07-9-14-PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 4, 2014 5 Mr. Meyers explained that after discussions with staff, it was determined that the rear yard (Fairview Avenue) setback for an accessory structure was 30 feet. He commented this setback would make a new garage impractical. He stated with a 10 foot setback a garage would be more feasible, but would require 250 cubic feet of fill and would be located on a drainage field. Commissioner Thompson inquired if the drainage field had been reviewed by staff. City Planner Streff stated the Assistant City Engineer had reviewed the request and determined the drainage would not be affected with the current proposal. However, staff did not provide comment on how a different placement of the garage would impact the property. Chair Larson questioned if the variance were to be approved, if the new garage would become a conforming use. City Planner Streff indicated the garage would be nonconforming in terms of setbacks, but would be permitted due to the variance. Chair Larson stated he was not typically in favor of expanding nonconforming uses; however, he believed turning the garage made sense. Commissioner Thompson commented she was torn by this request. She stated setbacks were established for a reason. She then discussed the unique aspects of this lot noting it had two front yard setbacks and had topography issues to deal with. She explained that by turning the garage, the structure would look better on the lot. Commissioner Zimmerman concurred with Chair Larson regarding the expansion of nonconforming uses. He struggled with approving the expansion, but was supportive of the proposed reorientation of the garage. Commissioner Bartel stated the existing garage was an eyesore, but he did not believe the increased garage size was necessary. Commissioner Thompson understood that two car garages were normal, but she did not believe that a three car garage was a requirement. Commissioner Holewa understood why the homeowners wanted to replace the garage; however, he did not support all three variances. He questioned if the Commission should table action to allow the applicant to reconsider his request, or make a motion for denial. Chair Larson stated the expansion of a nonconforming use was a concern for the Commission. He suggested the owner provide comment on why the garage needed to be expanded. Mr. Meyers believed that the proposed garage would allow him reasonable use of his property. He stated the garage would cost him $50,000 to reconstruct and he wanted the garage to become reasonably useful. He commented that Condition 2 should be revised to reflect that the setbacks would be changed. He reported that he was not interested in building a garage if he had to follow these conditions, as one stall of the garage would be unusable.