My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 10-15-1996
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
CCP 10-15-1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:12:39 PM
Creation date
11/10/2006 3:11:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
140
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> I" . <br /> I CITY OF ARDEN HILLS <br /> ,. <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> I DATE: October 15, 1996 <br /> TO: Mayor and City Council <br /> I FROM: Kevin Ringwald, Community Development Director ~ <br /> I SUBJECT: Case #96-13, Variances - Front & Side Yard Setback <br /> James Danielson, 3238 North Hamline Avenue <br /> I Request <br /> The applicant requests approval of front and side yard setback varianees to allow for the <br /> I construetion of a 22 foot by 24 foot detached garage (Exhibit A). The applieant has revised the <br /> request such that the front yard setbaek would be at least 15 feet (previously 12 feet) while 40 <br /> feet is required and the side yard setback would remain at five feet while 10 feet is required. <br /> I Backl!round <br /> The City Couneil considered Planning Case 96-13 at its September 30, 1996 regular meeting. <br /> Ie The City Council postponed consideration of this request to the Oetober 15, 1996 meeting, to <br /> provide the applieant and staff additional time to work on an alternate eonfiguration and location <br /> for the proposed garage. <br /> I Planning Commission Recommendation <br /> I The Planning Commission on September 4, 1996 recommended denial of Plarming Case #96-13, <br /> Variances (front and side yard setback), the recommendation was based on the following <br /> findings: <br /> I 1. There are alternative locations on the site without topographic or lot configuration issues <br /> that would comply with ordinance requirements; <br /> I 2. There are no neighborhood development patterns that would suggest that the requested <br /> varianee would allow the subject property to more nearly conform to neighborhood <br /> standards; <br /> I 3. Although three ear garages are commonplace in some neighborhoods, the three or four <br /> garage spaces proposed for this site are not eommon in this neighborhood and their is no <br /> apparent precedent indicating that every homeowner is entitled to three or four garage <br /> I spaces; and <br /> 4. The conditions regarding health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the public <br /> I (applicant's rationale #3) are not grounds for a varianee, but have to exist even if there are <br /> grounds for a variance. <br /> it <br /> I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.