06-07-1989 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, June 7, 1989 Page 3 CASE #89-06 (Cont'd) Bergly reviewed the considerations listed in his report: • -A very small triangular screen porch could be built on the lot without a variance. -The porch will be 20 ft. from the house to the southwest; if the lots were redivided so the lot line fell exactly midpoint, no variance would be required. -Neighboring property owners to the southwest and northeast have no objections to the variances. -The 5 ft. variance for lakeshore setback is in keeping with the principal that the setback is established by the placement of the homes on either side. -The landscaped area on the lot will not be reduced as the porch will be constructed over an existing concrete patio. Bergly recommended Commission consider the above points as appropriate findings to support action to approve the requested variances. Tom Lynch, 3220 No. Hamline, explained he purchased the original lot in 1965 and divided the parcel over the years into standard lots. Lynch stated in 1975 his wife was diagnosed with acute asthma and advised by her physician to move away from the lake. In 1980 he decided to split the lot and build the current residence; at the time of the lot split he assured the city the home could be constructed without any variances. Lynch stated the city insisted on an application for the concrete slab, although at the time the slab was constructed the ordinances did not specifically define "patios". Lynch explained that after the Board of Appeals meeting he had developed two plans for redesigning the porch; Plan A lessens the requested setback to 5 ft. • and Plan B requires no sideyard setback and adds to the requested lakeshore setback making it 2 ft. closer to the lake. Commission was referred to the Board of Appeals minutes of 5-23-89 recommending approval of the requested variances and suggested Mr. Lynch consider redesigning the porch to lessen the requested sideyard setback variance. Member Winiecki advised she could not support the proposed variance; she recalled her opposition to the lot area variance when the lot split was approved. She noted that approval of the lot area variance was based on Mrs. Lynch's illness and it does not appear that the proposed variances are related directly to the illness which was defined as the hardship and basis for approval of the prior variance. Lynch discussed the availability of the County property, which was not available for purchase at the time of the lot area variance request, and explained the land is now available for purchase. Lynch stated he was advised not to purchase the property due to the fact there is a well located on the land which would be expensive to cap. He also discussed the fact that the screened porch does not relate directly to Mrs. Lynch's illness, however, she has been advised to stay out of the wind as much as possible. Member Petersen questioned if the applicant had inquired as to the purchase of land from the adjacent neighbor. Lynch stated if the land was purchased from the adjacent neighbor it would make • that lot substandard. Winiecki stated that the aggregate setback for the lots would have to total 25 ft. ; if the lot lines were adjusted the variance would be on the other lot. Member Woodburn stated that the City owes Mr. Lynch a debt of gratitude for his years of service as a Planning Commission member. He recalled the lot split was approved although the Planner did not recommend approval of a lot split which created a substandard lot and there did not appear to be a justifiable hardship.