Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br /> . Arden Hills Council 9 November 9, 1992 <br /> Councilmember Mahowald stated that while he understands <br /> Councilmember Hicks' concernsJ he does not think the Council <br /> is in a position to dictate the type of building or <br /> materials as long as construction conforms to requirements. <br /> Councilmember Malone advised the applicant that if the <br /> proposed building were allowed, it would be nonconforming in <br /> size, and if it should be destroyed sometime in the future <br /> by fire or weather, etc. , and the owner wishes to rebuild, <br /> the rebuilding would be subject to then current ordinances. <br /> The applicant indicated he understood. <br /> MOTION: Mahowald moved, seconded by Hicks, to waive the <br /> development moratorium ordinance relative to Case #92- <br /> 19, based upon the findings and recommendations of the <br /> City Planner, with the understanding that the proposed <br /> accessory building will be nonconforming under the <br /> proposed revised ordinance, therefore, if the building <br /> would ever need to be replaced~ its replacement must <br /> comply with then current ordinances. Motion carried <br /> unanimously (4-0). <br /> . CASE NO. 92-20 <br /> SIDE YARD VARIANCE <br /> 1727 CHATHAM AVENUE <br /> RICK & SHERILYN HANSON <br /> Planner Berg1y explained that the applicants, Rick and <br /> She r il yn Hans on, are requesting a variance to the required <br /> 10-foot side yard setback in the R-l district, to all ow them <br /> to build a 4 ft. wide addition onto the west side of their <br /> home which would encroach 4 ft. into the side yard setback. <br /> Bergly further explained that the shape of the applicants' <br /> lot is irregular, the lot is tapered and the house is not <br /> parallel with the side lot lines, so the home was designed <br /> with a jog in the west wall to avoid encroachment on the <br /> side yard setback. <br /> Bergly pointed out that the house to the west has an <br /> identical design along its east wall (which faces the <br /> applicant's home). He recommended denial of the variance orr <br /> the basis that no hardship has been demonstrated, the <br /> applicant may put the property to reasonable use without the <br /> variance, and if the encroachment were allowed it may <br /> negatively affect the living space of both the applicant's <br /> home and their neighbor to the west. <br /> . Councilmember Hicks emphasized that while this requested <br /> encroachment does not appear significant, it is important to <br /> remember that the lots in this development are quite small <br /> and homes are built to the limits of setback requirements, <br />