CCP 04-30-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—APRIL 4, 2001 3 the existing wetlands by not allowing development within a certain setback. Allowing for a variance from this would be contrary to the intent of the ordinance. C. Whether the property in question can be put to a reasonable use without granting of a variance. A single family home is currently constructed on the property. Therefore, the property in question has already been put to a reasonable use. The entire deck juts into the ordinary high water mark setback so the reconstruction and addition to the deck could not be reconfigured outside the setback. However, it cannot be said that without this variance, the property could not be put to a reasonable use. D. Whether the hardship was created by the property owner. Although the shape of the lot and position of the house are not the fault of the current owner, the owner is proposing the construction and addition within the setback area, creating the need for a variance. This could be avoided by performing general maintenance to the existing deck and not enlarging the footprint of a nonconforming structure, requiring a variance. Therefore, the need for this variance is being created by the property owner. E. Whether granting the variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. This is contrary to the intent of the ordinance to allow nonconformities to continue to exist and be expanded without consideration for current ordinances. Technically, this variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood since there are a number of properties along Karth Lake in the same situation. Ms. Chaput presented the Commission's options for consideration of this application and advised that Staff recommended denial of the variance from the ordinary high water mark setback of Karth Lake based on the five reasons noted in the staff report. Jon Lundin, applicant, stated his home was 22 years old. The siding was rotting and the deck was falling off. He stated they wanted to do this project right, and it was on the advice of the architect that he was applying for a variance. He stated he felt it was worth paying for the variance and a survey so it was done right. He stated both neighbors on his sides were supportive of the project. Chair Baker asked if the lower level would be a fully enclosed screened porch. Mr. Lundin replied that was correct with the existing deck above it being reconstructed. Commissioner Zimmerman asked how the screen portion would be constructed. Mr. Lundin replied there would be footings, with screen, and in the winter there would be plexi-glass put on, but there would be no permanent windows, heating or plumbing. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if they were replacing a window in the home with a sliding door. Mr. Lundin indicated on the drawing where the door would be placed and where the window would be moved. He stated there would be French doors. Chair Baker stated if they approved the two-foot overhang, would it be two feet closer to the lake. Mr. Lundin replied that was correct, but they would not be closer to the lake on the ground level,just the overhang would be closer, which would provide better drainage.