CC 03-14-1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ~ . . . . Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting, March 14, 1988 Page 2 CASE #88-05 (Cont'd) Council was referred to the Planning Commission minutes of 3/2/88; the Commission motion, recommending denial of the requested variance, failed due to a tie vote. Councilmember Winiecki pointed out that the previous Council approval of the plat acknowledged the fact that the lot is recognized as meeting the minimum lot area requirements, eVen though the dimensions are below minimum standards, and that a sufficient building envelope exists. Bergly reviewed the Commission discussion which suggested the applicant consider a rearyard setback, based on the shallow lot depth as an identifiable hardship, and alternatives for redesigning the home to meet the required setbacks. He also explained the pedestrian walkways, along both the north sideyard line and the rear lot line, provide open space that visually appears as part of the lot and provides for additional separation between the homes. The Planner noted that both adjacent property owners had been advised of the requested variance and had no objections. Council discussed the possibility of a rearyard setback. Kevin Bailey, 4286 Norma Avenue, explained he was not aware of the lot dimensions being below minimum standards when he purchased the lot. He explained he has modified the design of the home by angling the side walls, and that only the corners of the house would infringe on the sideyard, the length of the side walls would remain within the required setback. He stated his preference would be for a sideyard setback variances, however, he would be amenable to approval of a rearyard setback. Councilmember Winiecki suggested consideration of the rearyard setback; rationale was based on the fact that front alignment with adjacent homes is less significant on a cul-de-sac, and the rear encroachment would only affect the applicant, not the adjacent residences. Moved by Winiecki, seconded by Woodburn, that Council grant a rearyard setback variance of up to 5 feet, in order for the proposed home design shown this evening by the applicant be placed on the lot and meet the required sideyard setbacks. Motion failed. (Winiecki, Woodburn voting in favor; Hansen, Sather and Peck opposed) (2-3) Council discussed the pedestrian walkways at the rear and north of the home; it was noted that the northerly walkway would provide visual separation between the homes. They questioned if the applicant would be agreeable to a setback variance on the north sideyard only. Bailey advised that is where the garage is located and he would not object to the home being placed closer to the pedestrian way on the north side. Council noted that the home design had been angled at the sides and there would not be a large amount of encroachment if a sideyard variance were granted; also noted the applicant has reduced the size of the home to try to bring it into compliance with required setbacks. Moved by Sather, seconded by Peck, that Council approve a sideyard setback variance of up to 3 feet on the north property line of Lot 8, Block 2, MCClung's 3rd addition, based on the fact there is a 5 foot pedestrian walkway, which provides visual separation, and, therefore, the variance would not negatively impact the neighborhood. Motion carried. (Sather, Peck, Hansen and Woodburn voting in favor; Winiecki opposed) (4-1) CASE #88-01; SITE PLAN REVIEW, MN DOT TRUCK SITE, COUNTY ROAD I Council was referred to the minutes of the 3/2/88 Planning Commission meeting; relative to the site plan review for the MuDot Truck Station located on County Road I.