CC 12-14-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - DECEMBER 14, 1998 3 The Planning Commission recommends approval with a five foot setback with the porch left . open and never closed, which the applicant has agreed to, Ms, Randall noted that the applicant does not want to remove all of the existing structure since some is used to support the house so they want to put pilings outside of that. Because of cosmetics, they want to cover up what is underneath. Ms. Roberta Thompson, 3413 Snelling Avenue N., stated she has nothing to add to the Staff report but is available to answer questions. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Keirn seconded a motion to approve Planning Case #98-28, Mark and Roberta Thompson, 3413 Snelling Avenue North, Side Yard Setback Variance of5 feet conditioned on the porch being left open and never enclosed. Councilmember Malone stated his concern that this is too close to the lot line. He stated he has supported other variances where people have not been impacted but he believes this will result in an impact to the neighbor and he does not find sufficient hardship to consider approval. Councilmember Malone suggested allowing a three foot encroachment for an open structure. He noted this is an area of narrow lots which will result in an encroachment to the abutting neighbor and their ability to use their property. He restated that he does not see the required grounds to consider approval, . Councilmember Aplikowski inquired regarding the location of the driveway for the neighboring property that lies to the south. Ms, Randall noted the location of the shared driveway for the applicant and abutting property and the shared driveway serving the homes to the south. Councilmember Larson stated that he lives four lots away from the applicant and the road, sewer, and water is brought in from the south to serve his house and the house next door. Councilmember Aplikowski stated that ifthe access was from the north it would not work. Mayor Probst asked if a solution has been considered that would allow only a three foot variance. Rosemary McMonigal, McMonigal Architects representing the applicant, stated that the existing stoop needs to be rebuilt in its current condition and in that condition it does not fit the required setback as it exists today. In terms of hardship, she noted that this was discussed at great length at the Planning Commission and ranges from the extreme slope from the side entry to the side property line resulting in undermining the house footings if the stoop were to be removed. Another hardship relates to the trees which would be greatly impacted by excavations, She explained that they did make a modification to pull it back in since the Planning Commission meeting, . Councilmember Malone stated that these are mechanical considerations but not compelling enough to cause the Council to grant a variance to allow the porch to be that close to the property line. He stated that he does not see the need and believes there will be an impact to the next door