CCP 01-08-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 6, 2000 2 for this property on file. e Ms, Chaput stated that the Building Inspector is convinced that Mr, Whittles is aware of his property line locations so he has not required a survey from him for work completed in the past, She added that the Building Inspector has found that Mr. Whittles installed the foundation for this project already, without a building permit. She noted that the foundation was not installed to meet frost requirements and, if the variance is granted, will have to be re-done, Ms, Chaput stated that the central front portion ofMr. Whittles' home is currently situated 35.5 feet from the front yard setback. She added it is currently non-conforming because it does not meet the front yard setback requirement. She noted that the remainder of the home is 39,5 feet from the front yard setback. Ms. Chaput stated that Mr, Whittles wishes to build an addition onto his home from the 39.5 feet to be in line with the portion that is 35.5 feet from the property line, She added that the front yard setback for the B-2 zoning district is 40 feet. She noted that he requires a front yard setback vanance. Ms, Chaput identified the variance criteria for this case and reviewed the variance findings as defined by the variance criteria, She added that the applicant has responded to the hardship criteria in a letter. She noted that for this application for a front yard setback variance at 1867 Glen Paul Avenue, staff can make the following findings: ], Whether the circumstances for which the variance is requested are unique to the property, .. The properties along Glen Paul Avenue are, generally, between thirty-five and forty feet from .. the front yard setback, The current code requires that the houses be placed forty feet from the front property line, There are no plans to amend the language of the ordinance nor does the comprehensive plan forecast any future changes to this area, This location of the home, terrain or shape of the property is no different than its neighboring properties. Therefore, this request does not possess any unique circumstances. 2, Whether granting the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning Code, The intent of the zoning ordinance is to ". ..fix reasonable standards to which building, structures and land shall conform for the benefit of all". The zoning ordinance also states that a variance should only be granted if the configuration of the property prohibits reasonable development that may be permitted on a similar sized lot within the same district. This lot is no different from other lots in the district. There is no physical feature of this property that is prohibiting development so that it needs to occur within the setbacks. Any reasonable development that could be constructed on any lot in the district could also be duplicated on this lot according to the standards that have been set. Therefore, granting a variance for this application would not meet the spirit and intent of the zoning 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, The applicant is proposing to add on to the front of his home because of the interior layout and location of the kitchen, However, it is possible to reconfigure the addition in some matter to avoid requiring a variance from the