CC 02-23-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. --J . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 23. 1998 8 understands the desire not to construct the addition off the back due to the windows and the creation of a "tunnel" effect. She stated that by granting the living space addition it will not really impact the neighbors any more than the garage would. Councilmember Malone stated this was also his impression but he realizes the City's objective is to minimize and, if at all possible, avoid all variances. He pointed out there is no other location to place the garage so that variance request can be legitimized. However, with the house expansion, the request cannot be legitimized since it can be located elsewhere on the property. Councilmember Malone stated he believes the Planning Commission's recommendation is rationale and accurate. Fred Bruning, Sawhorse Inc., Designer, explained the applicant was unable to attend the meeting tonight so he is attending on their behalf. He referred to his February 19, 1998 letter which indicates it is their opinion the alternative locations suggested by the City, as well as other solutions explored during the design process, would create situations which should be addressed as follows: 1. Tbe alternative plan creates a narrow tunneling effect that would not be desirable to either neighbor on the north or the clients. It would adversely effect the homeowners and the neighbor's lake view. It creates an informal space in a formal part of the house. It positions living space ten feet or closer to their neighbor on the south (as opposed to more than 35 feet if located to the north), also because of neighbor's setbacks allows for a ten foot or less separation between structures as opposed to 13' 5" . It sacrifices a large part of a much valued deck, therefore taking away outside space. Not to affect 2nd floor views - it would need to be a t1at roof design which would adversely affect the character of the home as well as the neighborhood. Lastly, this option would cost approximately three times as much. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Mr. Bruning presented the living space proposal to the Council and explained the benefits of this location. Councilmember Aplikowski noted this is a very small lot with a very small house. She stated she supports this request as long as neither neighbor objects. Mr. Bruning stated that the neighbors do not object. Mr. Bruning explained they want to maintain the lake view and the applicant does not feel there is an acceptable alternate. Mr. Bruning then presented the building elevation with both the garage and living space additions and explained how the drainage will be addressed. He noted the elevations shown with the building and garage additions are more aesthetically pleasing as well. Councilmember Malone stated while he appreciates the arguments regarding aesthetics, the Council is charged with executing the Ordinances and, in order to consider a variance, a hardship needs to be present. He commented on the difficulty in establishing a precedent due to future requests. Councilmember Malone stated he supports the argument about the hardship