My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 10182011
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2011
>
PL PACKET 10182011
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/19/2016 4:33:07 PM
Creation date
4/19/2016 4:32:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
33
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 2005-2011
SP Name
PL PACKET 10182011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
113
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
r <br /> STAFF REPORT <br /> To: Chair and Planning Commissioners <br /> From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager <br /> Date: October 18,2011 <br /> Subject: Garage Setback Permit Request-3205-36th Avenue NE <br /> Requested Action: Public Hearing with Planning Commission <br /> Date Application Received: September 23, 2011 <br /> Property Address: 3205-36`h Avenue NE <br /> Zoning District: R-1 <br /> 60-Day Expires: November 21, 2011 <br /> Waiver Letter Required: N/A Date Sent: No <br /> Future Action: City Council Approval <br /> Background. Mr. Donald Pavelka,owner of 3205 -36th Avenue NE, attended a concept review to discuss <br /> their plans to build a 6' addition to an existing attached single car garage on their property. The current <br /> garage is located 9' from the side property line and if allowed to build the 6' addition,the addition will be 2 <br /> feet into the side yard setback. The owners are requesting a Garage Setback Permit to build the addition, <br /> giving them a double car garage. <br /> The City's zoning code requires that anyone wanting to build a garage in the rear yard setback and/or side <br /> yard setback of their property have to apply for a Garage Setback Permit and have it approved by the City <br /> Council(152.176 (F)). <br /> The property owners are responsible for demonstrating why the strict enforcement of the Ordinance would <br /> cause practical difficulties for them by preventing the subject property to be used in a reasonable manner; <br /> that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; <br /> that the variance if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and that economic <br /> considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties (City Code §152.245(C)). <br /> They have stated in their written statement that the existing attached garage is a single car garage. They <br /> can only have one car in the garage at a time and since they own two cars,they would like be able to put <br /> both cars in the garage year round. In Minnesota, it is reasonable to have a double car garage and it would <br /> not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as most, if not all houses have double car garages. <br /> This home was constructed in 1958,a time when single car garages were prevalent and one car was all most <br /> could afford. This was not a situation that the Pavelkas created and economic considerations alone are not <br /> the basis of the practical difficulties. <br /> F:\Planning\Staff Reports\2011\10182011 3205 36th garage permitstf rpt.doc10182011 3205 36th garage permitstf rpt.doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.