Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> - <br /> @ ~ ~ ~1I <br /> ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 23.1998 iDj I. 8 <br /> in Inl I' J1 <br /> understands the desire not to construct the addition ofT the back due to the windows and the . <br /> creation of a "tunnel" effect. She stated that by granting the living space addition it will not <br /> really impact the neighbors any more than the garage would. <br /> Councilmember Malone stated this was also his impression but he realizes the City's objective is <br /> to minimize and, if at all possible, avoid all variances. He pointed out there is no other location <br /> to place the garage so that variance request can be legitimized. However, with the house <br /> expansion, the request cannot be legitimized since it can be located elsewhere on the property. <br /> Councilmember Malone stated he believes the Planning Commission's recommendation is <br /> rationale and accurate. <br /> Fred Bruning, Sawhorse Inc., Designer, explained the applicant was unable to attend the <br /> meeting tonight so he is attending on their behalf. He referred to his February 19, 1998 letter <br /> which indicates it is their opinion the alternative locations suggested by the City, as well as <br /> other solutions explored during the design process, would create situations which should be <br /> addressed as follows: <br /> 1. The alternative plan creates a narrow tunneling effect that would not be desirable to <br /> either neighbor on the north or the clients. <br /> 2. It would adversely effect the homeowners and the neighbor's lake view. <br /> 3. It creates an informal space in a formal part of the house. <br /> 4. It positions living space ten feet or closer to their neighbor on the south (as opposed to <br /> more than 35 feet if located to the north), also because of neighbor's setbacks allows . <br /> for a ten foot or less separation between structures as opposed to 13' 5". <br /> 5. It sacrifices a large part of a much valued deck, therefore taking away outside space. <br /> 6. Not to affect 2nd floor views - it would need to be a flat roof design which would <br /> adversely affect the character of the home as well as the neighborhood. <br /> 7. Lastly, this option would cost approximately three times as much. <br /> Mr. Bruning presented the living space proposal to the Council and explained the benefits of <br /> this location. <br /> Councilmember Aplikowski noted this is a very small lot with a very small house. She stated <br /> she supports this request as long as neither neighbor objects. Mr. Bruning stated that the <br /> neighbors do not object. <br /> Mr. Bruning explained they want to maintain the lake view and the applicant does not feel <br /> there is an acceptable alternate. Mr. Bruning then presented the building elevation with both <br /> the garage and living space additions and explained how the drainage will be addressed. He <br /> noted the elevations shown with the building and garage additions are more aesthetically <br /> pleasing as well. <br /> Councilmember Malone stated while he appreciates the arguments regarding aesthetics, the <br /> Council is charged with executing the Ordinances and, in order to consider a variance, a . <br /> hardship needs to be present. He commented on the difficulty in establishing a precedent due <br /> to future requests. Councilmember Malone stated he supports the argument about the hardship <br />