CC 11-09-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting, November 9, 1987 . Page 2 CASE #87-31 (Cont'd) Moved by Sather, seconded by Winiecki, that Council approve Case #87-31, Setback Variances for Accessory Structure, Roseville Bank, 4061 North Lexington Avenue, as shown in the proposed plan attached to the Planner's report, for a 5 ft. setback variance from County Road F., a 15 ft.,~back variance from Lexington Avenue and a . variance to permit accessory structure in front yard; justification for the variances based on safety of patrons, location is necessary to provide adequate visibility and vehicular circulation and placement of the structure in the front yard does not negatively impact adjacent properties. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) CASE #87-32; VAR. Council was referred to Planner's report of 10-14-87; REARYARD SETBACK relative to request for rearyard setback variance to 1891 LAKE LANE. accommodate room addition. Miller explained the subject lot is only 75 feet deep; typical of lots on the north side of Lake Lane. Because of this limited depth, enforcement of both front and rear setbacks would make the lots unbuildable, which is why the , existing rear setback is only 15 ft. He noted that at least 3 homes along the north side of Lake Lane have rear setbacks of 6 to 8 feet; most recent variance granted in the area was a 24 ft. setback variance for a similar roam addition. The Planner referred Council to the minutes of the Board of Appeals meeting, 10-15-87, recommending a variance for a setback of 6 ft. from the rear property line (24-ft. setback variance), rather than the 5 ft. as requested. He stated the 6 ft. setback would maintain the rear setback as established by the last variance requested and the applicant did not oppose the change. After brief discussion, Council concurred that the lots are unusual and a . precedent had been set. Winiecki moved, seconded by Sather, that Council approve Case #87-32, Rearyard Setback Variance of 24 feet at 1891 Lake Lane, Delores Kieffer; justification for approval based upon unusual lot configuration, similar encroachments of adjacent houses, and the deep rear setback of houses to the north make the rear area more feasible for the proposed expansion. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) CASE #87-20; LOT Council was referred to Planner's memorandum dated SPLIT; J. MILTON 10-19-87, explaining the necesSity for Council review NEW BRIGHTON RD. of this previously approved lot split. Miller noted that the lot split and consolidation, approved in July of 1987, was based upon the verbal description and a drawing provided by the applicants; Milton's verified the Planner's representation of the requested subdivision. He explained that it was his interpretation of their drawing that the Miltons intended to transfer a portion of their property to their neighbor to the north~ Howeverj a certified survey, submitted in October for administrative verification indicated that all the Miltons intended to do was split their - property into two parcels, Parcel A being vacant land west of the base of the slope and Parcel B being a residential lot running from the base of the slope east to New Brighton Road. Since this does not conform to Council's action in July, it has been returned to Council for reconsideration. The Planner recommended approval of the proposed split; it is considered desirable in that it divides the developed residential lot from the undeveloped land at a logical point topographically, the base of the slope. James and Carol Milton were present and agreed that this is what they had originally proposed. Hansen moved, seconded by Winiecki, that Council approve the revised Lot Split at 3731 New Brighton Road, as outlined by the Planner in his report of 10-29-87 and as shown on the Certified Survey submitted by James and Carol Milton, drawn by E.G. Rud, and dated 9-24-87. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) I