02/04/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE # I " . . PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) REQUE~T FOR A VARIANCE TO CONStRUCT A DETACHED ACCESSORYBIDLDING" NEARER THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE THAN THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AT 5161 .. 156th LANE NW; CASE OF MARK HILLIARD By: Tim Gladhill, Associate Planner Background: SeCtion 117-349 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 S1611S"6th Lane :NW. .' . ? . Observations: The Subject Property is roughly 0.84 acres in size and thus, any detached accessory building shall be constructed in the side" or rear yard. However, the Applicant has stated that due to topography, screening concerns, preservation of trees and access constraints to the reat yard, the acc~ssory structure is proposed to be located fu the front yard. The structure is approximately fourteen (14) feet by twenty (20) feet, which equates to_ 308 square feet. It appears that the structure would be in excess of 89 feet from the front lot lille and approximately twenty-two (22) feet from the edge of the drain field. The Applicant has stated that in additioD: to. the reasons above, the proposed location would limit the visibility of the structure to his neighbors sharing common lot lines in the rear yard. . However, City Code states. that accessory striJ.ctures on lots of this size shall be located in the side or rear yard regardless of screening. 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." . The' structure is already partially constructed and substantially completed. The Applicant was instructed by the City that the proposed location would require the issuance of a Variance. The Applicant chose. to move forwro-d with construction without the issuance of a Variance. or a Building Permit. ." " Staff requested that the Applicant review an alternative location as depicted in the attached alternatives. In the proposed "alternative, based on contours derived from aerial photography flown circa 2005, the. change in grade appears to be approximately two to three feet over a potential. buildable area. The Applicant has stated that this location would still negatively impact trees and that the change in grade is greater than indicated py City Staff. The Applicant indicates that the alternative. location only provides a ten (10) foot setback to the. easterly lot iine. Although City Staff fill.ds that the alternative location would provide more than the ten foot setback indicated, the alternative location is impacted by existing trees along that lot line, which.may"have some impact to the access to the rear yard without the removal of trees. If the Board of Adjustment is to consider these factors an undue hardship, Staff would recommend that the Board fmd that the ~queconfigliration of tJ1e lot lines, which narrow to the rear 1