PCP 03-01-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 1,2006 13 Commissioner Zimmerman stated he wanted to make sure that by constructing this . addition, they did not exceed the maximum size limit of the lot. Mr. Kachel noted they were very limited with what they could do with the lot and the only way they could improve the home was to push this out to the south. Commissioner Larson stated he was not comfortable granting a variance based on accessibility improvements and he did not believe this met a variance requirement. He asked if the pier foundation met building code. Mr. Lehnhoff read the zoning code and noted it did not appear the pier structure was per zoning code. Mr. Kachel noted handicapped accessibility went to the heart of the space availability and he had attempted to address this with the design giving the limitations he had. Chair Sand stated he was concerned with the response to whether this met the foundation requirement. He stated he understood this met the building code requirements, but he was not sure it met the zoning code requirements. Commissioner Larson noted State Statutes allowed these types of foundation, but the City Code could make the requirements more restrictive. He noted the pier foundation would be allowed in the building code. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if applicant was required to have a solid foundation was he willing to go forward with the variance request. Mr. Kachel responded he would still go forward with the request to gain the additional bedroom and bathroom space. He . stated it was important to him to have the additional space. Commissioner Larson moved, seconded by McClung, to remove Planning Case 05-21 from the table. The motion earned unanimously (7-0). Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Modesette to approve Planning Case No. 05-21, Garfield Kachel, 1479 Arden Place, Variance subject to the two conditions as noted in staffs December 20, 2005 report and adding condition 3 to read: That it must be in conformance with Section 6, Subd, E(8)(b) ~ Foundation requirement. Commissioner Larson stated he would vote against the motion because the expansion of this would not improve the accessibility in the house, which was the main reason stated for the variance request. Commissioner Modesette asked for additional information about residential handicapped accessibility. Commissioner Larson stated the requirements were not applicable to a single-family residential. However, within accessibility improvements to a house there were certain things that were universal ineluding size of doorways, bathrooms turnaround variances, etc. He noted while these were not required by law, they were universal . standards and he did not believe applicant had shown the need for these standards. Commissioner McClung stated he would agree with Commissioner Larson. 13