Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 <br /> <br />DRJ~fr <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />L <br /> <br />The northern accessory structure setback be the required 10 feet rather than the requested <br />six feet by moving the garage to the south, or by verifYing that the current setback is 10 <br />feet. <br />The dimensions of the new garage be the same or smaller than the existing garage being <br />replaced. <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />Ms. Randall noted that a letter from the applicant was handed out at the October 6, 1999, <br />Planning Commission meeting. This should have been included in the October 6, 1999, <br />Planning Commission packet. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst asked if the applicant intended to build the new garage on the current slab or if the <br />slab will be replaced. Mr. Nathan Fjeld stated that the garage currently has a dirt floor with a <br />gravel driveway. The intent had been to replace the garage in the same place. If the garage is <br />moved four feet to the south, he would loose four feet of yard space. Adding four feet to the <br />back of the garage would be wasted space. He added that, on the north side of a driveway there <br />is a small retaining wall that would have to be removed if the garage is moved. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson confirmed that the applicant believed the rear yard setback is currently <br />lO feet. Mr. Fjeld stated that he had rented a metal post detector and attempted to find the <br />property markers. He believed that he had found the marker but was not positive. Ms. Randall <br />stated that it was possible that the applicant was accurate. She indicated that the information she <br />had used was aerial photographs and there have been some aerial photographs that have not <br />coincided with surveys. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski stated that the applicant was most likely accurate since the adjacent <br />park had been built long after the home. She felt that the boundary lines would have been <br />verified at that time. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated that he was inclined to approve the new garage to be placed in the same <br />location as the current garage. He stated that he was more concerned about the possible damage <br />to the tree than he was about the setback. He felt that this was not an area that would be <br />negatively affected by the replacement of the garage in its current place. In fact it would be a <br />significant improvement to the property. He added that the facts for finding to not relate directly <br />to the property line issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Fjeld stated that the new garage will have a lower profile, as the existing garage has an eight <br />foot ceiling in the upper floor. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson concurred with Mayor Probst. He asked why the Planning Commission <br />had felt it important that the 10 foot setback be maintained when there is no adjacent residence. <br />Ms. Randall stated that there had not been a great deal of discussion at the Planning Commission <br />meeting regarding this issue. <br />Councilmember Rem agreed that this had not been a major issue at the Planning Commission <br />meeting. Since the property line is shared by Hazelnut Park and there most likely will not be any <br />sort of structure built near the property line, she did not feel that the four foot difference in <br />setback would be significant. She added that, since the house had been built long before <br />