CC 07-12-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 12, 2004 3 longer. He stated they would end up with a funny looking home and they wanted to stay with something that was more consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. He indicated all of the neighbors were in complete support of this proposal. He stated this lot was a comer lot, but it was used as an interior lot because Dunlap Street was only used as a driveway to gain access to two others properties. He indicated they had checked with MSI Insurance and they did not anticipate any development in the future. He stated it would be very difficult to ever develop any further and he did not believe Dunlap Street would ever be a through street. He indicated the Planning Commission had a concern about a three-car garage, but he noted a two-car garage would still require the same variance because the depth, not the width was the issue. He stated they were willing to cut down the garage proposal by 2 feet. He indicated the main reason they were seeking this was to improve the property to the same extent as surrounding properties and it would be reasonable to have a similar building envelope and opportunities to improve the property to the surrounding areas. He noted they had five children and it was important to them to add a family room. However, no matter what size family they had, they wanted the opportunity to improve the property consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. He indicated they had the smallest and longest, skinniest building envelope, as well as the smallest footprint. He felt it was reasonable to ask to go up to the setback of an interior lot because Dunlap Street would probably never go through. He noted with Option B they would have no backyard but instead would have a long side yard. He indicated they would need to pave across the backyard with Option B. He noted they did look at Option B, but from a design standpoint, they were having difficulties making it work. Councilmember Rem asked if they had thought about putting the garage to the north and placing the family room above the garage. Mr. Arend replied the area they needed was main floor activity, where the day-to-day activities took place. Julie Arend stated they had looked at how the traffic flow was in the house and they had looked at putting the family room above the garage, but decided this was not the best idea for their family and they wanted to place the family room where it was more functional and practical. Paul Arend, 1227 Tiller Lane, stated he has been in the remodeling business since 1964. He noted with his experience, the best place to put an addition was where applicants were proposing to put it. He indicated while this was a comer lot, it was being used as an interior lot. Mayor Aplikowski stated she was in agreement with this variance. Councilmember Holden inquired about the hardship issue as noted in staffs report, particularly with respect to family size. Mr. Hellegers replied the reason was due to the size of the building envelope and not family size. He stated family size should not be a basis as to whether to grant the variance. Councilmember Rem noted one reason Mr. Arend was interested in a three-car garage was due to his self-employment and storing his work vehicle, tools, etc. in the garage. She asked if others had requested the same type of a consideration. Mr. Hellegers replied he was not sure, but applicant's profession should not be a part of the variance decision.