CCP 09-25-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - September 6, 2000 6 3. Whether the property in question can be put to a reasonable use without granting of a variance. e 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 of the 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 within 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 a 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 nonconformities to continue to exist and be expanding 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 a precedence for future applications. e Ms. Chaput stated that staff recommends that Planning Case #00-32, variance from the ordinary high water mark setback of Karth Lake (69 feet proposed, when 75 feet is required), be denied based on the following findings, as outlined in staffs memorandum, dated August 24,2000: 1. The circumstances of the request are not unique to this property in the Karth Lake area; 2. The application does not meet the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning Code to preserve and protect wetlands; 3. The property can be put to a reasonable use without this variance and the proposal could be reconfigured outside of the setback area; 4. The hardship is being created by the property owner by proposing an addition within the setback area; and 5. Granting the variance will set a precedence for variance approvals in the Karth Lake neighborhood according to the current ordinance. The City's ordinance for OHW setbacks according to DNR rules should be reviewed by staff for potential amendment in the future. Ms. Chaput stated that if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this Planning Case, then it would be heard at the Monday, September 25, 2000, regular meeting of the City Council. Ms. Chaput stated that the applicant was not present at the meeting. e Acting Chair Nelson closed the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. Commissioner Sand stated, in his opinion, the applicant is requesting a variance which will reduce the property's footprint rather than expanding it. He added it constitutes a reasonable use