Agenda - Council - 06/25/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

To: City of Ramsey, Board of Adjustment From: Bob Lea, 16010 Sodium St NW Subject: Request for Variance to Construct Garage, 15920 Radium St NW I am strongly opposed to this request to grant a variance to construct a second garage that will encroach on the side yard setback on the property. Section 9.20.11 of the Ramsey City Code establishes a side yard setback on corner lots at the greater of: a) 35 feet, or b) the setback of adjacent properties from the property line, which in tiffs case is 50 feet. Therefore, the minimum setback here is 50 feet. The Applicant requests that he be allowed to build his garage within 26 feet of his property line. This is a variance of about 50%. The Staff believes it would be acceptable if the garage were moved 8 or 9 feet further away from the property line, or 34 or 35 feet from the property line. Yet even this is a variance from city code of about 30%. Either of these setbacks is a still too great a distance to consider approving the request for variance. A factor in the consideration is the special conditions applying to the Subject Property. These conditions include the rear yard, which has a storage shed, a pool, and a well. The Staff would have us believe that these special conditions do not result from the actions of the Applicants. However, the Applicants built the storage shed and the pool several years after the purchase of their property. The identified pool, which though is large and bulky, is an above ground pool, and therefore considered a temporary structure. These projects are the direct result of actions taken by the Applicant with apparently little foresight to future plans. Now the Applicants want to negate city code and good neighborhood planning to build yet another structm'e on his property by requesting a special variance. Another factor in the consideration is that a variance "not unreasonably" diminish property values. A more fair and equitable consideration is that the variance "not decrease" any property value in the neighborhood. The proposed variance, in my opinion and that of others, will lower property values. If one homeowner is allowed this variance, what rationale is to prevent other homeowners from asking and receiving the same variance? What then will our city look like? Remember, the city code is established to maintain property values and provide uniform sight lines in helping to keep neighborhoods most attractive and inviting. One more factor in the consideration is an alleged hardship. There really is no hardship when one remembers the current situation is the direct result of prior choices. And there are alternatives: a) The Applicants could, and should, accept and live with their actions of years ago on the buildings and placement of structures in their rear yard, and thus not build a garage, mind you, a second two-car garage. b) They could re-position the garage to run parallel to the street with the opening on the west side and at a distance to the property line which meets the existing city code. This is possibly the best solution to the problem and makes for good visual alignment. It also avoids an angular structure, which is quite unsightly. c) They could consider moving their above ground pool to another spot in the yard in order to provide land necessary tbr another garage. d) If none of the above are workable, the Applicants can always relocate and purchase another site large enough for all their needs and wants as most other people do. I ask that you give serious consideration to these issues and then deny the Applicant's request for a variance. In doing so, you will set a sigrfificant precedent for future deliberations in similar cases. -281-