CCP 09-25-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - September 6, 2000 7 of the property, and does not violate the zoning code, which is currently under review. He noted that a number of properties on the east side of Karth Lake are similarly unique. He noted that a review ofthe zoning code around Karth Lake has been under discussion for some time. Commissioner Sand noted that precedence is always an issue, but added that the unique properties on Karth Lake will have to be dealt with on a case by case basis in any event. He added he would support the variance request. ???Commissioner Baker stated the lot's shape and location make it possible to avoid setting a precedence by having a finding that this particular lot has a unique and particular configuration which allows an exception. He added he lives near the lot in question, and residents on the lake support the proposal. He expressed concern that the lake quality is deteriorating and must be addressed at some point in the future. Commissioner Duchenes stated that the house addition does not appear to be extending further, if at all, into the setback than the existing deck. She added she would support the request. Commissioner Galatowitsch expressed agreement that the strange shape of the lot makes it unique. She added she would support the request. Commissioner Duchenes moved, seconded by Commissioner Sand, to recommend approval of Planning Case #-00-32, variance from the ordinary high water mark setback of Karth Lake (69 feet proposed when 75 feet is required), with the condition that the variance will terminate if the primary structure should be destroyed to the level that meets the building code threshold for being destroyed, based on the following findings: I. The overall lot coverage would be reduced. 2. The variance does not set a precedence due to the odd configuration of the parcel 3. The encroachment would be reduced into the setback from the existing encroachment. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). This Planning Case will be reviewed at the Monday, September 25, 2000, City Council meeting. PLANNING CASE # 00-33 - GAYLE GULSVIG - 3810 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD- SPECIAL USE PERMIT (CLASS II HOME OCCUPATION) - PUBLIC HEARING Acting Chair Nelson opened the public hearing at 8:37 p.m. Ms. Chaput explained that the applicant is requesting approval of a Special Use Permit (Class II Home Occupation) for the operation of her business, Always Wood Flooring, in her existing single-family home, located at 3810 New Brighton Road, zoned R-2. Earlier this year, staff received a few complaints regarding a business being operatcd out of a home at 3810 New Brighton Road. The situation was investigated and it was found that the home did not have approval for a home occupation (either Class I or Class II) at this location. The property owner was notified that she was out of compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and asked that she respond to staff with a plan for compliance. As a result of this action, the property owner has made application for a Class II Home Occupation.