <br />and, <br />■ Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if <br />reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Code. <br />Findings of Fact <br />Staff offers the following seventeen findings of fact for review: <br />General Findings <br />1. The lot size does not meet the requirements of the R-1 Zoning District. <br />2. The lot does meet the dimensional requirements of the R-1 Zoning District. <br />3. The existing dwelling and garage meet all property line setbacks. <br />4. The proposed addition would encroach five feet into the side yard setback, and be five <br />feet from the side property line. <br />5. The proposed addition would maintain the existing front yard setback of forty feet. <br />6. The proposed addition does not encroach on the rear setback. <br />7. The structure coverage meets Zoning Code requirements. <br />8. The minimum landscape area requirements meet Zoning Code regulations. <br />9. The dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height limit. <br />10. The existing dwelling and the proposed addition are outside of the 100 -year flood plain, <br />wetlands, and easements. <br />11. The proposed addition would not impact any significant trees on the property. <br />Variance Findings: <br />12. A proposed garage expansion is a reasonable use within the R-1 Zone. <br />13. The property itself is not unique in the City. Alternative solutions exist that would not <br />require the need for a variance. <br />14. The circumstances of the property were not created by the landowner. <br />15. It is unclear whether the proposed addition would have a negative impact on the property <br />or the neighborhood. Most properties in the neighborhood have a two -stall garage and <br />few have structures within five feet of the property line; however the addition could add <br />value to the property itself. <br />16. The proposed plans and setback variance for the dwelling do not appear to be based on <br />economic considerations alone. <br />Staff Analysis <br />The findings of fact for this variance request do not necessarily support a recommendation for <br />approval or denial. While the project is unlikely to have a negative impact on the property, the <br />City of Arden Hills <br />Planning Commission Meeting for July 2, 2008 <br />IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillsOanninglPlanning Cases 12008108-020 Walker Variance (Pending) 1070208 - PC Report - Walker Variance. doc <br />Page 5 of 8 <br />