My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-09-20 PC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Minutes
>
PC Minutes 2020
>
09-09-20 PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/10/2020 3:16:00 PM
Creation date
12/10/2020 3:15:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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 – September 9, 2020 4 <br /> <br />Commissioner Jones inquired if the proposed garage was a mirror image to the neighbor’s <br />garage. <br /> <br />Mr. Sandahl commented he was asking for a garage that would mirror his neighbor’s garage. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jones asked if there would be a problem with water runoff from the garage. <br /> <br />Mr. Sandahl discussed how the water ran off from his property to the rear into a creek. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jones inquired if the permeable/non-permeable surface requirements were being <br />met for this lot. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Hartmann reported these requirements were being met for this zoning <br />district given the fact this was a large R-1 lot. <br /> <br />Commissioner Vijums questioned how many cars could be parked on the driveway. <br /> <br />Mr. Sandahl stated he could currently park four cars in the driveway. He noted he used to be <br />able to park six cars in his driveway. <br /> <br />Further discussion ensued regarding the visibility of the garage on the property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Vijums commented what the applicant lost in sidewalk space doesn’t equal what <br />the applicant was asking for. He indicated the Commission would have to consider if the garage <br />size was excessive even though it mimics the neighbor’s garage. <br /> <br />Commissioner Weber stated there was a bit of conflicting information in the packet. He noted <br />applicant had hoped to widen the driveway, which wasn’t going to happen anymore. He asked if <br />the applicant planned to install a rear garage door. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Hartmann commented according to the applicant’s plans there would be no <br />rear garage door. <br /> <br />Commissioner Weber questioned if the applicant would be allowed to complete mechanical <br />work from the garage. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Hartmann stated this would not be allowed. <br /> <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained this was a prohibited <br />home occupation. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wicklund asked what the dimensions were for the current garage. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Hartmann reported the garage was 22 feet by 24 feet in size. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wicklund inquired if the existing garage would be demolished. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.