Laserfiche WebLink
~r <br /> <br />(1) conformity with the adjacent sign of Design Modern Interiors <br />(2) necessity of capturing the attention of motorists on Snelling <br />to the regional medical supply nature of the business <br />(3) necessity of competing with the large AMOCO sign in the corner <br />of the shopping center <br />(4) necessity cf replacing the outmoded current sign to eliminate <br />the inefficient energy use of neon and to eliminate the large <br />word, "DRUGS". <br />The Commission voted unanimously to grant the variance based on the <br />unique circumstances governing Mr. Anderson's sign .selection in order <br />to promote his business. <br />REQUEST BY MS. PAULINE BOSS AND MR. DUDLEY RIGGS FOR A VARIANCE FROM <br />SECTION 9-2.04 (2)(d) OF THE ZONING CODE, REGARDING THE REAR YARD <br />SETBACK ON A THROUGH LOT, AND 9-13.04(6)(a), REGARDING DRIVEWAY ACCESS, <br />FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DOUBLE GARAGE AT 1586 BURTON STREET IN <br />AN R-J_ ZONE . <br />City Planner Hoyt briefed the Commission on this request which involves <br />a portion of a home remodeling making the existing singJ_e car garage <br />into a study/guest room and creating a new double car garage. The <br />house is situated on a through lot. A variance from the 30 foot <br />rear yard requirement on a through lot is necessary for the project. <br />The current structure is 17 feet from the property line; the proposed <br />garage will be 5 feet from the line. <br />The unique characteristics governing this site are: <br />(1) The buildings along Burton are situated to conform <br />to the angle of the sideyard of 2190 FolwelJ_ to the <br />north of their property and, therefore, a sideyard <br />setback is really what exists. <br />(2) The proposed setback is in close conformance with <br />adjacent properties of 10 ft. or less to the north <br />and 9 ft. to the south. <br />(3) The unique topography, a hillside and several pines, <br />plus the location of neighboring homes make this plan <br />the least intrusive one. <br />After some discussion and presentation of the plans as drawn by the <br />architect, the Commission unanimously approved the variance from <br />Section 9-2.04(2)(d) regarding the rear yard setback on a through <br />lot, and also 9-13.04(6)(a), regarding driveway access. The approval <br />was given based on the unique topography and site characteristics <br />criteria as stated in Chapter 9-15.03 (Subd. 4) of the Municipal <br />Code, "Standards for Granting a Variance". <br />- 2 - <br />