05/06/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE.# _t PUBLICHEAXIIVG REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK IN TI3E R 1 RESIDENTIAL (RURAL DEVELOPING) DISTRICT AT 16208 COQUINA ST NW; -CASE OF RANDALL 1VI. BUFFIE, AIA By: Tim Gladhill, Associate Planner Background: Section 117-111 (R-1 Residential) of the Ramsey City Code states that the side yard setback for accessory structures in the R•1 Residential (Rural Developing) District shall be ten (10)-feet. The Applicant has applied for a variance to construct a.detached accessory with a seven (7) foot side yard setback from the east property line oh the property at 16208 Coquina St NW. Observations• . The Subject Property is roughly 1.46 acres in size {excluding road easements). The Applicant is requesting a vaziance to the side yard setback often (10) feet in order to construct an attached garage on the east side of the dwelling unit that will allow access to the existing dwelling unit on the main level. 'The existing topography would require access to the existing dwelling unit from the lovaer level if the proposed structure were to be constructed on the west side of the dwelling unit.- The grade on the east side pf the dwelling unit is approximately six (6) feet higher than the west side. In addition, placing a structure to the west of the existing dwelling unit may impact existing drainage patterns on the Subject Property. The existing attached gazage was converted into living space. The previous use of this structure as a garage was not a reasonable use, according to the Applicant, as the structure was accessed through the lower level of the dwelling unit. Two detached accessory structures totaling 1,075 squaze feet currently exist. Based on the existing lot size, three (3) accessory structures totaling 2,200 square feet would be permitted. With the proposed structure, total accessory structure space would equate to 1,888 square feet. As part of the project, the Applicant will also be relocating a portion of the existing driveway, which partially encroaches on the neighboring parcel at this time. As a reminder, the Board of Adjustment is acting in aquasi-judicial capacity. Unlike the Planning Commission, the Board of Adjustment is not a recommending body, rather is deciding on approval or denial of the Variance, subject to appeals to the City Council. When reviewing Variance requests, the Board should be considering the following points, per Miiuiesota Statute 462.357: • Can the Subject Property be put to a particular reasonable use without a Vaziance? • 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.