CC 11-09-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Arden Hills Council 9 November 9, 1992 Councilmember Mahowald stated that while he understands Councilmember Hicks' concerns, he does not think the Council is in a position to dictate the type of building or materials as long as construction conforms to requirements. Councilmember Malone advised the applicant that if the proposed building were allowed, it would be nonconforming in size, and if it should be destroyed sometime in the future by fire or weather, etc., and the owner wishes to rebuild, the rebuilding would be subject to then current ordinances. The applicant indicated he understood. MOTION: Mahowald moved, seconded by Hicks, to waive the development moratorium ordinance relative to Case #92- 19, based upon the findings and recommendations of the City Planner, with the understanding that the proposed accessory building will be nonconforming under the proposed revised ordinance, therefore, if the building would ever need to be replaced, its replacement must comply with then current ordinances. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). . CASE NO. 92-20 SIDE YARD VARIANCE 1727 CHATHAM AVENUE BICK & SHERILYN HANSON Planner Bergly explained that the applicants, Rick and Sherilyn Hanson, are requesting a variance to the required lO-foot side yard setback in the R-1 district, to allow them to build a 4 ft. wide addition onto the west side of their home which would encroach 4 ft. into the side yard setback. Bergly further explained that the shape of the applicants' lot is irregular, the lot is tapered and the house is not parallel with the side lot lines, so the home was designed with a jog in the west wall to avoid encroachment on the side yard setback. Bergly pointed out that the house to the west has an identical design along its east wall (which faces the applicant's home). He recommended denial of the variance on the basis that no hardship has been demonstrated, the applicant may put the property to reasonable use without the variance, and if the encroachment were allowed it may negatively affect the living space of both the applicant's home and their neighbor to the west. ~ Councilmember Hicks emphasized that while this requested encroachment does not appear significant, it is important to remember that the lots in this development are quite small and homes are built to the limits of setback requirements.