06-08-16PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 8, 2016 5 Mr. Jytyla explained the porch would have glass that could be raised over the screens. He reported the screen porch would have a fireplace in order for it to be used later in the fall. Commissioner Lambeth questioned if the home was purchased on spec or if it was purchased to be built. He asked if Pulte Homes disclosed the fact that the rear property line had a restriction. Mr. Jytyla reported he purchased the home to be built from Pulte Homes. He indicated the home came with no options and was basically bought on spec. He stated Pulte had made him aware of the setback constraints, but he was uncertain as to the specifics and conducted more research on this topic on his own. Commissioner Hames asked if this request shed any light on the City Code regarding the differences between deck and porch setbacks. Senior Planner Bachler described the differences between deck and porch rear yard setback requirements. He noted that in the R-1 District, decks can encroach up to six feet into the rear yard setback, but must not be closer than six feet from a property line. Commissioner Hames discussed the importance of outdoor living space. She believed that the homeowner was bound by the home location and that this was not of his doing. It was her opinion that the homeowner was being penalized for something that was out of his control. Commissioner Lambeth questioned if the porch would be constructed on piers. Senior Planner Bachler reported this was the case. Commissioner Lambeth stated this meant no additional impervious surface area would be added to the property. Senior Planner Bachler clarified that although the porch and deck would be constructed on piers, they would both count as impervious coverage on the property. He noted that the property would still be in conformance with the lot coverage requirements with the proposed addition. Commissioner Zimmerman moved and Commissioner Hames seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 16-015 for a rear yard setback variance at 1494 Keithson Drive, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, as amended by the five conditions in the June 8, 2016, Report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried 4-1 (Chair Thompson opposed). B. Planning Case 16-013; CUP Amendment and Variance – Mounds View High School –Public Hearing City Planner Streff stated that Mounds View High School currently operates under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that was approved in 1978. Any modification to the original CUP requires that a CUP amendment be processed. The original CUP has been amended from time-to- time as the school and campus have expanded over the past years. In this case, the School District is requesting an amendment to the existing CUP in order to replace the existing scoreboard and press box at the football stadium and to construct a new storage building adjacent