CC 03-27-2000 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 27, 2000 3 Ms. Randall stated that at the Council's last meeting, a motion to approve this request had failed. She noted the applicant was not able to attend the meeting, but did not have any additional comments and wishes to pursue his original proposal. She added that City staff rccommends that the Council move to either approve the request or table the issue for review up to May 26. Councilmember Larson asked whether the applicant had indicated that if the rear yard variance was granted, he would limit the setback to 8 feet. Ms. Randall confirmed the applicant does not intend to extend the setback any closer than 8 feet. Councilmember Rem asked whether the applicant had indicated whether he might pursue alternatives if the request was denied. Ms. Randall stated the applicant prefers his original proposal which he believes to be the best solution. She added the applicant does not intend to provide any further information. Councilmember Grant stated that he had attended the Planning Commission meeting at which this request was originally presented. He added the Commission had been divided, but decided to deny the request due to the option of an additional kickout on one side. He noted the Planning Commission had not heard the views of the applicant's neighbor who did not support the kick- out option. Council member Aplikowski stated the applicant's original proposal is the best solution for the neighborhood and expressed her support of the variance. Acting Mayor Larson stated he had originally voted against the variance, adding he is prepared to change his vote. He added that if the variance request is not granted, the applicant will be forced to extend to the 5-foot maximum on the sideyard, thus moving it closer to the adjacent house. He expressed his support of the motion, with the condition that the structure not be built any closer to the lot line than 8 feet. Mr. Lynch cautioned that such a condition might present legal questions. He noted he is unsure that ifthe applicant is allowed to build up to 5 feet by ordinance, the Council's order can Icgally supersede. Mr. Lynch noted that if the condition was included, that would capture the intent, but part of the area in question would not be covered under the approval. Ms. Randall agreed, stating the applicant would not be able to extend into the rear yard, and future modifications or additions would be affected. MOTION: COU11cilmember Aplikowski moved, seconded by COU11cilmember Grant to approve Planning Case #00-12, Rear Yard Variance (20 feet proposed when 30 feet is required) for a garage addition based on the "Findings - Rear Yard Setback Variance" as contained in the Staff report dated March 1,2000. Motion carried unanimously (4-0).