Laserfiche WebLink
1 it was up to the Commission to decide how this garage was going to be <br /> used anymore than any other garage in St. Anthony. Based on the <br /> 41 request from this individual, Commissioner Hansen didn't believe the <br /> 4 neighbor's comments should impact on the , Commission's decision. He <br /> 5 repeated that the City had an ordinance which should be enforced if <br /> 6 there's actually a business being run out of this property. He <br /> 7 indicated he had driven past the house four times himself and had <br /> 8 never seen the number of vehicles other Commissioners reported seeing <br /> 9 parked there. Because he hadn't seen any, Commissioner Hansen said <br /> 10 he had to assume "somebody was doing a good job keeping all those <br /> 11 vehicles from blocking traffic or from parking on the grass. " <br /> 12 The Commissioner concluded that if this individual was willing to spend <br /> 13 money in an attempt to alleviate his problems "and since this is only <br /> 14 an extension of a use the City granted a variance for 22 years ago" , <br /> 15 he was ready to recommend that the variance be granted. <br /> 16 Commission Recommendation <br /> 17 Motion by Hansen, seconded by Werenicz to recommend the City Council <br /> 18 grant the request from Eugene B. Tomas for a variance from the setback <br /> 19 requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 32 foot X 24 foot <br /> 20 addition to the east side of the existing garage at 4029 Penrod Lane, <br /> 21 in alignment with the existing garage. The variance would allow an 11 <br /> 22 foot setback from the Silver Lane property line where the ordinance <br /> 23 requires 30 feet. <br /> • In recommending the variance be granted, the Commission finds that: <br /> 25 1. The three conditions required by statute to be satisfied <br /> 26 affirmatively are met in terms of what the City normally accepts. <br /> 27 2. The variance seems logical in light of recent ordinance changes <br /> 28 designed to discourage outdoor parking. <br /> 29 3 . The proposed variance is merely an extension of the one granted <br /> 30 for the property when it was first built in 1966. <br /> 31 4. Were the City to deny the variance, the homeowner could still <br /> 32 build a detached garage which might, in fact, be less desirable for <br /> 33 the neighbors. <br /> 34 5. Although one neighbor spoke against the variance, it was because <br /> 35 she thought a business was being run out of the home which is a <br /> 36 separate issue from the variance. <br /> 37 Voting on the Motion: <br /> 38 Aye: Hansen. <br /> 39 Nay: London, Franzese, Wagner, Madden, Werenicz. <br /> 40 Motion not carried. <br /> 11 <br />