PL PACKET 10191993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RE: Amended Garage Setback Permit Request -3515 Harding Street NE(Scott D. Barton) Planning Commission Mtg. - Oct. 19, 1993 KEY POINTS FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1. Council noted that a primary reason for adoption of the Garage Setback Permit as an alternative to the Request For Variance was to give residents a vehicle which did not contain the almost impossible to overcome 'proof of hardship' requirement inherent the variance process. The Planning Commission's application of a variance-like proof of hardship requirement to my garage setback permit request seems to go against the intent of the Garage Setback Permit Request. Additionally,no proof of hardship requirement is requested.to be addressed on the Permit Application itself. Therefor, I am inclined to believe the Planning Commission's emphasis on proof of hardship was misplaced. 2. Council noted that if I chose to leave the garage unattached, I could,without a public hearing, move the garage 3 feet from the adjoining property line. This leads me to believe the Planning Commission's concern over impact on the adjoining property owner was overdone. It also tends to call into question the Commission's expressed concern about fire safety. 3. In an effort to compromise on my original proposal,I would like the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the following alternative proposals: • PROPOSAL A: Allow a 12 inch and 17 inch variance from ordinance by permitting the front of the attached garage to be 4 feet from the adjoining property line. (Since the garage,if attached,cannot be placed square with the property line,a 12 inch variance for the front would necessitate a 17 inch variance for the back). PROPOSAL B: Allow no variance in the front while permitting a five inch variance in the back- recognizing the property owner's need to keep the garage square with the house. PROPOSAL C: Allow no side-yard variance(front or back),but permit the unattached garage to be placed within five feet from the back of the house. Please keep in mind that if nothing is approved,the Planning Commission and City Council would in effect be requiring the subject property owner to place the front of his attached garage five inches further from the adjoining property line than any other St. Anthony resident. It should also be noted that the slightly out of square placement of the house was the result of subsequent subdivision and was a pre-existing condition to all the other houses in the area which were built about 40 years later. • Thank you, Scott D. Barton