Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 22,1999 <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />Mr. Wahlberg explained that he currently has three vehicles, one is driven only in the summer <br />time. In order to get one vehicle out of the garage, he must first remove the other vehicle. He <br />considers the garage to be one and one-half car rather than two car. <br /> <br />Mr. Wahlberg noted that the carport had been an original part of the property. This carport had <br />been considered an asset as it had been used by two other families prior to him over the last 15 to <br />20 years. He removed this asset because he had assumed he would be able to replace it with a <br />more substantial structure. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski asked how much of a variance is being requested. Ms. Randall <br />explained that the variance would be for 20 feet. Because the home is on a comer property, both <br />corners require a 40-foot setback from the property line. She noted that the applicant did jog the <br />proposal back slightly in order to stay in line with the property line. <br /> <br />COlillcilmember Aplikowski asked if the proposal is to replace the existing garage or to add onto <br />it. Ms. Randall explained the existing garage would stay in place. The new addition would be <br />locatcd in the area of the old carport. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst asked if historical information was available as to why the home was built in its <br />current location. He wondered if it had been a function of re-platting. Ms. Randall stated that it <br />had been a function of re-platting. She indicated that at one point the setback requirements in <br />some areas had heen 20 feet and this had heen changed to 40 feet. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski asked if there would be an opening between the existing garage and <br />the new addition. Mr. Wahlberg stated that there would be a walk through exit door to the new <br />addition. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski confirmed that the purpose for the addition would be for parking a <br />car in the front portion and storage in the rear. Mr. Wahlherg stated this was correct. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski stated that she would prefer the proposed addition be built, rather <br />than a metal storage unit be placed in the backyard. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem confirmed that approximately two-thirds of the existing home is hehind the <br />current setback. Ms. Randall stated that this was correct and noted it is not an unusual situation <br />for older homes. <br /> <br />Councilmemher Rem noted that the proposed addition would not extend further into the sethack <br />area. She indicated that she had driven past the home and she believes that the addition would <br />not extend out any further than the home currently does. She concurred with Councilmember <br />Aplikowski's concern that the Staffs suggestion of a metal storage shed is not a value adding <br />option. <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone stated that he can understand the argument that the addition would not <br />encroach into the setback any further than the home. The problem is that the applicant must <br />