CCP 12-14-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, DRAFT ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 2, 1998 2 . porch and entrance due to the garage entry on the front side of the home and a smaller setback on . the other side of the home. Ms, Randall advised that Staifis recommending denial of Planning Case #98-29, side yard setback for a porch (four feet, six-inches proposed, when 10 feet is required) based on the "Findings - Side Yard Setback Variance (porch)" section of the Staff report dated December 2, 1998. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this Planning Case, it would be heard at the Monday, December 14, 1998, regular meeting of the City Council. Chair Erickson asked for further explanation of the Allowable Encroachments section of the Staff report. He asked, does the current or proposed porch fit the definition for a deck, in which case this exception would apply. Ms. Randall stated that this is correct and explained that the current porch is more than five feet and has less than a three foot encroachment. Chair Erickson asked, if the proposed porch had an additional two and one-half foot of setback, would it meet the intent of the ordinance. Ms. Randall indicated the existing porch is six by eight feet and, if the piling were installed just outside the existing six feet, this would allow a full foot of space to install the piling .and be within the required seven feet. Chair Erickson requested confirmation that the applicant could increase the width of the current porch by one foot and still meet the ordinance, Ms. Randall stated that this is correct. Chair Erickson pointed out that the Staff memo states the odd lot size is not a hardship. He . asked if this was due to the fact that there is an existing porch which has been functioning for the life ofthe house, Ms, Randall stated that this is correct. Commissioner Nelson asked how far the current porch is from the property line, Ms. Randall explained that it is seven and one-half feet. Commissioner Nelson pointed out that the proposed porch could then extend one-half foot closer to the property line. Ms. Randall indicated this would be correct. Commissioner Rye asked if the vacant property to the southwest is buildable. Ms. Randall stated that it appears to be. Chair Erickson expressed his concern that the contours of the vacant lot would require a home to be built to the north end of the lot, close to the applicant's house, He also pointed out, according to the topography, the adjacent property is 10 to 15 feet below the finished floor level of the porch. Commissioner Baker noted, even if the porch were to exceed the three foot encroachment, it becomes more of a problem when it exceeds the absolute five foot setback. He asked Staff, if the variance were granted, could a requirement be added that the porch remains open and never enclosed. Mr, Ringwald stated that this could be added as a condition. He pointed out that plans are provided to ensure the structure being proposed is what ends up being constructed. . The applicant, Ms. Roberta Thompson, 3413 Snelling Avenue North, stated that the current porch is in need of repair or replacement, The porch has sufficed thus far; however, it is falling