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 I, 2000 <br /> <br />DRAFT <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />Zoning Ordinance Section VI, C, 2, a, allows features which are part of the principal structure, <br />including but not limited to eaves, cantilevered areas, cornices, canopies, awnings, decks, e <br />balconies, steps, ramps, fire escapes, and chimneys. These may extend three feet into the <br />required front, side, and rear setbacks but in no case shall the setback to these encroachments be <br />less than six feet. This would allow for an 8 foot 6 inch to an 11 foot 8 inch deck addition across <br />the back without needing a variance. A room addition or porch does not qualify for the three- <br />foot exception. <br /> <br />With regard to circumstances unique to the property, staff found the property borders property <br />owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for protection of Round Lake. There is over 200 <br />feet between the deck and porch area and the ordinary high water mark. The structure can be <br />reduced or relocated to either side of the home without needing a variance, however, the <br />proposed room addition would not be allowed and the deck would be very small. The current <br />homeowner was not the original homeowner of this property. There are no remarks on the <br />original building permit indicating that the builder was told that a deck would not be allowed <br />from the three patio doors. Other properties in the immediate area have decks in the rear of the <br />home, however, variances were not needed. It does not appear that the neighbors would be <br />impacted by this addition due to the large lot size and no neighbor to the rear of the property. <br /> <br />Ms. Randall advised that Staff recommends approval of Planning Case #00-15, rear yard <br />variance for an addition of deck, based on the "Findings - Rear Yard Setback Variance" section <br />of the staff report dated March I, 2000, and with the following condition: <br /> <br />1. If the structure is damaged in excess of the building code threshold for damage, the variance e <br />would no longer be valid. <br /> <br />If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this Planning Case, then it would be <br />heard at the Monday, March 13, 2000, regular meeting of the City Council. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sand asked if the neighboring home to the north with a deck does not present the <br />same setback issue as this request Mr. Randall advised that it does not since that lot is a little <br />longer so the setbacks are met. She stated the only way the builder could have done better would <br />have been to locate the house ten feet closer to the eastern lot line since the depth on that side of <br />the lot is a little longer. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nelson asked if any other home in this neighborhood does not meet the 30 foot <br />rear setback requirement. Ms. Randall pointed out one house that may not meet the setback but <br />explained she is not familiar with that house or when it was constructed. She stated the City files <br />contain no variances for any homes along this street in this area. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nelson asked about the allowance of a three foot cantilevered section and if the <br />three-season porch could be switched to the other side. Ms. Randall stated the applicant prefers <br />the proposed location based on the living areas that would access it. <br /> <br />Rob Aleksander, Panelcraft, explained there is a bump-out bay from the kitchen which is about <br />24 inches higher than the patio door. Also, from the dining area, the applicant prefers a view <br />over the deck rather than into the three-season porch. He explained that the kitchen is a U- <br />shaped arrangement with cabinets on that wall so it would be difficult to remove the kitchen <br />cabinets and insert a patio door. Mr. Aleksander stated the north side would only provide a view <br /> <br />e <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.