CC 06-27-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I. I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I I I. I ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 27, 1994 6 Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). ANDERSON VARIANCE REOUEST - PLANNING CASE NO. 94-15 Fritsinger stated that the applicant submitted a 6- foot sideyard variance plan for a garage at their home on Floral Drive last fall. The Planning Commission denied the application due to lack of hardship. The applicant !tas revised the plan to a 3-foot sideyard variance. The applicants state that reasonable use of the PUJ!",rty by today's standards is not possible because of the house location and being limited to a single car garage. The applicant bas completed a recent survey which indicates that the home location is not where the building permit indicates. One building permit shows a 13-foot setback on the west. A different pennit shows different dimensions. The survey found that both of the pennits are incorrect. There is, in fact, a 17-foot setback on the west side and 6 feet on the east side. The applicant and adjacent neighbor have observed the wrong property line for many years. After considerable time, the applicant, working through an attorney, was able to propose an alternative solution in the fonn of a Boundary Line Agreement to act as a lot split but without any change in ownership. City Attorney Filla has reviewed the proposal and has indicated that the Boundary Line Agreement is a reasonable solution to the problem. The placement of the house can be recognized as a hardship. Fritsinger stated that the survey also indicated a discrepancy on the correct right-of- way in the front yard. Both the City's map and the applicant's detailed abstract show the right-of-way to be 30 feet. The County shows it to be 33 feet. No one bas an explanation for the additional three feet. The Planning Commission decided that because the right-of-way is unclear, the applicant only needs to address the sideyard variance. The Planning Commission gave unanimous approval to the three-foot sideyard variance on the basis that the improper house location stated on the building permit constitutes a hardship. Hicks asked if the Boundary Line Agreement is now in place with the neighbor and how it will affect future, potential development. Mr. Anderson, owner of the property, stated that the Agreement was fi1ed with Ramsey County last Friday, June 24, 1994. The agreement specifies that the Andersons and Johnsons and their successors shall adhere to the Agreement forever more. The conditions of the Agreement shall go with the sale of the property. Malone commended the Andersons for working out this solution. MOTION: Hicks moved, seconded by Aplikowski to approve Planning Case No. 94-15, to grant a three-foot sideyard variance on the basis that the home is inappropriately placed relative to the original building permit, and the fact that