HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 08212012CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
I. Call To Order.
II. Roll Call.
III. Pledge of Allegiance.
IV. Approval of Meeting Agenda.
V. Approval of Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2012.
VI. Public Hearings. None.
VII. Concept Reviews.
VII. 1. For the property at 2653 Stinson Boulevard for placement of a 10' X 20' shed in
the front yard, which will require the issuance of a variance.
VIII. Other Business.
VIII. 1. Revise Planning Commission Meeting Schedule. (motion requested)
VIII. 2. Discussion on Concept Review Process. (no motion requested)
IX. Reports from Staff.
X. Community Forum.
Individuals may address the Planning Commission about any item not included on the regular agenda. Speakers are requested to
come to the podium, sign their name and address on the form at the podium, state their name and address for the Clerk's record,
and limit their remarks to five minutes. The Planning Commission may refer the matter to staff for a future report or direct the
matter to be scheduled on an upcoming agenda.
XI. Information and Announcements.
XII. Adjournment.
2
3
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 17, 2012
7:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER.
Chair Heinis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL.
Commissioners Present:
16 Absent:
17
18
19
20
21
22
Also Present:
Chairperson Heinis; Commissioners Cincoski, Crone, Jensen, Niccum,
and Poucher.
Commissioner Chaput.
Interim City Planner Jacqueline Corkle.
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
Chair Heinis invited the Commission and the audience to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance.
23 IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
24
25 Motion by Commissioner Jensen, second by Commissioner Crone, to approve the meeting
26 agenda of July 17, 2012.
27
28 Motion carried 6 -0.
29
30 V. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES.
31
32 Motion by Commissioner Niccum, second by Commissioner Cincoski, to approve the June 19,
33 2012, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
34
35 _Motion carried 5 -0 -1 (Crone abstain)
36
37 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
38
39 VI. 1. Request for a Variance to the Rear Yard Setback to allow for the construction of a garage
40 at 3207 Cedar Lake Road Applicant David & Meredith Socha.
41
42 Chair Heinis opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m.
43
44 Interim City Planner Corkle explained the applicants have submitted a request for a variance to
45 construct a 648 square foot garage approximately 15' from the rear of the lot. She stated City
46 Code requires a setback of 25' minimum or 20% of the lot depth, whichever is greater, and the
47 applicants previously proposed a setback of 17' but have modified their request to 15'. She
48 indicated that the City Attorney has suggested the proper variance is a rear yard setback variance
49 versus a variance to the garage setback permit. She stated the driveway currently exists off
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 2
1 Hilldale and if the variance is granted, one requirement includes removing the driveway and
2 realigning it with the new garage. She stated that one of the challenges with staying within the
3 rear yard setback was that it would limit sunlight and limit a future deck or patio expansion as
4 well as causing potential drainage issues. She stated an attached garage is not feasible given the
5 layout of the house and the property has a large front yard, which impacts the amount of land
6 available to meet the setback requirements. She advised the property owners are proposing to
7 use the property in a reasonable manner consistent within the R -1 district, the circumstances are
8 unique to the property not caused by the owner, and the home was constructed in a manner that
9 makes it difficult to meet the rear yard setback. She noted the variance if granted will not alter
10 the essential character of the locality and economic considerations alone are not the basis for the
11 practical difficulties. She added the variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, would
12 maintain the land use district, and would allow for orderly development of the site; in addition,
13 the variance will not reduce the amount of light, air, and access to the property and granting the
14 variance will not increase congestion or result in undue overcrowding. She added the variance if
15 granted will not alter the site's compatibility with land uses in the area.
16
17 Commissioner Jensen asked about the total amount of impervious surface after construction of
18 the garage.
19
20 Interim City Planner Corkle replied the amount of impervious surface after construction of the
21 garage was not calculated but noted that the applicant's lot coverage is currently well below the
22 requirements of the City's threshold and that the garage would not put them over the maximum
23 amount allowed.
24
25 Commissioner Jensen suggested that the applicants could retain a portion of the existing
26 driveway if they wanted to use it for a patio given they are under the allowable impervious
27 surface limits.
28
29 Mr. David Socha and Ms. Meredith Socha, 3207 Silver Lake Road, appeared before the Planning
30 Commission and stated it will be easiest to remove the driveway due to its deteriorating
31 condition and to reduce the amount of impervious surface. He stated the proposed garage would
32 be 26' from the southern property line and 15' from the eastern property line.
33
34 Mr. Harvey Roloff, 3012 Hilldale, appeared before the Planning Commission and requested
35 clarification regarding the width of the property.
36
37 Interim City Planner Corkle stated the property is 80' wide.
38
39 Chair Heinis closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.
40
41 Motion by Commissioner Jensen, second by Commissioner Niccum, to recommend approval of
42 Resolution Approving a Variance to the Rear Yard Setback for the Property Located at 3207
43 Silver Lake Road.
44
45 Motion carried 6 -0.
46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 3
Chair Heinis indicated this item will be on the July 24, 2012, City Council agenda.
VI.2.
Anthony Health Center.
7 Chair Heinis opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m.
8
9 Interim City Planner Corkle explained that St. Anthony Health Center is requesting a variance to
10 construct a light well within the required 30' setback. She stated the proposed light well would
11 extend into the setback by approximately 3' and this placement would result in 21.8' between the
12 sidewalk and the edge of the light well. She presented a sketch of the existing property and
13 stated the light well will run along the front of the bump -out for approximately 23'. She
14 indicated the tree will likely be impacted by construction and would need to be replaced as part
15 of the variance approval. She advised the amount of natural light coming into the physical
16 therapy unit is limited, placing a light well at other locations would conflict with utility and other
17 services, and relocating the physical therapy unit is not practical. She stated the owner is
18 proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner and the light well is intended to provide
19 natural light for the physical therapy unit. She indicated the circumstances are unique to the
20 property, not caused by the owner, and the variance, if granted, would not alter the essential
21 character of the locality; in addition, economic considerations alone are not the basis of the
22 practical difficulties and the proposed location of the light well is the most logical. She added
23 the variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, would protect the land use district,
24 would allow for the orderly development on the site, will not reduce light, air, and access,
25 granting the variance will not increase congestion, will not result in overcrowding, and will not
26 alter the site's compatibility with surrounding land uses.
27
28 Commissioner Jensen asked if the existing City Code allows for encroachments for window
29 wells if they are egress windows and whether the proposed light well would comply with City
30 Code if it provided egress. He questioned whether the City Code should be amended at some
31 point in the future to allow something similar.
32
33 Interim City Planner Corkle advised the light well would not provide egress and is different from
34 what is currently allowed by City Code. She agreed the City can review the Code to see if it
35 should be amended in that regard.
36
37 Mr. Alan Plutowski, TWP Architects, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the
38 applicant and explained the current configuration of the basement and the ongoing remodeling.
39 He stated the light well is made of double insulated safety glass and the exterior vertical walls of
40 the light well will be brick to match the building.
41
42 Chair Heinis closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m.
43
44 Motion by Commissioner Jensen, second by Commissioner Poucher, to recommend approval of
45 Resolution Approving a Three -Foot Variance to the Required 30 -Foot Setback from 37s' Avenue
46 for the Property at the Corner of Foss Road and 37 `h Avenue NE.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 4
Motion carried 6 -0.
4 Chair Heinis indicated this item will be on the July 24, 2012, City Council agenda.
6 VII. CONCEPT REVIEWS.
None.
10 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS.
11
12 VIII. Review Proposed Changes to the City Code regarding Regulation of Assemblies
13 Meeting Lodges and Convention Halls.
14
15 Interim City Planner Corkle presented the potential changes to the City Code following
16 completion of the study regarding regulation of assemblies, meeting lodges and convention halls.
17 She explained the City Council endorsed Option 3 from the study, which allows all assembly
18 uses, both religious and non - religious, within the Commercial Zoning District but eliminates all
19 such uses from the Light Industrial District. She stated that Option 3 provides an alternative to
20 those seeking places for assembly within the City and treats all assemblies equally within
21 specific zoning districts as required under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
22 Act (RLUIPA). She stated terms such as "church," "temple," and "synagogue" are not currently
23 defined in the City Code and terms such as "religious institution" or "places of worship" are
24 generally used for religious uses and assembly is used to describe more non - secular uses. She
25 recited the proposed definitions and noted that staff recommends changing the word "church" to
26 "religious institution" so that the City Code is neutral regarding denominations for religious
27 worship. She stated the terms "religious institution" or "place of worship" are intended for a tax -
28 exempt building where persons regularly assemble for religious worship and this definition
29 would not allow for encroachment of secular activities within the district. She advised churches
30 are a permitted conditional use within the R -1 District and this language in the Code has been
31 modified to match the term "religious institution" or "place of worship." She reviewed permitted
32 uses within the Commercial District, which allows for assembly, lodge or convention halls and
33 noted this section was modified to match the terms in the definitions section. She stated the
34 sections of the City Code regarding the Light Industrial District have been modified to remove
35 any mention of assembly, meeting lodge or convention hall as permitted conditional uses. She
36 advised the revised definitions and changes to the City Code are intended to show clear intent for
37 the various land uses allowed in the Residential, Commercial, and Industrial districts and the
38 proposed changes bring the City Code into compliance with RLUIPA.
39
40 She stated that the term "public assembly" is not currently defined in the City Code and the
41 recommended definition will state "the concourse or meeting together of a number of persons at
42 the same place. The event is of a limited duration."
43
44 Commissioner Niccum requested further information regarding permitted uses in the Light
45 Industrial District and noted there are two union halls within that district where meetings are held
46 a couple of times per month which would result in an assembly.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 5
Interim City Planner Corkle explained that the study recommends these uses become non-
conforming uses and would be allowed to continue as they presently exist; if these uses wanted
to expand in the future, a variance would be required because the use would be non - conforming.
Commissioner Crone suggested that the word "assembly" be eliminated entirely since the
definition and intent of public assembly has been revised.
8 Interim City Planner Corkle agreed to review this and noted that the term "public assembly" is
9 the term typically used for that type of gathering.
10
11 Commissioner Jensen stated the term "assembly" has morphed to include other uses, e.g., health
12 clubs have gathering spots and meeting rooms and the City does not regulate what goes on inside
13 those places or who uses them. He requested that staff consider amending the proposed
14 definition of religious institutions as it relates to requiring that the entire structure be tax exempt
15 and noted it is plausible that a portion of a building may be tax exempt. He also asked if a
16 residential lot next to a place of worship, e.g. a pastor's residence, would be required to be tax
17 exempt. He felt it made sense that something adjacent should be allowed to be part of the land
18 use. He also asked about height limitations within the R -1 district.
19
20 Interim City Planner Corkle stated the City Code allows exceptions for spires or other parts of a
21 church and agreed to review this further. She encouraged the Planning Commission to provide
22 her with any additional comments regarding the proposed changes.
23
24 IX. REPORTS FROM STAFF.
25
26 None.
27
28 X. COMMUNITY FORUM.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
None.
XI. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
Commissioner Poucher reminded residents of VillageFest in August.
Chair Heinis indicated he could attend the City Council meeting on July 24`h
XII. ADJOURNMENT.
Motion by Commissioner Crone, second by Commissioner Jensen, to adjourn the meeting at
8:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Hughes
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Motion carried 6 -0.
A
WSB
Infrastructure . Engineering . Planning a Construction
701 Xenia Avenue South
Existing Land Use /
Suite 300
Zoning:
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Surrounding Land
Tel: 763 -541 -4800
Use / Zoning:
Fax: 763 - 541 -1700
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE MEMORANDUM
East: Low Density Residential / Zoned RI- Single Family
To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission
South: Low Density Residential / Zoned Rl- Single Family
From: Kelsey Johnson, AICP, City Planner
West: Low Density Residential / (City of Minneapolis)
Date: August 15, 2012
Planning Commission Regular Meeting for August 21, 2012
WSB Project No. 01626 -630
Request: Concept Review - Request for a Variance to allow an Accessory
Structure in the Front Yard at 2653 Stinson Boulevard
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant/Owner: Patricia LaBossiere and Nina Guertin
Location:
2653 Stinson Boulevard
Existing Land Use /
Low Density Residential /Zoned: RI- Single Family
Zoning:
Surrounding Land
North: St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church and School; Zoned Rl; Single
Use / Zoning:
Family
East: Low Density Residential / Zoned RI- Single Family
South: Low Density Residential / Zoned Rl- Single Family
West: Low Density Residential / (City of Minneapolis)
Deadline for Agency
Application Date: N/A
Action:
60 Days: N/A
Letter Sent: N/A
120 Days: N/A
CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE CONCEPT REVIEW FOR THE PROPOSED
VARIANCE
1. Background
The property owners wish to construct a 10 x 20 foot shed in the front yard of the property located at
2653 Stinson Boulevard. The property is located at the corner of Stinson Boulevard and 27th Avenue
NE. Although the home on the property is oriented towards Stinson Boulevard, the dimensions of the
lot are similar to other properties along 27th Avenue NE which have the shorter lot dimension
adjacent to 27th Avenue NE and a longer lot dimension parallel to Stinson Boulevard. As such, the
orientation of the home is situated in a way that the required rear yard setback cannot be met. Given
the short distance from the home to the rear property line, it would be impossible to locate the
proposed accessory structure in the rear yard.
A garage currently exists on the property and is located in the side yard on the southern end of the
property. In 2011, the property owner constructed an addition to the north end of the garage, which is
used as an art studio. The garage is currently used for storage of equipment such as a lawn mower,
snow blower, and outdoor lawn furniture. The applicant wishes to construct the shed to be used for
the storage of this equipment in order to make room to park a vehicle in the garage. The addition of
the art studio complicates the possibility of expanding the garage since the art studio would likely
August 15, 2012
Page 2
need to be demolished in order for the expansion to occur. The owner has stated that they believe the
art studio enhances the aesthetic appeal of the property and do not wish to have it demolished. The
property owner has also stated that the proposed storage shed would be located next to a mature pine
tree, as well as a fence located on the property so as to provide the most screening from Stinson
Boulevard.
2. Property and Zoning Code Information
The property is located at 2653 Stinson Boulevard and is a corner lot in the R -1 zoning district. The
Zoning Code requires that no accessory building may be located within any yard other than the rear
yard, except that garages may be located in the side yards (152.176 (A)).
3. Proposed Change
As indicated above, the property owner wishes to construct a 10 x 20 foot shed in the front yard on
the southern end of the property. The proposed storage shed would be six feet from the front lot line.
The City Code only allows accessory structures in rear yards. The orientation of the home towards
Stinson Boulevard and dimensions of the lot result in a very short rear yard that would not be large
enough for an accessory structure. A very wide front yard exists on the property, which is where the
owner is proposing to locate the accessory structure on the southern end of the lot. Other options are
available to the property owner which would not require a variance, including an addition to the
existing garage or relocation of the art studio into the interior home, thus allowing room for storage in
the existing garage. The property owner is allowed to construct an addition to the home or expand the
existing garage so long as the garage is no larger than 1,000 square feet or larger than the footprint of
the home. On the flip side, it is not uncommon for a property owner to have a garage and a shed
structure located on their property within the City. Due to the unique circumstance of the orientation
of the home, locating the shed in the rear yard is not an option. City Staff would like to hold a
discussion of the concept review with the Planning Commission on its August regular meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Location Map
Exhibit B: Pre - application materials
t
ywr• �
27t
0
MEN
Ave NE
�• SOW& -
` N
�y t
V-fflaeC% Exhibit a 2653 Stinson Blvd 0 50 100 N
Saint Anthony Village, MN A wSB
Feet
Patricia A. LaBossiere / Nina E. Guertin
612 - 770 -8804 / 612 - 803 -9159
2653 Stinson Boulevard
St. Anthony Village, MN 55418
August 7, 2012
Ms. Jacqueline Corkle
City of St. Anthony
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony, MN 55418
Dear Ms. Corkle:
Attached you will find the pre- variance application submittal for our property at 2653 Stinson Boulevard,
St. Anthony.
The legal description of the property is Lot 28, Block 8, Murray Heights Addition to Minneapolis,
Hennepin County, MN. The property is a corner lot, located on the SE corner of 27`" Avenue NE and
Stinson Boulevard. Our zoning district is R -1.
Unique circumstances and practical difficulties causing the need to seek a variance / variances:
We would like to seek a variance of City code 152.176, which states that, "No detached accessory
building may be located within any yard other than the rear yard, except that garages may be located in
side yards."
Unfortunately, our home was built facing Stinson Boulevard, with no back yard, only side and front
yards. We have considered the best place for shed placement on our property, and would like to move
forward on an application to seek a variance to build a 10'x 20' shed in the front yard, placed in the SW
corner of our property, as we feel that the shed would be better hidden in that area of our yard, and it
would be more aesthetically pleasing overall.
The west - facing 10' side of the shed would be facing Stinson Boulevard, which is the side most seen.
The south - facing 20' rear side of the shed would be partially hidden by the fencing as well as by an
existing mature pine tree, which is on the outside of the fence, and which faces the alleyway. The20'
north side of the shed would be facing the south side of our home, and the 10' east side of the shed
would be facing our privacy fence and our garage doors.
Note: We did consider placing the shed along the privacy fence bordering the east side of our property,
but that placement is much more visible from Stinson Boulevard. Also, if you look at the site plan,
placing a shed in that area would seem "plopped -in" rather than "tucked -in ". And, although the exterior
would be cedar - shingled, we feel that less siding exposure to Stinson Boulevard would be more
aesthetically pleasing. Finally, we found this summer that the east area is prime for raising both
vegetables and flowers. The area we have selected for the proposed shed is highly acidic due to the
pine tree, and would not be a sustainable garden area.
Statement of request:
We would like to seek the planning commission's permission to pursue erecting a single -story 10'x 20'
shed in the SW corner of our lot, within our front yard. The placement of the shed's end would be 6' in
from the property line toward the existing garage, as shown on the attached diagram, and 3' in from the
fence line, which is 3' in from the property line.
Our plan would be to cedar shingle the exterior of the shed to tie -in with the exterior of the art studio
completed in 2011 attached to the garage and located on the north side of the garage / studio building.
Pictures of the exterior of the garage / studio are attached.
To -scale drawings of the lot size and dimensions, buildings and structures with dimensions, an 11" x 17"
copy of plan and 8 -1/2" x 11" copy of plan are also attached.
Comments:
• Shed would be set on footings rather than placed on a concrete slab.
• Shed exterior would be finished with cedar shakes and sealed with Cabot Australian Timber Oil
to keep it looking natural and to tie -in with current garage / studio exterior.
• Our goal is to not only enhance the curb appeal of our property, but also to place a practical
outdoor storage building on our property to house our riding lawn mower, walk- behind mower,
two wheel barrows, two scooters, outdoor lawn furniture, snow blower, boat and other large
items that will not completely fit in our garage along with both of our vehicles (SUV and % ton
long -bed pickup). We prefer to place these items into a shed rather than leave them outside
covered with a tarp, which we believe is not only insecure, but also unsightly.
• The art studio enclosure that was completed in 2011 on the north side of the garage was built
out at a cost of approximately $15,000. To demolish this space in order to attach shed space is
neither a practical nor financially prudent solution, and it is not in keeping with St. Anthony's
mission of being a city committed to reduce, reuse, recycle, sustain.
We respectfully hope that you can see from the attached photos that the newly- finished studio space is
beautifully done and in keeping with the high standards of aesthetics in St. Anthony Village. As
mentioned, our desire would be to build a shed that compliments the buildings and the property, which
we have worked tirelessly to improve since purchasing the property in May 2011.
In closing, please understand that we love our new home and we truly enjoy living in St. Anthony. We
appreciate the city's mission "... to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is
sustainable, safe and secure." We respect our neighbors and our neighborhood. We have received
innumerable compliments from both St. Anthony and Minneapolis residents walking by our home on
the improvements we have completed and / or are working on throughout our property.
We hope that you can see by the photos attached that we do love and care for our home, and we hope
that you will consider our request to move forward and seek a variance to the City's code 152.176.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia ssiere ,kf Nina E. Guertin
Enc.
oi-
�� \���\
Al
. . ... . .. ........
C-Ij
oi-
�� \���\
Al
C-Ij
Photo Documentation
F;
s
♦1 ,, _ _ _ H_fi � �.Rf..��yAGri
Front of home, 2653 Stinson Blvd.
The A frame in white will be Cedar Shingled to match studio in 2013.
Studio / Garage, West Facing with Cedar Shingle Siding
Completed September 2011
_�-I
Studio / Garage, North Facing, Cedar Shingle Siding, Completed September 2011.
This side is 26' wide; proposed shed would be approximately 12' to the right and would
also be finished with same shingle siding in keeping with the aesthetics of the property.
Proposed location for 10'x20' shed, SW corner of lot. The shed, from this north- facing view,
would be 20' wide and nicely proportioned with the studio size. Finish of the shed would be
cedar shingled, same as the studio.
2653 Stinson Boulevard
Variance Request
Concept Review - Planning
Commission Meeting
August 21, 2012
16ho_iry _..._. _..._.....— _
13 lJ W�58
Blvd Variance
• General Information
Applicant / Owner: Patricia LaBossiere and Nina Guertin
Location:
2653 Stinson Boulevard
Existing Land Use
/ Zoning:
Low - density residential /Zoned R -1- Single family
Surrounding Land Use
/ Zoning:
North: St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church and School /
Zoned R -1- Single Family
East: Low - density residential / Zoned R -1- Single Family
South: Low - density residential / Zoned R -1- Single Family
West: Low - density residential / (City of Minneapolis)
ain Ihony
9/12/2012
1
9/12/2012
��F. ppy� •
.Md4F �
u.
r
f -rY, aria nce
2653 Stinson Blvd Variance
�! r
aint nthan} A
,3 Stinson Blvd Variance
• Variance to Allow an Accessory Structure in
the Front Yard
— The property owners are proposing to construct a
10 x 20 foot shed in the front yard
— The Zoning Code requires accessory structure to
be located in rear yards
— The property is oriented such that an accessory
structure cannot be located in the rear yard
ain t
i a l% WSa
h�rry
9/12/2012
3
`I,nson Blvd Variance
C�illa . WS8
53 Stinson Blvd Variance
• Front of home (facing east / Stinson Blvd)
a
ain th __
9/12/2012
4
Stinson Blvd Variance
• Art Studio Garage (facing east Stinson Blvd)
ain thane
WSS
3 Stinson Blvd Variance
• Now
North Side of Art Studio/Garage (facing south)
0
W58
111 611a
9/12/2012
5
4.
rs:
53 Stinson Blvd Variance
• Background
— Orientation of the home and dimensions of the lot
do not allow for an accessory structure in the rear
yard
— A garage exists in the side yard at the southern
end of the property
— An art studio was recently added on to the north
side of the garage
in th��ry A
i a 8 wSe
A
9/12/2012
C1
W-n Blvd Variance
• Background
— The garage is currently used for storage of
equipment
— The proposed shed would be used for storage and
would allow for a vehicle to be parked in the
garage
ain nthgn bYSB
i ael
Stinson Blvd Variance
• Proposed Change
— The proposed shed would be 10 x 20 feet and
would be located six feet from the front lot line
— Other options exist for the property owner that
would not require a variance
1. The existing garage could be expanded but would likely require
that the recently constructed art studio be demolished
2. An addition to the home could be constructed in order to
provide the additional desired storage space
ain thQiry _ �
9/12/2012
7
9/12/2012
owl',
son Blvd Variance
Questions?
ain nthgry �
i a C%