Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MAY 27, 2014 8 <br /> 7. That the exterior facade 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 facade shall be <br /> approved by the City Planner. <br /> Councilmember Holden questioned if staff received any complaints from homeowners that lived <br /> by trails. <br /> Community Development Director Hutmacher stated that she was not aware of any complaints. <br /> Parks and Recreation Manager Olson commented that she has only received a couple of <br /> complaints. <br /> Councilmember Holden 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 /> Councilmember Holmes 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 /> Mayor Grant 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 /> Councilmember Werner stated that tuck-under garages were built in the 60's and 70's. He <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 /> Councilmember Holden agreed that tuck-under garages are a concern, however, she cannot <br /> overlook the encroachment on the trail. <br /> Councilmember McClung 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 /> Councilmember Holden questioned how the applicant would like the Council to proceed with <br /> this matter. <br /> City Planner Streff indicated that the applicant would be in favor of resubmitting their request at <br /> a future meeting. <br /> Councilmember McClung questioned if the applicant had other plans that would not encroach so <br /> far into the required setback. <br /> Kyle Irestone, 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 />