CCP 02-22-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 3, 1999 16 Chair Erickson asked if, even though the applicant had modified the previous proposal to _ provide minimal sideyard setbacks, Staffis recommending denial because the proposal would .. not meet the current setback as currently mandated. Ms. Randall stated that this was correct. Chair Erickson asked if there were any proposed changes to the front of the home. Ms. Randall stated that she was not aware of any. Chair Erickson requested further explanation of the Staff's concern regarding the buildable area behind the proposed addition. Ms. Randall explained that if the variance were granted, any additions proposed to the home in the buildable area would be allowed without prior approval or variances. Chair Erickson asked why the buildable area shows the five-foot setback to the south only. Ms. Randall explained that the five-foot minimum setback could be on either the south or the north side of the property. The Code requires at least a five-foot minimum, with a 15-foot total setback. The buildable area could shift to either side so long as it maintains a minimum five-foot setback on one side and a ten-foot setback on the other, or it could be centered with seven and one-halffeet on both sides. Commissioner Nelson asked if, in past variance approvals, the Planning Commission had required that any additional changes be brought back to the Cornmission for approval. Mr. Ringwald stated that, in this instance, the concern is regarding the buildable area. The primary issue is whether the findings are based on what is being proposed, or if the variance would still e be valid for any future development. The Staff must consider what would happen if the home were to burn down. The variance would be for a structure, which could not be rebuilt in its original location. Commissioner Sand requested confirmation that, if the variance were granted and the entire house burnt down, the area of the existing home could not be built upon again becanse the variance is not for that portion. Mr. Ringwald stated that was correct. Commissioner Sand asked if, with the variance, the structure could be rebuilt in the proposed building area. Mr. Ringwald stated this would be correct if there were no conditions stating that it could not be. Mr. Ringwald reiterated that the basic issue is whether or not the proposed addition would be in an appropriate location. The addition itself would create a reasonably sized home, however, regardless of who owns the home, any further additions within the buildable area would not require prior approval. There may be the possibility of the homeowner wanting more bedrooms, bathrooms, deck, or a garage in the future. Since the square footage of the addition itself is reasonable, the issue to determine is whether or not the location of the home be rectified now, or later. Commissioner Duchenes suggested that the homeowners consider building up, as many of the homeowners around the lake have done. Chair Erickson noted that there had been a home, which did not meet the setback requirements e which was permitted to build up through a building permit. Mr. Ringwald stated that this was due to the fact that the footprint of the home had not changed. Providing the existing structure would support an addition, it would be allowable since it would not create additional