CCP 02-22-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 3, 1999 9RN=r Commissioner Sand asked if there was something regarding the nature of the backyard, which caused the home to be built at an angle. Mr. Wahlberg stated that there were a number of mature oak trees in the yard, some of which are close to the home. Chair Erickson asked if the trees would be in the way oflocating the structure in the backyard. Ms. Randall stated that they would not be. Chair Erickson asked if the addition would be used primarily as storage as opposed to garage space. Ms. Randall explained that there would be a garage door on the front of the structure and approximately one-half of the rear of the structure would be used for storage. The front half would be a one-stall garage. Commissioner Sand requested confirmation that there had been a previous case in which an applicant had an existing two-car garage and had wanted a third to store their snowmobiles. He noted the discussion had been raised whether a homeowner has an inherent right to a three-car garage. Chair Erickson confirmed that this issue had been discussed regarding a home that had side yard setback issues. Commissioner Sand confirmed that this case had been denied. Chair Erickson stated it had been denied as the Planning Commission and City Council had seen other options to the proposal. Chair Erickson asked Staff to point out where the closest adjacent home is located. Ms. Randall indicated the closest home on the map. Chair Erickson asked if the other homes along Arden Place meet the current 40-foot setback requirement. Ms. Randall stated that for the most part they do. Although, one home, directly to the east of the applicant's, appears to be slightly closer to the lot line due to its pie shaped lot. Commissioner Nelson asked how far back the houses to the north are from the lot line. Ms. Randall explained they are approximately 40 feet from the property line. Chair Erickson noted, according the Staff's research, the existing home was constructed according to the Ordinance at that time. The home is now non-conforming due to the change in the Ordinance. He asked if there had been cases establishing a precedence of allowing non- conforming additions so long as it would not increase the non-conformity. Ms. Randall stated there had been a recent case in which a deck was being converted into a three- season porch. The lot barely met the width requirement. Mr. Ringwald explained that there had been an existing structure, to which the addition was being attached. One condition the Planning Commission had made for the approval of this case was, if the existing structure were to burn down or be destroyed, the variance would no longer apply to the lot. The reason for this was the idea that the home could be relocated on the property to a location that would met the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Chair Erickson asked, since tonight's Planning Case was not a public hearing, who had been notified of the request. Ms. Randall stated that the adjacent property owner's had been notified.