Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 3, 1999 <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Chair Erickson asked if there had been any responses from the neighbors. Ms. Randall stated <br />that there had not been. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sand stated that the reason he would be opposed to this request was that the <br />applicant currently has a two-car garage and the reason for the request was due to the loss of <br />storage space. The requested space is not for a car; therefore, the structure could be located <br />elsewhere in the yard for storage only. There would be no need for a variance for a garage since <br />a garage is not needed. <br /> <br />Chair Erickson asked if the existing garage functions as a two-car garage. Mr. Wahlberg <br />explained that it functions more as a one and one-half car garage. In order to get one car out, the <br />second car must be moved out first. He noted that there is a fireplace extending into the garage <br />space, which reduces the width to only 16 feet. <br /> <br />Chair Erickson stated that the Planning Commission had reviewed a number of single-car garage <br />situations and the City had taken the position that this would be a hardship based on the future <br />sale of the homes. He concurred with Commissioner Sand that if the addition is for storage, it <br />could be located elsewhere on the lot. He noted however, that an 18-foot by 26-foot garage is <br />barely a two-car garage by today's standards. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nelson suggested, if all that is needed is storage, the structure could be built <br />behind the existing garage. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Chair Erickson noted, since there are other locations for the garage or storage building, this <br />defeats the definition of hardship. He stated it would be difficult to support the variance request. <br /> <br />Chair Erickson asked if the applicant had considered other locations for the addition. Mr. <br />Wahlberg explained that he had considered adding the structure to the rear of the existing garage. <br />This would not be possible due to the slope of the roof of the existing garage. It would be <br />difficult for the new roofline to conform to the existing roofline. He pointed out that there had <br />been a lean-to carport in the proposed location of the addition. This carport had functioned as a <br />parking area. Mr. Wahlberg then passed around a photograph to the Planning Commissioners <br />that showed what the old carport looked like. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nelson asked when the carport had been removed. Mr. Wahlberg stated that he <br />had removed the structure last year due to rotting of the wood. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sand asked if the carport had been considered an accessory structure. Mr. <br />Ringwald stated that it had not been, since it was attached to the garage and part of the primary <br />structure. <br /> <br />Mr. Wahlberg pointed out, if the addition were located at the rear of the existing garage, it would <br />block off windows on that side of the home. <br /> <br />Chair Erickson asked why the roof for the proposed garage had been configured the way it had <br />been. Ms. Randall explained that it had been designed to meet up with the existing roof1ine of <br />the house. <br /> <br />e <br />