Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> -------- <br /> . <br /> ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 2, 1998 DRAFT 4 <br /> , <br /> considerable amount of time and money having utilities brought to the property and she would . <br /> not want to see the value of her property affected by this addition, <br /> Commissioner Nelson asked Ms. Moho is she plans to build on the property. Ms. Moho <br /> explained that she would either build on the lot or sell it. <br /> Ms. McMonigal pointed that out the setback request is regarding only the one corner which is <br /> closest to the property line. She explained that the other corner would be five and one-half feet <br /> from the property line because the lot is angled and it would not make sense to angle the porch to <br /> be parallel with the property line, <br /> Chair Erickson referred to the encroachment exception portion of the Staff report and requested <br /> further explanation of its meaning to this Planning Case. Ms, Randall explained that the reason <br /> the requirement is worded the way it is, is due to the fact that there are different setback <br /> requirements for different zoning districts. This particular district has a ten foot setback <br /> requirement which allows up to a three foot encroachment into the setback. The five foot <br /> minimum does not pertain to this variance due to the seven foot requirement. <br /> Mr. Ringwald stated that there is a need to maintain the separation between the properties for fire <br /> protection and the ability to get around the house. Additionally, the five foot area is normally the <br /> location for the utility easement along platted lots, The purpose of this is to maintain the corridor <br /> along the property lines which is the reason behind the five foot minimum setback requirement. <br /> Chair Erickson asked if the corner of the porch were to be pushed back six inches, would it meet . <br /> the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Ringwald stated that it would maintain the five foot setback <br /> requirement. Ms. Randall agreed and pointed out, however, that it would not have less than the <br /> three foot encroachment requirement. <br /> Commissioner Sand asked what the current setback requirement is, Ms. Randall explained that <br /> the current requirement is ten feet. Commissioner Sand asked how far the current porch extends <br /> into the setback. Ms. Randall explained that the current porch encroaches the setback by two and <br /> one-half feet. <br /> Commissioner Sand concluded that, according to the Zoning Code, the porch cannot be closer <br /> than five feet to the side property line. Therefore, since the proposed porch would be four and <br /> one-half feet from the property line, it would only have to be moved back six inches to be <br /> eligible for the variance. <br /> Mr. Ringwald explained that the Code requirement is two-fold. The overhang can only go three <br /> feet into the setback. Therefore, if the setback is ten feet, the overhang cannot be closer than <br /> seven feet from the property line. Anything more than this requires a variance. If there is a five <br /> foot encroachment, and the maximum the overhang can go into the property is seven-feet, there <br /> would be a variance of two-feet. The Code is essentially saying the setback should not be less <br /> than five-feet in order to keep the corridor open. <br /> Commissioner Sand suggested the issue could be resolved by removing some of the architectural . <br /> detail. He noted the railing appears more decorative than functional and the overhang may not <br /> need to extend out so far. He suggested the southern end of the porch could be reduced in its <br /> southward direction. This would require the elimination of some detail, however, the porch <br /> would still be functional, <br />