CCP 09-14-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 3 . house currently has a side yard setback of 27 feet, where 40 feet is required. DRAFT Ms. Randall advised that staff recommends approval of Planning Case #98-23, comer side yard setback variance for the attached porch and home (27 feet proposed, when 40 is required) based on the "Findings - Comer Side Yard Setback Variance (house and attached porch)" section of the Staffreport dated August 25, 1998. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this Planning Case, it would be heard at the Monday, September 14, 1998, regular meeting ofthe City Council. Chair Erickson asked for confirmation that the applicant is requesting a variance for both the porch and the house. Ms. Randall indicated this is correct, when the home was built the required side yard setback was 20 feet. Commissioner Sand asked if the house on the south/east comer of Pleasant Drive has the same setback problem. Ms. Randall indicated that it did as well as others in the area. Several owners have already come in for similar types of variances. She also stated that if any homes were destroyed they would . have to meet the 40 foot setback requirements when rebuilt or apply for a variance. Commissioner Sand stated that right now the home constitutes a legal nonconforming use. Commissioner Nelson asked if there have been any requests for a variance on an existing home in the last few years. Mr. Ringwald stated there has been one that he could recall. Ms. Randall indicated the home owners have evaluated other options for the porch but found if they move the addition over to meet the setback requirement, the addition would be in the way of a sliding glass door. Chair Erickson asked if the house is a split level. Ms. Randall stated that it is. Commissioner Galatowitsch asked, in regard to the deck that is currently in place, if they had to apply for a variance at the time it was built. Ms. Randall stated there was no variance on record, so it was probably built when a variance was not required. . Since legal nonconforming properties are grandfathered in when new regulations are put into place, Commissioner Galatowitsch questioned should the Commission, at this time, deal with the request for a variance to rebuild the house in case of destruction.