Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> , <br /> Minutes of the :Arden Hills RegUlar Planning carmission Meeting, 6-03-92 <br /> . Page 11 <br /> ClISE #92-10 (CXlNT'Dl: <br /> 4. 'lhe neighboring garage and the proposed garage will be separated by 13.5 <br /> feet between them. This is the best relationship if reduced side yards <br /> are necessary as both properties will have similar irIpacts on each other. <br /> No site views will be affected. <br /> 5. The neighbor has experienced minor erosion ta.-mrd the rear of her garage <br /> along the property line. The problem would be lessened by reversing the <br /> flow in the gutter and downspout on the Donald' Shore property. It now <br /> drains on the front co:rner of the garage. <br /> 6. 'lhe roof line on the Shore home does not lerrl itself to a sbnple extension <br /> of the :main gable. The concern is that if the variance is allowed, the <br /> additional should be compatible with the architecture of the existing <br /> home. <br /> Bergly concluded by stating the ordinance allows variances where ".. . site <br /> facto~ prohibit reasonable develqnne.nt equivalent to that which would be <br /> pennitted without variance on a similar size lot located in the same district, <br /> wt which lot has not unusual COnfiguration. II In the case presented, the unusual <br /> factor is not the size of the lot related to other nearby lots, wt is the <br /> placement of the existing house on the lot. "El::{uivalent" use relates to the fact <br /> that only this and one other lot on this cul-de-sac have only single car garages <br /> . with no metho:i of =eating one without a variance or by razing the existing house <br /> and constructing a new one that meets today's regulations. <br /> The Planner reconunended his approval of the variance with the following <br /> stipulations: <br /> 1. The applicant satisfactorily addresses the drainage issue discussed in <br /> Finding #4 above, and <br /> 2. The applicant bring the wilding plans and elevations back to the Planning <br /> Commission for review and approval. <br /> -Mr. Bergly also recorrnnended attaching a stipulation that the new property a.mer <br /> be re::tillred to subnit wilding plans f= Commission review and approval. <br /> 'lhere was discussion of concerns relating to granting a variance to the ~l;~) <br /> of the property with no blilding plans subnitted. .- <br /> Erickson moved, seconded by Carlson, that Commission reconunend to <br /> Council approval of Case #92-10, Side yard variance of 3 feet f= an attached <br /> garage, with the conditions that the blilding plans for the addition to the <br /> garage be reviewed and approved by Planning Commission. Motion =ied <br /> unani1nously. (5-0) <br /> Cl\SE #92-09: SITE PIAN REVTI.W. 4155 ~ AVE. N.. FOSTER: <br /> Chair Probst explained the Commission has been in the process of reviewing and <br /> . revising the Zoning Code Ordinance and suggested the Commission table action on <br /> this item until such t:iJne as the review is completed. <br />