PL MINUTES 05201986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-5- • 1 3. No one expressed opposition to the proposed change either to staff prior to 2 the hearing or during the hearing on the reclassification. 3 4 Motion carried unanimously. 5 6 The request for a setback variance for a garage at 2528 Murray Avenue N.E . was 7 deferred until the applicant had arrived and the Commission instead took up 8 #6 in the agenda, a report from the Manager on research he had done related to a 9 possible ordinance change -which-would permit .'.'zero lot line" zoning for duplexes . 10 Mr. Childs had included in the agenda packet pertinent ordinance sections from 11 New Brighton, Coon Rapids, Minneapolis, and Brooklyn Park and he said he per= 12 ceived the latter might best fit the intent of the City in this regard, with 13 perhaps the inclusion of the section from the Coon Rapids ordinance which pro- 14 hibits the installation of fence and shrubbery dividers on the common front yard 15 boundaries, 16 17 The Manager,,-sa,id he would develop and advertise the ordinance and return i.t to 18 the Commissioners for their approval at the same time he would provide samples .19 of Declaration of Covenants for their selection to be distributed along with the 20 ordinance whenever a duplex split sale is contemplated. Mr. Childs told Com- 21 missi.oner -Wereni,cz he would also research his questions about the City's 22 enforcement of the Covenant. 23 24 At 8;35 P.M. the hearing was opened to consider a request from Robert D. Tokar. , 25 2528 Murray Avenue N.E. , for an approximate one foot variance to the ordinance 26 setback regulations for detached garages which would allow Mr. Tokar to replace 27 the 35 year old, 14- X 22 foot-garage on the alley between Murray Avenue and • . 28 St. A.nthony Boulevard wi;th 'the standard 22 X 24 foot double garage Sussel 29 builds, using_ the same' location for the new structure. 30 31 The noti.ce. of the hearing, which had been published May 6th and mailed to all 32 property owners of record within 200 .feet of the subject property, was read 33 aloud by the Chair, who got no response to her question whether anyone present 34 failed to receive the notice or objected to its content or top the variance itself. 35 36 The agenda packet included .copies of-Mr. Tokar'-s application, his letter support- 37 ing the request and a copy of the 1953 survey of the property on which the pro- 38 posed garage had been -sketched. Copies of the petition signed by eleven of 39 Mr. Tokar, 's closest neighbors indicating they would not oppose the City granting ' 40 the variance necessary-for- "the project had been distributed before the meeting . i 41 42 The Manager reiterated as stated in his May 13th memorandum, that detached garages 43 only required 3 foot setbacks''and the garage itself would probably meet the 44 ordinance requirements but the one foot wide overhang would encroach into the 45 setback and would require a variance. - He also reiterated that a problem with 46 the original surveys along that street had resulted in most of the garages being 47 constructed either three feet or less from the property lines, as Mr. Tokar had 48 explained in his application. 49 50 The applicant told the Commissioners the 12 inch overhang comes with all Sussel 51 garages and he perceived that might be more appropriate for a larger garage. • 52 He also said he perceivedi,t would be much harder for him to get into his garage -53 if his driveway .had to be shortened to conform to the ordinance. Mr. Tokar said 54 he had "learned to live" with- his neighbor's garage to the east being right on 55 his lot line and the one on the other side encroaching on his property and his 56 request was for the City to "leave things just as they have been for the last 57 thirty years" .