Laserfiche WebLink
The applicant has submitted a letter addressing the variance criteria, a petition of support from <br />their neighbors, a survey of the existing lot, elevations of the proposed addition, and photographs <br />of their home and other similar homes in the neighborhood (Attachment C). The applicant has <br />also submitted a supplemental packet of information addressing questions that were raised at the <br />Planning Commission meeting (Attachment B). <br />Findin�s of Fact <br />The Planning Commission offers the following twenty findings of fact for review: <br />General Findings <br />1. The lot size meets the requirements of the R-3 Zoning District. <br />2. The existing home meets all required setbacks. <br />3. Dwellings are permitted structures within the R-3 Zone. <br />4. The proposed addition would encroach eight feet into the required front yard setback. <br />5. The proposed addition would not encroach into any other setbacks. <br />6. The structure coverage meets Zoning Code requirements. <br />7. The minimum landscape area requirements meet Zoning Code regulations. <br />8. The dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 3 5 foot height limit. <br />9. The existing dwelling and the proposed addition are outside of the 100-year flood plain, <br />wetlands, and easements. <br />10. There is no proposed tree removal for this proj ect. <br />Va�iance Findings: <br />1 l. Single-family homes are a reasonable use within the R-3 Zoning District because they are <br />permitted within the Zoning Code. <br />12. The property and specific situation is unique because there are no alternative options that <br />would grant the owners' an adequate front entrance to their home that would not require a <br />variance. <br />13. The circumstances of the property were not created by the landowner because the lot was <br />platted prior to their taking ownership. <br />14. The proposed addition would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood <br />because the existing homes have inconsistent front yard setbacks, the neighbors are in <br />favor of the proj ect, and the addition would improve the front fa�ade of the home. <br />15. The proposed plans and setback variance for the dwelling do not appear to be based on <br />economic considerations alone. <br />City of Arden Hills <br />City Council Meeting for June 14, 2010 <br />P: IAdminl CouncillAgendas � Packet Information1201016-14-10 RegularlPacket InformationlPlanning Case 10-047 - Variance - Memo.doc <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />