My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 03-13-2000
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
CCP 03-13-2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:15:59 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 1:23:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
114
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1,2000 <br /> <br />DRAFT <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />Chair Erickson asked if the proposed porch, once the variance is granted, could be changed into <br />an enclosed living space. Ms. Randall stated that is correct unless a condition of approval e <br />prohibits the deck from being enclosed. She added that conditions could also include the roof <br />type, etc. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sand stated he sympathizes that the exposure to the lake is rather stark but the <br />addition of architectural features such as awnings could provide architectural character to the <br />house without the need for a variance. He stated a deck could be created along the front of the <br />house and remain within the setback requirements which would accomplish what the petitioner <br />desires and improve the facade of the home. Commissioner Sand stated he supports staffs <br />recommendations and finds this request similar to the earlier rear yard variance request which <br />was recommended for denial. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sand stated that he would support the staff recommended modification which <br />would minimize the impact. He asked if the applicant would consider the deck functional <br />without the side deck. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nelson asked if another variance would be needed to construe! the deck as <br />suggested by Chair Erickson on the west side of the house. Ms. Randall stated that is correct <br />unless it is indicated within the motion. Or, the applicant could develop alternatives before the <br />Council consideration on what would work. <br /> <br />Mr. Mertensotto stated that having to add another door to the house would create a hardship a <br />situation and it would also be at a different elevation, needing a step down. .. <br /> <br />Commissioner Rye inquired regarding the topography of the property. Mr. Mertensotto pointed <br />out where the hill starts and stated he would prefer action be taken by the Planning Commission <br />to provide direction to the Council so he can proceed with his plans. He stated the location he is <br />proposing is in the area of the existing driveway and he would like to tie this to the rear porch. <br /> <br />Chair Erickson stated there are architectural features that can be designed which would not <br />require a variance. Ms. Randall advised that a three foot overhang is allowed over the setback <br />line but, in this case, the setback line is in the middle of the house. However, a variance option <br />could be considered. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sand stated he does not want to exacerbate the setback impact which would occur <br />with this request. He suggested rethinking along the diagonal area in front of the house and to <br />work within that triangular space. Commissioner Sand stated that may be looked at more <br />favorably as long as it does not impact more than the existing structure. <br /> <br />Chair Erickson explained that the Planning Commission would have to see the proposal m <br />writing. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sand asked if it is unlikely the applicant would utilize the porch area in the front <br />which staff suggests is allowable if the side deck is not allowed. Mr. Mertensotto stated he <br />planned to talk with the tenant who lives in the house to see what they think. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Chair Erickson suggested thinking about placing a door on the other side since the cost would <br />not be exorbitant compared to the structure proposed to be built. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.