CCP 01-08-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 6, 2000 3 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 of the 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, The current structure is situated at 35,5 feet from the front yard line, Therefore, to expand the home by four feet to match this setback will not significantly alter the character of the neighborhood, However, it should be noted that the structure is currently nonconforming by building placement and, by ordinance, nonconforming structures should not be expanded, If this is not the intent of the City, then the ordinance should be amended. Ms, Chaput stated that staff recommends that Planning Case #00-37, front yard setback variance (35.5 feet proposed, when 40 feet is required) for the property located at 1867 Glen Paul Avenue, be denied for the following reasons: 1, The circumstances of the request are not unique to this property in the Glen Paul Avenue area or the R-2 zoning district; 2, By not meeting the provisions of the ordinance, the application does not meet the spirit and intent ofthe City's Zoning Code; 3. The property can be put to a reasonable use without this variance and the proposal could be reconfigured outside of the setback area; and 4, The hardship is being created by the property owner by proposing an addition within the setback area, Ms. Chaput stated that if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this Planning Case, then it would be heard at the Monday, January 8, 2001 regular meeting of the City Council. She added that the City Council does not hold a second meeting in December, 2000, and the sixty days will be extended an additional sixty days for this application due to the holiday time table, Commissioner Duchenes stated the staff memo noted that the proposed addition could be reconfigured, She asked whether there was sufficient space in the sideyard setback for such an expansion, Ms, Chaput stated she does not know the full dimensions of the property and was not suggesting any alternatives, She added that a variance was granted to the homeowner for a detached garage a few years ago, and there is a large backyard, Tom Whittles, 1867 Glen Paul Avenue, stated the home is 40 years old, noting the home was built before City ordinances were in place, He added that other residents on his street have such an addition on the front oftheir homes. Mr. Whittles stated his home is on a narrow lot with little room for expansion, He expressed frustration that the City might deny his request. He added, in his opinion, City staff have been unwilling to cooperate with him,