CCP 03-13-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e DRAFT ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 1,2000 11 of the neighbor and garage, not the scenic area. Also, there is a fireplace on the north side. He noted that with the proposed design, it cannot be viewed from the street and would not restrict the view of the scenic area from the porch. Also, it would not impact the view from either neighbor. Chair Erickson asked if the rear wall of the home, to the right of tbe kitchen bay window, contains a small casement window. Toni Halverson, the home owner, stated that window looks over the kitchen sink and the other window is the dining area. Mr. Aleksander corrected his mistaken statement and explained that it is not all kitchen cabinets and the southerly end of the house has a dining room. Commissioner Sand asked how this application is distinguishable from previous considerations. Chair Erickson stated the only difference is there are no neighbors to the rear of the house but that was not discussed as a condition for denial on the previous application. He noted that to a certain extent, in this case, the hardship was created by the builder who located the house and left options open that were not realistic for the home owner. Ms. Halverson stated because the area behind the house is owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, they cannot do anything with the trees and the location to the north of the house has a large tree. Commissioner Rye stated this would meet the setback requirements if not for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service easement, which creates an additional hardship and is unique to this property. Chair Erickson asked if the 75 foot setback is from a recreational lake. Ms. Randall stated this is classified as a recreational lake with no access since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service owns the entire perimeter. Chair Erickson stated the Planning Commission needs to find a difference between this application and the first one considered tonight. Mr. Aleksander noted that with the first case, the applicant already had a two car garage and a third stall was being requested. He noted that in this neighborhood, all ofthe homes have a porch except this house. Chair Erickson stated that with the garage consideration, the City has a policy that a two car garage is a reasonable expectation but that is not the case with a three-season porch. Also, there are other options for placement with this property. However, he stated he does not find it would be a detriment to the area. Chair Erickson stated he finds an extenuating circumstance related to the DNR setback from the lake versus the setback from the property line. Commissioner Sand noted the porch has no other location to go that accommodates the interior layout of the house. Chair Erickson noted the three-season porch could be constructed off the dining room as opposed to the Jiving room. Ms. Randall stated the DNR requirement is 75 feet so it does not even touch this property.