Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 12-071 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3207 SILVER LAKE ROAD Meeting Sheet IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII 103722 Box: 31 Folder: RES 2012 Document: CC RES 12-071 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3207 SILVER LAKE ROAD CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 12-071 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3207 SILVER LAKE ROAD WHEREAS,the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from the Applicants David and Meridith Socha for a variance to the required rear yard setback for the property located at 3207 Silver Lake Road on May 16, 2012, legally described as follows: THE SOUTH 65 FEET OF THE NORTH 95 FEET OF THAT PART OF THE WEST 1/5 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 6,TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 23, LYING WEST OF THE EAST 75 FEET THEREOF UPON WHICH JUDICIAL LANDMARKS HAVE BEEN PLACED ON THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST CORNERS THEREOF; TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD PURPOSES OVER THE NORTH 30 FEET OF THE WEST 1/5 OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF AS SHOWN IN DEED DOC.NO.456814. WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a variance to the required rear yard setback in order to construct a garage on the property; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the request based on the related documents shown in the Applicants' application at their regular meeting on July 17, 2012; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Anthony Village approves the Applicants' variance request based on the following findings: 1. The requested variance is consistent with all the standards for granting a variance as described in Section 152.245 of the St. Anthony Village Zoning Code. More specifically, the City Council finds that the requested variance is justified for the following reasons: a. The property owner is proposing to use their property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning code. The proposed improvement will add a garage to a property where one currently does not exist. Garages are a permitted accessory use in the R-I zoning district and are common among most other homes in the neighborhood. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner. The existing home was constructed when present rules regarding setbacks were not in existence. As a result, the home was built in a location on the lot that limits the property owners' ability to meet the setback requirements for most expansion projects. c. Granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Detached garages are common within the City and the applicant is proposing to construct the garage in a manner that is consistent with the principal structure. The use of the property will not change by granting the variance. d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. The applicants wish to construct the garage in order to protect their vehicles. e. Granting the variance is consistent with the City's comprehensive land use plan and is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City's Code relating to protecting the use districts. The use of the property will remain the same as it is today. f. Allowing the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City's Code relating to promoting orderly development and redevelopment. Allowing the garage at the proposed location on the property is consistent with promoting orderly redevelopment. g. Granting the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City's Code relating to providing adequate light, air and access to property. The project will not impact adjacent properties in their ability to receive adequate light and air, or to access their property. h. Allowing the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City's Code relating to preventing congestion in public streets. The project will have no impact on congestion. i. Allowing the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City's Code to provide for compatibility of different land uses. The project will have no impact on land use compatibility. j. Allowing the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City's Code to prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by regulating land, buildings, yards and densities. A detached garage is a permitted accessory use and is common among other homes in the neighborhood. The proposed garage would not put the property over the maximum amount of impervious surface. The variance will not result in overcrowding or concentration of buildings. NOW THEREFORE HE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City Council's approval of the requested variance is contingent on the following: 1. The Applicant shall submit the appropriate plans and permits for review and approval before beginning construction of the proposed garage. 2. The proposed garage shall at no point be closer than 10 feet from the rear property line. 3. The Applicant is allowed to have one driveway serving the site. The proposed garage includes the construction of a new paved driveway. The existing driveway that serves the parcel shall be removed and replaced with a pervious surface prior to issuing a final inspection for the garage. APPROVED in the regular session of the City Cou it on July 24, 2012. Jerome O. Faust, Mayor Attested: Barb Suciu, O y Clerk Reviewed for administration: vaj Mark Casey, City M ager