05-06-09-PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Code. Findings of Fact Staff offers the following fifteen findings of fact for review: General Findings 1. The lot size meets the requirements of the R-1 Zoning District. 2. The lot meets the width and depth requirements for the R-1 Zoning District. 3. The new dwelling does not meet all property line setbacks. The dwelling and garage will encroach 10.4 and 6.4 feet into the front yard setback respectively. Portions of the dwelling will also encroach on the 50 -foot OHW setback from Karth Lake. 4. The dwelling and garage meets all side yard setbacks for the R-1 Zoning District. 5. The structure coverage meets the requirements of the R-1 Zoning District. 6. The minimum landscape area meets the requirements of the R-1 Zoning District. 7. The new dwelling will not exceed the 35 foot height limit. 8. Dormers are permitted features within the R-1 Zoning District. 9. The existing dwelling is outside of the 100 -year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. 10. The applicant has been issued all the necessary building permits by the City to construct the dwelling with the exception of the garage dormer. Variance Findings: 11. The garage and dormer are reasonable uses within the R-1 Zoning District. 12. It is not clear as to whether to property is unique or not. Many residential lots surrounding Karth Lake are in legal nonconformance with the front yard setback while the increased water level has made a number of properties in nonconformance with the %WH setback. On the other hand, the fact that the water level has risen so dramatically on this lake is itself a unique situation that made the property non -conforming. 13. The circumstances of the property were not created by the landowner. 14. It is unlikely the dormer would have a negative impact on the property or the neighborhood: The presence of the dormer adds to the aesthetic appeal of the home and may have a positive impact on the property and surrounding community. 15. The installation of the dormer is not based on economic considerations alone, since the cost to install the dormer is greater than if the dormer were not installed at all. Staff Analysis The findings of fact for this variance request do not specifically support a recommendation for denial or approval. The proposal appears to meet most of the variance review criteria. As is often the case, however, the evaluation criterion that states "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property...," is the difficult evaluation criterion. The property itself City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for April 8, 2009 I Wetr o-inet.uslardenhillsOanningOantTing Cases 12009W9-008 Yauch Variance (pending)W40809 - PC Report - Yauch Variance.doc Page 5of7