Agenda Packets - 2016/11/14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Item 07B November 14, 2016 Page 5 Those Commissioners voting against approval of the Variance stated that their reasons included that the Variance was not consistent with City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 2, items d, e, and f (refer to the variance criteria a-g, listed under “Analysis”). Summary The applicant has requested a Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 54’ to 30’, to construct a new home. The property includes a 30’ X 172’ private drainage easement along the south property line. The lot’s developable area is limited due to the private drainage easement and larger front yard building setback. The Variance request was denied by the Planning Commission. The applicant has appealed this decision, to be considered by the City Council. A Public Hearing notice was published in the New Brighton-Mounds View Sun Focus on October 14, 2016, and mailed to property owners within 350’ of the subject property. During the Oct 24th Public Hearing regarding the Appeal, two residents spoke in opposition to the appeal; a resident at 7851 Sunnyside Rd; and a resident at 7790 Greenwood Dr. Additionally, Staff received a voicemail message on Oct 24th from a resident at 7767 Eastwood Rd, opposed to the Variance. The applicant was not able to attend the Oct 24th Public Hearing, and requested that it be tabled. During the Public Hearing, the City Council requested information from the applicant regarding (paraphrased); (1), what conversations took place with the owners of the apartment building (Mounds View Family Housing) regarding vacating or reducing the private easement; and, (2) how the appearance of the proposed home would fit with the character of the neighborhood. These questions were passed onto the applicant by Staff via email. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Appeal. It is Staff’s opinion that the Variance request is reasonable considering that the location of the private drainage easement greatly reduces the developable area of the lot. Staff agrees that the applicant has not exhausted all possibilities of trying to fit a different home plan on the lot without the need for a Variance, nor with a lesser Variance. As stated by the applicant during the Oct 5th Planning Commission meeting, if the Variance is approved, the only portion of the proposed split-level house that would stick out in front of the neighbor’s, is the attached 2-car garage. If a different home plan were proposed (e.g. a home with an attached side garage), a lesser Variance may be needed. However, it is speculation that a lesser Variance (e.g. 40’ setback rather than 30’) would significantly change the neighborhood’s character compared to the requested Variance. Almost the entire lot is wooded and serves as a buffer to the adjacent apartment complex. Many of the trees are likely to be removed during home construction, thus the character of the neighborhood will change no matter what type of home is constructed on the lot, or at what setback.