CCP 12-14-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 2, 1998 DRAFT 3 , . away from the home. She also noted, the full intent of the porch is to leave it open. There had never been a plan to enclose it. Ms. Thompson explained, with regard to the location of the pilings, they had looked into other options and were. concerned about removing and replacing the footings. She indicated that the ground under the porch supports the house at this time, The home was not built correctly and should have had better footings. She referred to the south side diagram and noted it shows the footings for the house are above grade on the south property. Ms. Thompson explained that they felt if they could use the pilings they would not disturb the ground at that level on the south side of the home. She noted the suggestion to move the pilings in will not work, as the pilings cannot be that close to the foundation. RoseMary McMonigal, McMonigal Architects, explained that the pilings shown in the diagram are as close to the existing foundation as they could be, In order to remove the current stoop, it would be necessary to excavate past the south property line to get beyond the frost line. This would also require the removal of both retaining walls and would result in a grade lower than the house. Additionally, this excavation would require the removal of some trees both on the applicant's property and the adjacent property. Chair Erickson asked if the plan is to keep the current stoop. Ms. McMonigal explained that this is correct. . Ms. Thompson stated that, regarding the property to the southwest, the land is fairly flat. Mr, Mark Thompson, noted that another consideration for excavation is the fact that this would require the removal of earth which supports the wall, This would risk damage to the existing structure, as the basement wall is the major support structure to the home. Mr. Thompson indicated the proposed pilings would have the least impact on the home and the properties. Chair Erickson asked if changing the location of the pilings, as suggested by Staff, would bring the porch within the encroachment requirement. Ms, Randall indicated the variance would still be required, however, it would be less significant. She also noted the cantilevering adds an additional two feet to the width. Ms. McMonigal stated that there were two purposes for the cantilevering. One was to provide a shadow line past the remaining stoop, the other was to add more space at the entry way, She also noted the current porch does not have a railing, The addition of the new railing would require an extra four to six-inches of space, Chair Erickson commented that he appreciates the structural challenges and the solutions proposed. He pointed out the Planning Commission must judge a variance request based on its merits, not economic issues, Ms. Thompson explained that the issue is not economic, it is more environmental and structural. . Ms, Carolyn Moho, 3459 Siems Court, owner ofthe adjoining vacant land, expressed her concem that her vacant lot slopes in such a way that it would require a home be built close to the applicant's home and bring the living spaces too close together. She indicated she had spent a