CC 01-08-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 4 . . plan forecast any future changes to this area. The location of the home, terrain or shape of the property was no different than its neighboring properties. Therefore, this request did not possess any unique circumstances. 2. Whether granting the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning Code. Ms. Chaput explained the zoning ordinance was to".. . fix reasonable standards to which building, structures and land shall conform for the benefit of all". The zoning ordinance also stated that a variance should only be granted if the configuration of the property prohibits reasonable development that may be permitted on a similar sized lot within the same district. This lot was no different from other lots in the district. There was no physical feature of this property that was prohibiting development so that it needed to occur within the setbacks. Any reasonable development that could be constructed on any lot in the district could also be duplicated on this lot according to the standards that have been set. Therefore, granting a variance for this application would not meet the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance. 3. Whether the property in question can be put to a reasonable use without granting a variance. Ms. Chaput explained a single family home was currently constructed on the property. Therefore, the property in question had already been put to reasonable use. The applicant was proposing to add on to the front of his because of the interior layout and location ofthe kitchen. However, it was possible to reconfigure the addition in some manner to avoid requiring a variance from the Ordinance. It could not be said that without this variance, the property could not be put to a reasonable use. 4. Whether the hardship was created by the property owner. Ms. Chaput stated although the shape of the lot and position ofthe house was not the fault of the current owner, the owner was proposing the addition within the setback area, creating the need for the variance. This could be avoided by reconfiguring the addition so that it was not within the required setback area. The need for this variance was being created by the property owner. 5. Whether granting the variance would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Ms. Chaput stated the current structure was situated at 35.5 feet from the front yard line. Therefore, to expand the home by four feet to match this setback would not significantly alter the character of the neighborhood. However, it should be noted that the structure was currently nonconforming by building placement and, by Ordinance, nonconforming structures should not be expanded. If this was not the intent of the City, then the Ordinance should be amended. Ms. Chaput stated staff recommended denial of this variance for the following reasons: . 1. The circumstances of the request were not unique to this property in the Glen Paul Avenue area or the R-2 zoning district;