CCP 06-26-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. e . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 7, 2000 3 City Plarmer Chaput stated that the nonconforming section of the Zoning Ordinance does not allow nonconforming structures that have been removed to be rebuilt. The footings from the previous porch are nonconforming and the structure was removed in the past. Chair Erickson stated this situation brings about past discussions of staff s ability to approve slight variances for non-conformity for property owners, Commissioner Baker concurred and stated the only way he would support this would be if it were to be maintained as an open structure. He noted that because the site does have footings in place, the addition would improve the aesthetics of the home greatly. Commissioner Baker asked if the stairs to the front of the home were included in the plans. Mr. Mertensotto stated the stairs are within the current plans. Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if the two-foot wide porch would be used for an entry. Mr. Mertensotto stated it is an aesthetic addition and would not be used as an entrance, but rather as a sitting area. Commissioner Baker asked if a survey of the parcel was included within the packet. City Plarmer Chaput noted that the only survey present in the case file had been reduced and was not to scale, Commissioner Sand stated he would like to see the additional porch approved but with changes made to the layout. He encouraged the applicant to redesign the east side of the porch so that it wasn't so close to the road, as was presented in his previous proposaL Commissioner Duchenes stated she agrees with a variance of some sort, but would like to minimize the encroachment with this addition. She felt this was a minimal intrusion but noted she was concerned about the east portion of the deck being too close to the street. Chair Erickson asked if there was any precedence for allowing a non-conforming use to become a greater non-conforming use. City Plarmer Chaput stated she was unaware of any planning cases at this time but noted that the Zoning Ordinance does not allow for an expansion of a nonconforming use. Commissioner Sand indicated concern with this proposal due to the fact the home does not meet the current 40-foot setback, which is non-conforming. Chair Erickson noted past variances have been allowed where they did not increase the current non-conformity, Commissioner Sand concurred. Chair Erickson noted it was not the responsibility of the Commission to design and draft the proposal for the applicant. He asked if additional plans had been submitted to Council without being reviewed by the Plarming Commission. City Plarmer Chaput noted that the most recent update of the plan was before the Commission. Commissioner Sand stated this is a difficult situation because the lot is currently non-conforming and if this item were approved the Commission would create additional non-conformity. He explained the home is very unique but noted he is tom between the Ordinance and benefit to the applicant. Commissioner Sand suggested that the applicant review the plans and comply with the minimum encroachment. He stated the goal of the project is right but the current plans increase the non-conformity ofthe lot, which does not meet the goals of the Ordinance.