09-06-1989 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 9-6-89 Page 3 CASE #89-13 Petersen moved, seconded by Carlson, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case #89-13, Consolidation of Lots 4 and 5. Block 3, Arden Oaks Addition and vacation of the • utility and drainage easement along the existing lot line that divides lots 4 and 5, Pat and Raghu Sharma, 1462 Arden Oaks Drive. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) CASE #89-14; VAR. Planner Bergly explained the applicant proposes to ACCESSORY STRUCTURE construct a garage in the front yard of his residence LOCATION REQUIREMENT, at 3421 North Snelling Avenue. The Zoning Code does not 3421 NO. SNELLING allow accessory structures nearer to the front lot line AVENUE, JEFF FOG than the principal structure. Bergly reviewed the following considerations, as listed in his report of 9-6-89: 1. The lot has 85 ft. of frontage on Snelling Ave. and 65 ft. on Lake Johanna and is 500 ft. deep. The house is located on the high point of the lot, approximately 180 ft. from the street and 225 ft. from the lake and is over 50 ft. higher than the lake and 20 ft. higher than the street. 2. The proposed garage is to be located 80 ft. from the front lot line; the setback is twice as far as the standard 40-foot setback requirements. 3. A location for the garage to the rear of the house is not reasonable on a lakefront lot and the lot is too narrow to place the garage alongside the house. 4. Although there is a two-car garage underneath the house at the present time, the Ordinance allows one accessory structure on each lot. The owners feel the present garage is too small and it is difficult for cars to maneuver in and out; would like the storage space for boats, lawn tractor, canoes, etc. 5. The proposed garage meets all ordinance requirements other than being located • between the principal structure and the front lot line. 6. Neighboring properties will not be affected due to their location and elevation. No evidence has been provided stating the neighbors agreement to the proposed variance. 7. The requirement for location of accessory building is primarily for visual reasons--not allowing obstructions in the front yard and destroying the continuity of front yard open space. In this case, the front yards in the area are so heavily wooded the houses cannot be seen from the street. The Planner explained the provision for variances mentions specifically that variances may be granted due to such land factors as ". . . length of a side of a lot, the shape of the lot, or the unusual terrain prohibit reasonable development equivalent to that permitted without a variance on a similar lot. .but which has no unusual configuration." He noted in this case all three factors, the size, shape, and terrain of the lot, apply. Bergly added that lakefront lots probably were not considered when the provision governing accessory structure location was drafted; garages simply do not belong between the house and lake. Planner Bergly referred Commission to the Board of Appeals minutes dated 8-29-89, unanimously recommending approval of the Variance based on the narrow lot and the fact the site could not be viewed from the roadway due to the excessive landscaping. • The Planner recommended approval of the variance based on the lot dimensions, configuration and terrain and because lake lots are not appropriately developed with garages to the rear of the house. He advised the City Attorney has recommended that Commission and Council when taking action to approve or deny variances identify factors which explain the rationale for the action. Bergly suggested the considerations listed in his report or any others identified by Commission could be included in the action for approval or denial.