My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-28-14-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
07-28-14-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2014 11:43:40 AM
Creation date
7/25/2014 11:42:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
282
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.