CCP 09-25-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. e e e 2. Whether granting the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning Code. The City's Zoning Code states as one of its intentions as, "To promote the character of and preserve and enhance the properties and areas within the City including wetlands, ponds and marshes". The setback requirements established by the Department of Natural Resources are enacted to preserve and protect 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. 3. 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. There is only a small portion ofthe proposed addition that juts into the ordinary high water mark setback. It is possible to reconfigure that addition in some matter to avoid requiring a variance from the ordinance. It can 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. Although the shape ofthe lot and position of the house are not the fault of the current owner, the owner is proposing the addition within the setback area, creating the need for a variance. This could be avoided by reconfiguring the addition so that it was not witllin the required setback area. The need for this variance is being created by the property owner. 5. Whether granting the variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Granting this variance will set precedence for other properties along Karth Lake that are also nonconforming by the setback from the ordinary high water mark. This is contrary to the intent of the ordinance to allow nonconformity to continue to exist and be expanded without consideration for current ordinances. Again, staff would recommend that the ordinance be reviewed for this particular lake because of the current DNR rules, which would positively impact all properties along Karth Lake in the future. Although granting this variance would not visually impact the character of the neighborhood a great deal, it does set precedence for future applications. Deadline for Al!ency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on August 7, 2000. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by October 5, 2000 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The additional review period would extend to December 4,2000. The City may, with the petitioners consent, extend the review period beyond the date. Lastly, if the City denies the petitioners request, "...it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request". Options 1. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3. Recommend denial with reasons for denial. 4. Table for additional information.