05-06-09-PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

is not unique; however, the rising of Karth Lake has made it nearly impossible to situate the garage any differently, while requiring the dormer to be pushed back to avoid encroaching in the front yard setback would make it infeasible to construct, presenting a potentially unique situation. On the other hand, a number of homes in the Karth Lake neighborhood have been constructed with a 30 foot front yard setback, placing much of the neighborhood in noncompliance with the current front yard setback. The water level of Karth Lake, now maintained by a City lift station, has caused an eventual eroding of rear yards for many properties along the lake. Before making a motion for approval or denial, this specific variance evaluation criterion must be addressed for the official record. Despite this, the variance request itself does not appear to be unreasonable or detrimental. The dormer will likely not have a negative impact on the neighborhood or the City. Having dormers on a garage is acceptable within the R-1 Zoning District and would likely not alter the essential character of the City. The dormer does not create any incompatible land uses and is not being proposed for economic reasons. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance, Staff recommends the following five 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. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 4. The dormer shall match the architectural styling of the rest of the primary structure. options The findings in this report are not specific enough to fully support approval or denial of the variance. With a motion to approve or deny the variance, the italicized criteria must be addressed for the record: 1. The proposed addition is/is not a reasonable use in the R-1 Zone because ... 2. The proposed addition will/will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or the City because... 3. The circumstances in this planning case are/are not unique to the property because... 4. The variance is/is not based on economic considerations alone because ... Criteria 1, 2, and 4 are already addressed in the findings. Criteria three must be addressed prior to making a motion. 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 09-008 for a variance at 1156 Amble Drive with conditions based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, as proposed in the April 8, 2009, planning case report. City ofArden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for April 8, 2009 i Metro-' et.uslatdeiihillslPlanninglPlanning Cases 12009'M-008 Yauch Variance (pendingfi040809 -PC Report - Yauch Variance.doc Page 6 of 7