Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 6, 2016 7 <br /> <br /> <br />Commissioner Zimmerman supported the garage due to the fact it was going to be put back in <br />the same place. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bartel questioned if the existing garage would be demolished and removed. <br /> <br />City Planner Streff reported this was the case. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bartel inquired if the garage could be moved five feet further from the property <br />line in order to meet the City’s current setback standards. <br /> <br />City Planner Streff explained there was room to move the garage over five feet. He indicated <br />this would impact the lot and would not be as fitting as the current location. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lambeth asked if the exterior color of the garage would match the house. <br /> <br />City Planner Streff stated the finish of the garage would have to match the house. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lambeth believed that the new garage would not alter the streetscape in any way <br />given the proposed location of the new garage. <br /> <br />City Planner Streff did not believe the new design would impact the curb appeal of the property <br />from the street, but rather would enhance the property. <br /> <br />Brian McCormick, 1865 County Road D West, explained his garage would be the same color as <br />the house. <br /> <br />Chair Thompson questioned if he had received any comments or concerns from his neighbors. <br /> <br />Mr. McCormick stated he got along great with his neighbors and he has not received any <br />comments or concerns regarding his plans for his garage. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bartel supported the new garage design in the proposed location. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bartel moved and Commissioner Zimmerman seconded a motion to <br />recommend approval of Planning Case 16-008 for a variance at 1865 County Road D West <br />to permit the accessory structure to encroach five (5) feet into the side yard setback along <br />the east property line, based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, and the five (5) <br />conditions in the April 6, 2016, Report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried <br />unanimously (7-0). <br /> <br />C. Planning Case 16-003; Master and Final PUD – 1160 County Road E West – Public <br />Hearing <br /> <br />Senior Planner Bachler stated that the property at 1160 County Road E was first developed as a <br />seasonal ski and golf shop in the early 1970s. A Site Plan Review was approved in 1992 for the <br />Commers Company for building and site modifications to accommodate a new bank user. These <br />plans included the removal of a portion of the west side of the building to put in five drive-up