Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> ---------- <br /> I <br /> 'f" .,...,., <br /> i 4',)'"'''''' I <br /> t."jI ii~ Bt..~ i'" .' . <br /> PlanninQ Commission Minutes Pasze4 .:.c~ 08/02/95 <br /> Chair Erickson indicated this item will be reviewed by the Arden Hills City Council at their August I <br /> 14, 1995 meeting. I <br /> CASE #95-19. DOUGLAS SWANSON 3232 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD VARIANCE-SIDE <br /> YARD SETBACK I <br /> Community Development Director Ringwald presented the staff report at this time. Mr. Ringwald <br /> indicated the petitioner is requesting approval of a variance from the required side yard setback for I <br /> an accessoty structure. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct a detached garage two feet <br /> eight inches from the side property line when ten feet is required. <br /> Mr. Ringwald indicated staff has discussed the variance request with the petitioner. Staff informed I <br /> the petitioner of the staff recommendation for denial and the conclusions supporting that <br /> recommendation. Staff-suggested to the petitioner that they take advantage of the legal non- I <br /> conforming status of the existing garage, rather than apply for a variance. The petitioner informed <br /> staff that they preferred to apply for a variance. <br /> Mr. Ringwald reviewed the conditions for a variance. I <br /> Mr. Ringwald reported the lot configuration is rectangular in shape, it is 100 feet in width and 213 . I <br /> feet in depth. Therefore, staff concludes that the lot does not have an unusual configuration, and may <br /> also have four feet more than they realize. I <br /> Mr. Ringwald indicated staff concludes that the lot does not contain unusual terrain which would <br /> prohibit reasonable development of the lot. I <br /> Mr. Ringwald reported the existing garage is a two car garage, is a legal non-eonfomring use, and <br /> subject to Section IX of the Zoning Ordinance. The existing garage may receive ordinary repairs, I <br /> maintenance, and interior remodeling pursuant to Section IX, subpart E. Staff would conclude that <br /> the existing two car garage provides for a reasonable accessory structure to this property. Also, staff <br /> would conclude that reasonable alternative sites for a new garage exist on the site. I <br /> Mr. Ringwald indicated staff recommends denial of the side yard setback Variance in Planning Case <br /> 95-19, based on the following: I <br /> , The lot does not possess an unusual configuration. <br /> 1. <br /> 2. The lot does not possess unusual terram which would prohibit reasonable I <br /> development. <br /> , The existing two car garage provides for a reasonable accessory structure. <br /> j. <br /> 4. The lot contains reasonable alternate sites for a new garage, and an economic I <br /> hardship does not exist. <br /> . <br /> I <br /> I <br />