07/01/10 - 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 16151 OLIVINE ST NW; CASE OF COLIN AND LAURA HOGUE 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 16151 Olivine St NW. Observations: The Subject Property is roughly 1.72 acres in size and thus, any detached accessory building shall be constructedin the side or rear yard. However, the Applicant has stated that due to topography, screening concerns, preservation of trees and access constraints to an existing shed, the accessory structure is proposed to be located in the front yard. The structure is approximately twenty-six (26) feet by twenty-six (26) feet, which equates to 676 square feet. There is an existing 24 ft. by 18 ft. [432 square feet] and a 24 ft. by 24 ft. [576 square feet] detached accessory structure for a total of 1,008 square feet of existing accessory structure space. If the proposed structure is constructed, the total square footage of accessory structure space for the Subject Property would be 1,684 square feet, well under the permitted 2,400 square feet permitted for parcels of this size. It appears that the structure would be forty (40) feet from the front (west) property line and fourteen (14) feet from the side (north) property line. The proposed structure appears to have sufficient setback to the private septic system (Building Code requires 20 foot setback to drain field and 10 feet to tank), as the septic is located in the rear yard. The Applicant has stated that existing trees help screen view of the: proposed structure from adjoining properties and the right-of-way. However, City Code states that accessory structures on lots of this size shall be located in the side or rear yard regardless of screening. Similar to a recent approval, City Staff recommends including a provision that the screening will be maintained at all times as drafted in the proposed variance. As,a reminder, the Board of Adjustment is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. Unlike the Planning m Comission, 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 Minnesota Statute 462.357: • 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? 1