CC 10-25-1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ Arden Hills Council 3 october 25, 1993 Fritsinger explained that the Anderson property has an 85-foot frontage, is approximately 200 feet deep, and is located in an Rl zoning district which requires a minimum lO-foot sideyard setback. He noted that after the Planning Commission review and recommendation for denial, the applicants revised their proposal by reducing the size of the garage, and are now requesting a four-foot sideyard setback variance to accommodate the revised garage proposal. Fritsinger reported that consideration was given to placing the garage further to the rear of the Anderson's property, but that option was eliminated due to the topography of the property, use of the property and drainage issues. Fritsinger noted that just east of the proposed garage are two elm trees and there is concern that further encroachment on the dripline of these trees may result in damage to the trees. Fritsinger reported that staff and the Planning Commission have recommended denial of the variance on the basis that the hardship required for the granting of a variance has not been demonstrated. He added that the Planning Commission has not ... had the opportunity to review the revised proposal, however, the revised proposal does not appear to demonstrate the hardship needed for the granting of a variance. Councilmember Aplikowski commented that the proposal would improve the appearance of this residence and it does not appear to pose any adverse affect on the surrounding neighbors. She asked why those factors were not more heavily weighed. Fritsinger replied that the Planning Commission and staff are concerned that, since there are many other properties in the City with similar frontage widths, granting a variance may set a regrettable precedent. Mayor Sather pointed out that the Planning Commission had not had an opportunity to review the revised plan; he preferred not to make a hasty decision without the Planning Commission's invol vement, insight and input and recommended that the revised proposal be referred back to the Planning Commission for their review prior to Council action. Council member Aplikowski questioned what new information could be made available to the Council by further Planning Commission review. She said it appears the appl icants have prepared their case and have reduced the size of the original . proposal to the extent possible, therefore, she thought the Council should address the request. ---------------