CCP 03-13-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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