CCP 10-14-1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

w ~~ ~~ . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 29 1997 4 - B, Planning Cases -- I. #97-18, Gerald Sicvcrs, 3224 Lake Lane, Variance I Mr. Kcvin Ringwald, Community Development Dircctor, stated the applicant is rcquesting approval of varianccs for a front yard setback and size of an accessory structurc to allow for the . construction of an addition to an cxisting detached garage. The existing garage has an cxisting front yard sctback of five fcct and is 572 square fcct in area. Thc applicant's addition would also have a front yard setback of fivc feet and would be 312 squarc feet in area. The minimum front I yard sctback as requircd by the Zoning Ordinance is forty feet and thc maximum sizc of an accessory structure is 728 squarc fcct. Mr. Ringwald displayed an overhead showing thc I applicant's lot, location of existing buildings, and thc proposed addition. He noted this propcrty is extremely small and, in addition, a severc grade from the strcet level to the home also necds to bc addrcsscd. I Mr. Ringwald advised that thc Planning Commission, on Septcmber 3, 1997, recommendcd approval of the fivc foot front yard setback variance (including the existing garage), and the size . of an accessory structure 884 square fect variance based on thc "Findings-Front Yard Sctback and Size of Accessory Structure Variancc" identified by staff and subject to thc following two conditions: I 1. No othcr accessory buildings be constructed on this property. 2. Compliancc with the proposcd plans as shown on Exhibit A pagcs 2 of 7 and 3 of 7 of the .1 Staff memorandum to thc Planning Commission dated Septcmber 3,1997. Council member Malone agrecd this is a very small lot and notcd that the cxisting garagc is I alrcady out on the strect so thcrc is no significant impact on neighbors. He askcd if there is only a 2.5 foot sideyard. Mr. Ringwald stated this is corrcct on thc south side of the garage with the I north side of the garagc mceting the requircd ten foot setback. Councilmember Malone inquircd rcgarding the rationalc to considcr the square footagc variance. I Mr. Ringwald cxplained that locating an acccssory building in thc back yard would also require a variancc. He explained the applicant would likc additional storage area and it seems reasonable to add it to the cxisting accessory building since locating it anywhere else on thc site would I . . reqUIre a vanance. Councilmcmber Malone stated hc agreed with the rationalc to consider a front yard sctback. I Howcver, he questions the rationale for considering the 884 square foot variancc. Mayor Probst statcd he is usually not favorably disposed to variances, But, in this case, it would I be difficult to attach thc garage to thc housc. Councilmcmber Malone asked how a futurc rcquest for an accessory building square foot I variance would bc addresscd. Mayor Probst statcd if that lot had similar rcstraints and that applicant could dcmonstrate a hardship, it could bc considered. .. I