12/03/09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE # PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING NEARER THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE THAN THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AT 5161156th LANE NW; CASE OF MARK HILLIARD By: Tim Gladhill, Associate Planner Background: Section 9.11.02 of the Ramsey City Code states that on properties less than two (2) acres in size, no accessory building shall be constructed nearer the front property line than the principal structure. The Applicant has' applied for a variance to construct a detached accessory building nearer the front property line than the principal structure on the property at 5161 156th Lane NW. Observations: The subject property is roughly 0.84 acres in size and thus, any detached accessory building, according to City Code, shall be constructed in the side or rear yard. However, the Applicant has ,stated that due to topography, screening concerns, and preservation of trees, the accessory structure is proposed to be located in the front yard, as outline in the attached letter from the Applicant attached as Exhibit A of the proposed Findings of Fact. The structure is approximately fourteen (14) feet by twenty (20) feet, which equates to 308 square feet. It appears that the structure would still conform to the minimum overall front yard setback of forty (40) feet and other accessory structure ordinance regulations. It appears that the proposed location would be approximately 22 feet from the edge ofthe drain field, according to the Applicant, acceptable to City Code standards. The Applicant has stated that in addition to the reasons above, the proposed location would limit the visibility of the structure to his neighbors, as opposed to if the structure were to be placed in the rear yard. Staff is concerned about using this as a finding of hardship for approving a Variance, as this would open up using this as hardship for anyone not wanting to place a detached accessory structure in the rear yard. Furthermore, the Applicant references three variances approved regarding accessory structures. Findings from these cases are included for your review and each have unique circumstances that do not apply directly to this case. In one instance, topography applied as an undue hardship; however, the change in grade was more substantial over the buildable area as is the case in this request. When reviewing Variance requests, the Board should be considering the following points, per State Statute. These considerations are included in the propos'ed Findings of Fact for the Board to consider. · Can the Subject Property be put to a particular reasonable use without a Variance? · Is the plight due to circumstances unique to the Subject Property not created by the Property Owner? · Will the Variance, if granted, alter the locality's essential character? · Economic circumstances alone cannot create undue hardship. This case is further complicated due to the fact that the structure is already partially constructed and substantially completed. The Applicant was originally told by Planning staff that the proposed location would require. the issuance of a Variance. The Applicant chose to move forward with construction without the issuance of a Variance or a Building Permit. In October, 2009, City Staff noted construction of the accessory structure without a permit, and the City's Building Official issued a Correction Notice to stop work on the structure until a permit was issued. The Applicant again proceeded forward with additional work on the 1