Laserfiche WebLink
3 . <br /> -2- <br /> • 1 east had i.ndi.cated opposition to his getting a variance for that purpose. However, <br /> 2 the homeowner said, the economic conditions .did not warrant adding another stall <br /> 3 at this time. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 Mr,. Childs reiterated the explanation of the proposal as stated in his September <br /> 6 12th memorandum and reported receiving no calls pertaining to the variance request ' <br /> 7 since that t-ime.. No one present raised any further questions or-.objected to the : <br /> 8 request and the hearing was closed at 7:44 P.M. l <br /> 9 <br /> 10 Motion by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to recommend the <br /> 11 Council grant Stanton E. Fabel a two foot variance to the City Ordinance require- <br /> 12 ment for 15 foot sideyard setbacks for single family residential property which <br /> 13 would allow Mr. Fabel .to construct the one stall addition he proposes to the <br /> 14 existing garage at 2509 - 29th Avenue N.E. , finding that: <br /> 15 <br /> 16 1 . There was no opposition from the neighbors and, in fact, the neighbor to the _i <br /> 17 east who would be the most affected by th'e variance-, was present at the hearing <br /> 18 to indicate hi.s approval of the project; <br /> 19 ; <br /> 20 2. The improvements proposed by the applicant would enhance the appearance of the <br /> 21 property and the extension of the screened porch to the rear would increase <br /> 22 Mr. Fabel 's ability to use his backyard in the summer; <br /> 23 <br /> 24 3. St. Anthony is a two car garage community and it was perceived. by the Commission <br /> 25 that it would be a hardship, not just an inconvenience, for a family with more <br /> 26 than one vehicle to have only a one-stall garage; <br /> �27 <br /> 28 4. The purpose of' the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon the desire <br /> 29 of the owner to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land; <br /> 30 and <br /> 31 <br /> 32 5. The perceived hardship could be considered to have been caused by the City <br /> 33 Ordinance and not by persons having an interest in the parcel of land. <br /> 34. }§ <br /> 35 Motion carried unanimously. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Mr. Fabel indicated he was anxiousto get started on .construction before the winter <br /> 38 set in. He was told the final decision had to be made by the Council the following <br /> 39 week, and if that decision turns out to be affirmative, he could apply for a <br /> 40 building permit th-e following morning. <br /> 41 <br /> 42 At 7:50 P.M. , the public hearing was opened to consider the petition from Arthur ; <br /> 4-3 R__Peele, 492 Roll-s Roadway_, New_Brighton, for an interpretation of the zoning_ <br /> 44 ordinance or a variance to allow construction of a 31 X 82 foot house (including <br /> 45 garage) on the existing 66 X 140 foot corner lot at 2621 - 32nd Avenue N.E. <br /> 46 <br /> 47 The notice of the hearing which had been published in the September 5th Bulletin <br /> 48 and was to have been mailed to adjacent property owners of record within 200 <br /> 49 feet of the subject property, was read by the Chairman. The Manager reported, <br /> 50 Commissioner Hansen, who lives to the south of the Peele property, had indicated y' <br /> 51 failure- to receive the notice, but he had researched the City Code of Ordinances I <br /> W2_ and found "failure to receive the notice would not nullify the hearing". j <br /> 3: _ <br /> 54 In his September 12th memorandum to the Commissioners, Mr. Childs had reported ' <br /> 55 staff had recommended that the Commission accept the interpretation of the front <br /> n <br /> i <br />