04-09-07 Item 7B, AUAR Relating to TCAAP

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 10, 2006 6 CounciImember Holden asked why this driveway was not acceptable, while other driveways in the neighborhood were. Mr. Lehnhoff responded the other driveways in the neighborhood existed prior to 2000 and were considered grandfathered in. CounciImember Larson stated he could not support either variance. He did not believe they had a good justification for grunting this variance and he believed they would be setting a precedent for other residents. He believed if this went through, it would be a mistake on the part of the City and he believed the Planning Commission had made the right decision. He stated it was unfortunate the Building Inspector had stamped this approved, but the Building Inspector could not approve variances, which only the City Council could grant variances. He believed the access point to the west was more than adequate to get in and out of the driveway and they could put in a turnaround if necessary. He stated the curb was in now and there was one curb cut, which would add to additional cost if they allowed a dual access driveway. He believed staff and the Planning Commission had made the correct recommendation and he would support it. CounciImember Grant stated he also had looked at this property and the one thing that was easily noticeable was the 24- foot road and if they looked at their standards, the road should be 32 feet, so with this odd a'tgle as a single driveway, the applicants would have to back out at an odd angle on a narrow street. In conjunction with that, it would be difficult to park a car in the driveway and still get out in the current configuration if it were a single driveway. Mayor Aplikowski agreed and noted they would need to take up a large portion of their grass for a turnaround. She agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation, but believed this would not be precedent setting because this was an odd situation and she believed the driveway should remain as it was. Councilmember Holden stated she believed in keeping the mature trees in the City and they should bend over backwards to keep the trees and look at the loss of trees as a hardship. She stated for four years the applicants have been planning their life around this driveway, house, and yard and now because the City had not closed out the permit, the City was demanding this be changed. She stated it was no fault of the applicant that this had occurred. She stated she was in agreement with Mayor Aplikowski and Councilmember Grant. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve the variance for a dual driveway based on the following facts: The angle of the house, the narrowness of the exit; the building of the street which was less than City standards making the angle difficult to back out of. Councilmember Larson asked what the requirements were for approval of the variance. Mr. Filla replied Council needed to determine the following: If this was a reasonable use of the property; will this change the character of the neighborhood if granted; was this a self-created hardship and the facts should be tied into these three criteria.