CCP 02-22-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 3, 1999 DR;AJ;T " storage space that was lost when a detached metal storage building collapsed earlier this year, _ thereby providing the applicant with 1,030 square feet of attached garage. .. The existing home is located in an area that was developed when the Zoning Ordinance allowed for lf20-foot corner side yard setback. The Zoning Ordinance was changed to a required 40-foot corner side yard setback after the home was built. However, the lot that contains the applicant's home does comply with the lot width, depth, and area requirements of the current Zoning Ordinance. The existing home currently has a corner setback of 19 feet 8 inches. In order to maintain the existing setback, the proposed structure had been jogged back 7 feet from the existing structure due to the angle of the existing structure to the property line. The applicant had evaluated other locations for the garage; however, this was the ouly location they felt would work with the existing home. The applicant had not documented why a storage shed could not be rebuilt elsewhere on the property. When the lot was platted, the required corner side yard setback was 20 feet where 40 is now required. The configuration of the parcel meets the standards for the R-1 Zoning District. Other variances have been approved on the basis that the corner side yard setback was changed from 20 feet to 40 feet after the lots were platted. The variances, however, were not for garages over two cars ,and the lot width was below the required. If the proposed addition was placed to the rear of the existing garage, supplying the requested storage, a variance would not be needed. e Ms. Randall advised that the Staff recommends denial of Planning Case #98-30, corner side yard setback variance (19 feet 9 inches proposed, when 40 feet is required) for an attached garage (storage space), based on the "Findings - Corner Side Yard Setback Variance (garage)" section of the Staff report dated February 3,1999. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this Planning Case, it would be heard at the Monday, February 22, 1999, regular meeting of the City Council. Commissioner Nelson asked where the original shed had been located. Mr. Wahlberg explained that it had been located at the rear of the house. Cornmissioner Nelson asked if it had been attached to the house. Mr. Wahlberg stated that it had been approximately four feet away from the house. Chair Erickson asked what size accessory structure the Code allows. Ms. Randall stated that the Code allows structures up to 728 square feet. Chair Erickson asked if this would be for a non- attached structure. Ms. Randall stated that this was correct. Cornmissioner Sand asked if Staff had discussed with the applicant the possibility of moving the addition to the rear of the lot in order to be within the setback requirements. Ms. Randall stated that Staff had only discussed the fact that the structure should not encroach the setback any further than the existing structure. Commissioner Sand asked where the front entrance to the house is located. Ms. Randall explained that the entrance is centrally located on the front of the home. e