CCMin_93Jan27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1993 PAGE 3 ~~ 1993 meeting and commented on the complexity of the problem created by the city's error in misinterpreting the code. He explained that the new garage has the same boundary on the south as the old garage, does not further encroach into the yard, but extends further towards the alley and this fact had an impact on the commission's decision to recommend approval of all necessary variances with conditions. It was viewed that the structure would not have a "substantial" negative impact on either neighboring property as it reduces visibility only to the alley. Tom Brace, 1433 W. Idaho, commented on his economic loss, as he had removed a good existing two car garage to construct the new four car garage, had made every attempt to be sure that the garage was correct, and had kept his neighbors informed regarding the size and placement of the garage. He had also hired an appraiser who determined the structure would not decrease property values. Other oversized garages in Falcon Heights, Roseville and the Como area of St. Paul had been researched and no negative comments were received. Mr. Brace circulated photos of some of these oversized garages. He also indicated he had circulated a petition which had been signed by his neigbors except for Mrs. King, who was not asked to sign. Helen King, 1427 W. Idaho, stressed that she had spent a great deal of money on repairs and landscaping on her property and her appraiser indicated a property devaluation due to the garage. She wanted the council to protect the character of the neighborhood, to look at the whole neighborhood, not just abutting properties. She asked that the city stick to the codes. Mrs. King indicated she had also researched garages in Roseville where lots are much larger than in her neighborhood and found nearly all had two car, not three or four car, garages. Tom McClintick, 1417 W. Idaho, said he signed the petition, but was displeased with the city dropping the ball in this matter. A discussion ensued regarding standards for granting variances and how it is determined whether or not certain standards apply. Bachman explained that the financial interest of the garage owner and the fact that the permit was issued in error makes this an unusual circumstance which does impact a property right substantially. Baldwin indicated he had no trouble with the Planning Commission's findings and recommendation to grant the variances, however, suggested deleting the portion of the condition attached to the variance regarding replacement of the structure if it is intentionally damaged by a party other than the property owner.