CC 02-23-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 23. 1998 9 for the garage since there is no alternate location. However, this is not the case with the living space since there is an alternate location. Mr. Bruning stated the garage could be located on the other side of the house, but it would not be an atypical design. He suggested that the option being requested creates a more desirable option for the applicant and the neighbors. Councilmember Malone restated the need to find a hardship before a variance can be considered. Mr. Bruning asserted a hardship exists since this is a narrow lot. Also, this house existed before the neighboring homes which were constructed in such a way as to infringe on the applicant's property. Mayor Probst stated he understands that Councilmember Malone is correct in the need to identify a hardship to consider a variance. Mayor Probst stated there clearly is precedent set regarding a two-stall garage. However, in terms of the addition to the house, technically there is no hardship since it could be located in another area. However, in terms of the logic of how the house will be used and square footage, the applicant's request is the most logical proposal. He noted that an addition on the other corner does not result in a better proposal. Mayor Probst agreed this is not an easy decision. He stated he would support the house addition hardship based on the existing layout, encroachment of abutting garage, and limited lot size. Councilmember Malone stated the Council is not in the design business and the hard facts do not support a hardship for any more than a garage variance. He stated he could not support a variance for the living quarters. Mr. Ringwald noted that, based on this precedent, the adjoining property to the north could add living space behind their garage and, based on this rationale, staff would recommend approval. Councilmember Malone requested that any motion made clearly identify the hardship. Mayor Probst inquired regarding applicable portions of certain exhibits. Mr. Ringwald explained the Planning Commission identified exhibits in their motion to "lock in" the building elevations. He noted the new building elevations which the applicant's consultant submitted would be more appropriate to reference if only the garage variance is considered for approval. MOTION: Mayor Probst moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve Planning Case #98-02, Side Yard Setback Variance for the garage and house addition at 3465 Siems Court, Sawhorse, Inc. (Joel & Jane Kennedy), as identified in Exhibit A, page 7 of9 and page 9 of9, based on Staff recommendations for three conditions and, in addition, requiring erosion control and turf establishment based on the finding of a hardship as it relates to the garage to provide the ability to have a two-car garage on a substandard sized lot with a topography that does not allow it to be accomplished to the rear lot, and approval of the house addition variance based upon the fact of the undersized lot, lot width,