Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION –June 4, 20146 <br />Commissioner Thompson <br />understood that two car garages were normal, but she did not believe <br />that a three car garage was a requirement. <br />Commissioner Holewa <br />understood why the homeowners wanted to replace the garage; however, <br />he did not support allthree variances. He questioned if the Commission should table action to <br />allow the applicant to reconsider his request, or make a motion for denial. <br />Chair Larson <br />stated the expansion of a nonconforming use was a concern for the Commission. <br />He suggested the owner provide comment on why the garage needed to be expanded. <br />Mr. Meyers <br />believed that the proposed garage would allow him reasonable use of his property. <br />He stated the garagewould cost him $50,000 to reconstruct and he wanted the garage to become <br />reasonably useful. He commented that Condition 2 should be revised to reflect that the setbacks <br />would be changed. He reported that he was not interested in building a garage if he had to follow <br />these conditions, as one stall of the garage would be unusable. <br />Mr. Meyers <br />questioned whether the Commission would be supportive of a plan to rebuild the <br />garage so as not to encroach further into the rear and side setbacks, but rather expand the garage <br />towards the house. <br />Chair Larson <br />believed the consensus of the Commission was to not expand a nonconforming <br />use. He asked if Mr. Meyers was willing to reconsider his request. <br />Mr. Meyers <br />was willing to reconsider his garage expansion. <br />Chair Larson <br />questioned how the Commission would like to proceed with this variance request. <br />Commissioner Zimmerman <br />stated the easiest solution would be to rebuild the existing garage <br />on the current footprint. <br />Commissioner Bartel <br />feared that tabling action on this may not allow for this matter to be <br />resolved as the applicants were hoping for a garage larger than 22’ x 22’. <br />Chair Larson <br />stated tabling the matter would allowMr. Meyers to continue with the request <br />without making Mr. Meyers reapply for a variance. <br />Commissioner Holewa <br />was in favor of the applicant rebuilding on the existing footprint. He <br />indicated he could go either way on this request but noted he would support the matter being <br />tabled. <br />Commissioner Bartel <br />recommended the request be tabled. <br />Commissioner Jones <br />stated this was a unique lot and discussed the number of homes that have <br />beenrebuilt along this street. <br />City Planner Streff <br />discussed the setbacks as determined by the City for through-lots. Staff <br />believed that a 40 foot setback was appropriate for the lakeside and front of the home.It was <br />determined that a 30 foot setback was appropriate for the rear yard along Fairview Avenue. <br />