CCP 03-13-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1,2000 DRAFT 8 Chair Erickson asked if the proposed porch, once the variance is granted, could be changed into an enclosed living space. Ms. Randall stated that is correct unless a condition of approval e prohibits the deck from being enclosed. She added that conditions could also include the roof type, etc. Commissioner Sand stated he sympathizes that the exposure to the lake is rather stark but the addition of architectural features such as awnings could provide architectural character to the house without the need for a variance. He stated a deck could be created along the front of the house and remain within the setback requirements which would accomplish what the petitioner desires and improve the facade of the home. Commissioner Sand stated he supports staffs recommendations and finds this request similar to the earlier rear yard variance request which was recommended for denial. Commissioner Sand stated that he would support the staff recommended modification which would minimize the impact. He asked if the applicant would consider the deck functional without the side deck. Commissioner Nelson asked if another variance would be needed to construe! the deck as suggested by Chair Erickson on the west side of the house. Ms. Randall stated that is correct unless it is indicated within the motion. Or, the applicant could develop alternatives before the Council consideration on what would work. Mr. Mertensotto stated that having to add another door to the house would create a hardship a situation and it would also be at a different elevation, needing a step down. .. Commissioner Rye inquired regarding the topography of the property. Mr. Mertensotto pointed out where the hill starts and stated he would prefer action be taken by the Planning Commission to provide direction to the Council so he can proceed with his plans. He stated the location he is proposing is in the area of the existing driveway and he would like to tie this to the rear porch. Chair Erickson stated there are architectural features that can be designed which would not require a variance. Ms. Randall advised that a three foot overhang is allowed over the setback line but, in this case, the setback line is in the middle of the house. However, a variance option could be considered. Commissioner Sand stated he does not want to exacerbate the setback impact which would occur with this request. He suggested rethinking along the diagonal area in front of the house and to work within that triangular space. Commissioner Sand stated that may be looked at more favorably as long as it does not impact more than the existing structure. Chair Erickson explained that the Planning Commission would have to see the proposal m writing. Commissioner Sand asked if it is unlikely the applicant would utilize the porch area in the front which staff suggests is allowable if the side deck is not allowed. Mr. Mertensotto stated he planned to talk with the tenant who lives in the house to see what they think. e Chair Erickson suggested thinking about placing a door on the other side since the cost would not be exorbitant compared to the structure proposed to be built.