Laserfiche WebLink
ALTERNATIVES <br />• 1. If the Thimsen's added a four season porch to their home, <br />they would not require a variance because it would not <br />affect the area covered by accessory structures. However, <br />the Thimsen's wish to have a detached room rather than an <br />attached room for a study,living area. The area will not be <br />used as a bedroom or apartment. <br />If an addition was made to the home it would require <br />removing and rebuilding the deck as well as the new four <br />season porch. <br />2. The Thimsen's could reduce the size of the four season porch <br />by 274 square feet to 226 sq. ft. rather than 486 sq. feet <br />to meet the lot coverage requirement of 1,000 square feet. <br />This has been discussed with the Thimsen's and they wish to <br />have the larger space to accommodate their family and <br />storage activities. <br />DISCUSSION <br />The Thimsen's have one of the largest lots in Falcon Heights, <br />with a 106.5 ft. by 450 ft. or 47,925 square feet compared to a <br />typical 6,150 square ft. lot in the Northome neighborhood (Figure <br />2). Therefore, the amount of rear yard or open area filled up by <br />• the additional area of the proposed four season porch will not <br />significantly impact the residential character of the rear yard. <br />The proposed four season porch is in keeping with the residential <br />character of the neighborhood. If the proposal was for an <br />addition for an 1,100 square foot garage, it might be out of <br />character for the single family lots. And, if the additional <br />living space was for an apartment rather than a family living and <br />storage area it would not be permissible in a single family zone. <br />Mrs. Thimsen and staff discussed the possibility of setting the <br />four season porch addition further back from the north sideyard <br />property line than the existing garage in order to break up the <br />line of the building for the neighboring property owners. Mrs. <br />Thimsen said they were amenable to this. <br />STAFF RECOMMENDATION: <br />Staff recommends that this variance in lot coverage of accessory <br />structures may be granted for the following reasons. Number 1 <br />and particularly number 3 are the strongest arguments for <br />granting the variance. <br />1. The residential character of the addition is in keeping <br />with the residential character of the R-1 zone and <br />neighborhood. <br />• <br />