CC PACKET 09251984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-2- 1 east had .indicated opposition to his getting a variance for that purpose. However, 2 the homeowner said, the economic conditions did not warrant adding another stall 3 at this time. 4 5 Mr. Childs reiterated the explanation of the proposal as stated -in his September 6 12th memorandum and reported receiving no calls pertaining to the variance request 7 since that time. No one present raised any further questions or objected to the 8 request and the hearing was closed at 7:44 P.M. 9 10 Motion by Commissioner. Jones and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to recommend the 11 Council grant Stanton E.. Fabel a two foot variance to the City Ordinance require- 12 ment for 15 foot sideyard setbacks for single family residential property which 13 would allow Mr. Fabel to construct the one stall addition he proposes to the 14- existing garage at 2509 - 29th Avenue N.E. , finding that: 15 16 1 . There was no opposition from the neighbors and, in fact, the neighbor to the 17 east who would be the most affected by the variance,- was present at the hearing 18 to indicate his approval of the project; 19 20 2. The improvements proposed by the applicant would enhance the appearance of the 21 property and the extension of the screened porch to the rear would increase 22 Mr. Fabel 's ability to use his backyard in the summer; 23 24 3. St. Anthony is a two car garage community and it was perceived by the Commission 25 that it would be a hardship,. not just an inconvenience, for a family with more 26 than one vehicle to have only a one-stall garage; • 27 28 4. The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon the desire 29 of the owner to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land; 30 and 31 32 5. The perceived hardship could be considered to have been caused by the City 33 Ordinance and not by persons having an interest in the parcel of land. 34 35 Motion carried unanimously. 36 37 Mr. Fabel indicated he was anxious to get started on construction before the winter 38 set in. He was told the final decision had to be made by the Council the following 39 week, and if that decision turns out to be affirmative, he could apply for a 40 building permit the following morning. 41 42 At 7:50 P.M. , the public hearing was opened to consider the petition from Arthur 43 R. Peele, 492 Rolls Roadway, New Brighton, for an interpretation of .the zoning 44 ordinance or a variance to allow construction .of a 31 X 82 foot house (including 45 garage) on the existing 66 X 140 foot corner lot at 2621 - 32nd Avenue N.E . 46 47 The notice of the hearing which had been published in the September 5th Bulletin 48 and was to have been mailed to adjacent property owners of record within 200 4.9 feet •of. the subject property, was read by the- Chairman. The Manager reported 50 Commissioner Hansen, who lives to the south of'the Peele property, had indicated 51 failure to receive the notice, but he had researched the City Code of Ordinances • 52 and found "failure to receive the notice would not nullify the hearing". 53 54 In his, September 12th memorandum to the Commissioners, : Mr. Childs had reported 55 staff had recommended that the Commission accept the interpretation of the front