Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MAY 27, 20148 <br /> <br />7. That the exterior façade of the addition and the existing garage area shall be the same color <br />and use the same construction materials as the existing structure. The final façade shall be <br />approved by the City Planner. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden <br /> questioned if staff received any complaints from homeowners that lived <br />by trails. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Hutmacher <br /> stated that she was not aware of any complaints. <br /> <br />Parks and Recreation Manager Olson <br /> commented that she has only received a couple of <br />complaints. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden <br /> did not support the applicant imposing on the setback for the proposed <br />garage expansion. She suggested that the homeowner pursue a two-car garage expansion. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes <br /> questioned if the requested variance was in harmony with the purposes <br />and intent of the ordinance. She believed space was needed for the trail and for this reason, she <br />cannot support having the homeowner encroaching onto the setback. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant <br /> believed that the property could be put to use in a reasonable manner. It is his <br />opinion that a three-car garage is not necessary when the applicant already has a two-car garage. <br />He does not believe that the Council had to approve the maximum request because the applicant <br />wants to expand their property. <br /> <br />Councilmember Werner <br /> stated that tuck-under garages were built in <br />believes this to be a safety issue given the fact that bedrooms are located directly above the <br />garage. He explained that he would support the variance request as it eliminates the tuck-under <br />garage. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden <br /> agreed that tuck-under garages are a concern, however, she cannot <br />overlook the encroachment on the trail. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung <br /> stated that he is concerned with the encroachment and suggested that <br />the applicants pursue a two-car garage to reduce the impact on the adjacent trail easement. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden <br />questioned how the applicant would like the Council to proceed with <br />this matter. <br /> <br />City Planner Streff <br /> indicated that the applicant would be in favor of resubmitting their request at <br />a future meeting. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung <br /> questioned if the applicant had other plans that would not encroach so <br />far into the required setback. <br /> <br />Kyle Irestone <br />, 1850 Venus Avenue, discussed his options, reiterating that his lot was considered <br />a corner lot. He explained that if his lot was reviewed as a typical lot, the request would be within <br />the setback standards for an R-1 lot. He discussed his reasoning for wanting to eliminate the tuck- <br />