My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 10-25-1999
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
CCP 10-25-1999
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:15:42 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 11:27:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
121
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 6, 1999 <br /> <br />DRAFT <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />Ms, Randall advised that staff recommended approval of Planning Case 99-18, comer side yard <br />setback variance for a detached garage, modifying the request to be a 19 foot comer side yard <br />setback, when a 40 foot setback is required, based on the "Findings - Comer Side Yard Setback <br />Variance (detached garage)" section ofthe staff report dated October 6, 1999, conditioned upon <br />the 10 foot accessory structure setback being met to the north. If the Planning Commission <br />makes a recommendation on this Planning Case, then it would be heard at the Monday, October <br />25, 1999, regular meeting of the City Council. <br /> <br />Ms. Deb Fjeld, 1929 Jerrold Avenue, stated that she would like to be able to maintain the same <br />size of the current garage, She indicated that her five member family lives in a small home and <br />does not have enough storage space. She agreed to moving the garage to the south in order to <br />eliminate the rear yard setback variance. She stated that she had tried to find the property stakes <br />and she thought she had. She indicated that she will make an effort to verify the property stake <br />locations. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sand asked the applicant if she plans to re-asphalt the driveway, Ms. Fjeld stated <br />that the driveway, which is currently gravel, will be poured with concrete. She noted that the <br />current garage needed to be repaired long before purchasing the home. When she purchased the <br />home, she was not aware of the extent ofthe damage. She had the garage reviewed by several <br />contractors and all agreed that it should be tom down and replaced. <br /> <br />Since the size of the garage had been reconfirmed and was different than what staff had <br />originally believed, Commissioner Sand asked how this would effect staffs recommendation for <br />the setback from Prior Avenue. Ms. Randall stated that the recommendation from staff for the <br />comer side yard setback was modified from 17 feet to 19 feet. Chair Erickson stated that, with <br />the reduction in size being recommended by staff, the comer side yard setback would be changed <br />to 15 feet, not 19 feet. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sand confirmed that, with the accurate measurement ofthe garage, the request of <br />the applicant for a 13 foot comer side yard setback was correct. Ms. Randall concurred. <br />Commissioner Sand asked if staff had measured the distance from the front of the garage to the <br />property line to confirm that it is 13 feet. Ms, Randall stated that actual measurements had not <br />been taken. She stated that measurements had been taken from aerial shots that were available <br />in-house. <br /> <br />Chair Erickson asked how close the tree to the south was to the garage. Ms. Fjeld stated that this <br />tree was approximately 10 feet from the garage, She noted that this was an older tree and she <br />was not sure how the root system would be affected by moving the garage foundation. Chair <br />Erickson noted that the garage would only have to be moved four feet in order to meet the rear <br />yard setback. <br /> <br />Chair Erickson stated that the location of the property at the end of a dead-end road does create a <br />unique circumstance. He noted that the applicant was not requesting to enlarge the garage. <br />Rather, the size of the garage would be diminished by the removal of the upper level. He stated <br />that he was inclined to support the request for variance as proposed with the exception that the <br />garage be moved to the south to meet the 10 foot rear yard setback. He felt that it would not be <br />appropriate to require the garage to be moved further to the east due to the large tree. This tree is <br />an amenity to the property as well as the neighborhood. He added that the old structure would be <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.