Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 6, 2000 4 <br /> <br />Commissioner Sand stated the Commission has yet to render an opinion, and requested that the <br />applicant show some deference to the Commission, e <br /> <br />Mr. Whittles reiterated his frustration that City staff are recommending denial of the case, He <br />added the proposed addition would not bring the home any closer to the front lot line. He noted <br />he applied for a building permit before any work was done, <br /> <br />Chair Erickson asked whether work was initiated before the building permit was approved. Mr. <br />Whittles confirmed that the blocklayer whom he hired completed the work while Mr. Whittles <br />was on vacation, Chair Erickson stated it appears the work which was done did not meet the <br />necessary requirements, <br /> <br />Mr. Whittles stated it was not his intention to do anything behind the City's back, Chair <br />Erickson reiterated that work on the project commenced before the building permit was secured, <br />He added there are two separate issues to be considered: the zoning issue, and the permit <br />application, <br /> <br />Chair Erickson asked what portion of the home was adjacent to the proposed addition. Mr. <br />Whittles stated the addition projects off the existing kitchen at the front ofthe home, Chair <br />Erickson asked whether there are records regarding other homes in the area with similar <br />additions, Mr, Whittles stated the homes near him were built with the addition he is proposing <br />already attached, Chair Erickson stated he is unaware of the setbacks on those homes. <br /> <br />Mr. Whittle stated the addition will improve the home and give him more living space, <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Chair Erickson closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. <br /> <br />Chair Erickson recalled similar cases on which the Council had decided, where the primary issue <br />was whether the proposed addition extended the nonconformity of the home in question, Ms, <br />Chaput stated that staffs evaluation of the case is based upon the City's zoning ordinance and <br />represents the strictest interpretation of State and City variance codes. She added these include <br />the basic principle that non-conforming structures should not be expanded, <br /> <br />Chair Erickson reiterated that the Commission has had previous discussions regarding homes <br />with some degree of nonconformity, which minor additions did nothing to increase, <br />Commissioner Sand recalled a case involving a request for a deck on a home on the north shore <br />ofKarth Lake. Chair Erickson recalled a case involving a request for a front entryway on a home <br />near Lake Josephine. He added that if the proposal does not increase the nonconformity, it can <br />fall within the code. <br /> <br />Ms. Chaput recommended that the Commission might wish to amend the City ordinance <br />pertaining to setbacks as it becomes difficult to maintain a precedence. Commissioner Baker <br />stated that in previous cases, the Commission required that the nonconformity would not be <br />allowed to continue through additional construction if the improvements were destroyed, <br /> <br />Commissioner Sand stated he is familiar with the house and neighborhood in question, He added <br />the proposed addition would improve the home, He added that if the kitchen is located at the <br />front of the house, it would not make sense to put the addition in the back of the house, He noted <br />that might represent the hardship in this case. Ms, Chaput stated that hardship should be related <br />to the physical characteristics ofthe property. <br /> <br />e <br />