Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 8, 2016 3 <br /> <br />13. The proposed addition would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood <br />because it would result in a structure that is consistent and compatible with other <br />construction in the area. <br />14. The requested variance does not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. <br /> <br />Senior Planner Bachler stated that the findings of fact for this variance request support a <br />recommendation for approval. If the Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation <br />for denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. If <br />the Planning Commission recommends approval of this variance, staff recommends the <br />following five conditions: <br /> <br />1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the <br />conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City <br />Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City <br />Council. <br />2. A building permit shall be required prior to commencement of construction. <br />3. The porch addition shall match the color and architectural style of the rest of the principal <br />structure. <br />4. An encroachment of 3 feet – 6 inches shall be permitted for the porch addition into the <br />30-foot rear setback requirement. This will result in a setback of 26 feet – 6 inches from <br />the rear property line. <br />5. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. <br /> <br />Senior Planner Bachler reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this <br />matter: <br /> <br />1. Recommend Approval with Conditions <br />2. Recommend Approval as Submitted <br />3. Recommend Denial <br />4. Table <br /> <br />Chair Thompson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lambeth explained that with the setback requirements and easements on this <br />property, only 20% of the lot remained buildable. He believed the applicant’s request was <br />reasonable and stated he supported the 42-inch encroachment into the rear yard setback for the <br />proposed porch. <br /> <br />Chair Thompson requested the applicant come forward for questions. <br /> <br />Steve Jytyla, 1494 Keithson Drive, introduced himself to the Commission. <br /> <br />Chair Thompson asked if the applicant had considered having a different design or layout for <br />the porch. <br /> <br />Mr. Jytyla stated he looked at numerous options for the porch and deck addition. He explained <br />that none of the options met his family’s and the City’s requirements. For this reason, he was