CCP 06-08-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

< . Minutes of the 1\rden Hills Regular planninq ccmnission Meeting, 6-03-92 . Page 11 Cl\SE #92-10 (a:Nl"D): 4. '!he neighboring garage and the prop:JSed garage will be separated by 13.5 feet between them. '!his is the best relationship if reduced side yards are necessary as both properties will have similar :impacts on each other. No site views will be affected. 5. '!he neighbor has experienced minor erosion to.V<rrd the rear of her garage along the property line. '!he problem would be lessened by reversing the flow in the gutter and downspout on the Donald Shore property. It now drains on the front =mer of the garage. 6. '!he roof line on the Shore home does not lend itself to a siJnple extension of the main gable. '!he =ncern is that if the variance is allowed, the additional should be conpatible with the architecture of the existing home. Bergly concluded by stating the ordinance allows variances where ".. . site factor. . . prohibit reasonable development equivalent to that which would be permitted without variance on a similar size lot located in the same district, but which lot has not unusual =nfiguration. II In the case presented, the unusual factor is not the size of the lot related to other nearby lots, but is the placement of the existing house on the lot. "Equivalent" use relates to the fact that only this and one other lot on this cul-de-sac have only single car garages . with no method of =eating one without a variance or by razing the existing house and =nstructing a new one that meets today I S regulations. '!he Planner reconnnended his approval of the variance with the following stipulations: 1. '!he applicant satisfactorily addresses the drainage issue discussed in Finding #4 above, and 2. '!he applicant bring the building plans and elevations back to the Planning Commission for review and approval. -Mr. Bergly also reconnnended attaching a stipulation that the new property owner be required to sultnit building plans for Commission review and approval. '!here was discussion of concerns relating to granting a variance to the sellor of the property with no building plans sultnitted. Edckson moved, seconded by Carlson, that Commission reconnnend to Council approval of Case #92-10, Side yard variance of 3 feet for an attached garage, with the conditions that the building plans for the addition to the garage be reviewed and approved by Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Cl\SE #92-09: SITE PLAN REVIEW. 4155 ~ AVE. N.. FOSTER: Chair Probst explained the Commission has been in the prooess of reviewing and . revising the Zoning Code Ordinance and suggested the Commission table action on this item until such time as the review is completed.