CCP 09-13-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e . [,~'"'t" 'j' ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER I, 1999 9 property. His property receives all the drainage from other properties and remains fairly wet which would make extending the house to the rear problematic. Mr. Stowman stated that he had considered several other options for an addition and chose the proposed design as it made the most sense for the current layout of the home. The other side of the home would have been difficult because there was a 10 foot wide addition without a full basement underneath, as well as a steep slope. He felt that if he were to construct his addition and garage as recommended by staff the appearance would not be good. He would prefer that the sight line remain a straight line. Mr. Stowman stated that his home was small compared with others in the neighborhood, at only 920 square feet. If allowed to improve his home he hoped to bring his property value up to comparable with the neighborhood. Ms. Shirley Debuke, 1201 Carlson Drive, stated that she has lived at this address for the past 27 years. Her property is to the west of the applicant's and there was 45 feet between her house and the applicant. The proposed addition would not encroach on her property at all. The applicant had expressed an interest to her in moving to a larger home and she suggested he add onto his home. She would support any variance request by the applicant and would like them to remain in the neighborhood as they are nice neighbors. Chair Erickson closed the public hearing at 8:46 p.m., as no one else wished to address the Planning Commission. Chair Erickson asked Ms. Debuke on which side ofthe home her garage was located. Ms. Debuke stated that her garage was on the west side ofthe property. Chair Erickson noted that the Planning Commission has heard many other cases for variances which stem from the single car versus two car garage issue, which has been established as a hardship. Chair Erickson agreed with the applicant that the addition to the upper level would be better balanced if allowed to line up with the garage. He indicated that he was inclined to approve both requests as proposed by the applicant. He noted that the reason he had asked about the layout of the home to the west was that the Planning Commission must consider not only the current situation but also what could happen in the future. If the garage and addition were allowed, it would be unlikely that the home would be expanded any further. Commissioner Nelson asked how many other homes in this neighborhood have less than a 10 foot setback. Ms. Randall stated that most homes that appear close to the property line most likely just meet the 10 foot setback requirement. There was one home on Carlson that appeared to have less than a 10 foot setback. Commissioner Sand asked if the property to the east ofthe applicant was vacant. Mr. Stowman stated that this lot has been developed. Commissioner Baker stated that given the special conditions that there was no other viable area to expand the garage, the drainage issues in the rear, and the support of the neighboring property owners, he would support the proposal as requested.