Laserfiche WebLink
CR~ <br /> <br />Zoning Admin <br />Boulevard N.~ <br />closer to thc <br />Sunfish Lake Bo <br />would require <br /> <br />,equest for a Variance to Construct an Accessory Structure that will <br /> Nearer the Front Property Line thnn the Principal Structure and <br />mt will Encroach on the Thoroughfare Setback; Case of James <br />[cChesney <br /> <br />;tr~tor Frolik stated that James McChcsney resides at 15429 Sunfish Lake <br />and is proposing to construct a 750 ~uare foot accessory smacmre that will be <br />property linc than the home and will encroach on the thoroughfare setback from <br />flevard N.W. She explained that topography in the rear yard declines rapidly and <br />;ubstanfial amount of f'fl.1 and removal of very mature trees to access, h was also <br /> <br />noted that they is substantial tree growth between thc proposed building and Sunfish Lake <br />Boulevard N.W.[ to provide screening. Ms. Frolik added that Bill Wall, Mr. MeChesney's next <br />door neighbor, b~lieves the applicant will be encroaching on the 10 foot side yard setback also. <br /> r <br /> <br />Mr. McChesney ~stated that when he installed,his pool in 1972, it was more than 20 feet from the <br />lot line (side yard). However, his neighbor s survey, which he refutes, shows the pool to be <br />about 6 feet fror~ thc lot linc. He felt that ff the City approved the setback for the pool, then thc <br />setback for the p~posed accessory structure should be okay. Mr. McChcsncy explained that the <br />building will hav~ cedar siding with eaves, so that thc color and style will match thc house. <br />Thc Board proee~ ed to review thc Findings of Fa~t <br />Motion by Board!Member Deemer and seconded by Board Member BaWden to accept #1 through <br />#13 as presented.. <br /> <br />Motion carried, i Voting Yes: Chairperson Hendrikscn, Board Members Deemer, Bawden, <br />Holland, LaDue, ~erry, and Thomd. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Motion by Boar&Member Deemer and seconded by Board Member Thorud to amend #14. to read <br />' That the specmi~ ¢ondmons causing the undue hardship do not result from the actions of the <br />ApplicanU" ~ <br /> <br />Further Discussion: Board Member Deemer stated that thc hardship is the proximiD, to the road. <br />Board Member Biwdcn added that the decline in topography is also a hardship. <br /> <br />Motion carried. (Voting Yes: Chairperson Hcndrikscn, Board Members Deemer, Thorud, <br />Bawden, Holland! LaDue, and Ten-3'. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Motion by Boardlmcmber Thorud and seconded by Board Member Terry. to amend #15 to mad <br />'Bat such varianqe is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right..." <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Hcndrikscn, Board Members Thorud, Terry, Bawden, <br />Deemer, Holland, !and LaDue. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Motion by Board Member Bawden and seconded by Board Member LaDue to amend the remaining <br />findings as follo~s. 16) That ff grant~, the variance will not grant the Applicant any speemi <br />privilege... 17)~ That if granted, the variance will not be materially dem..mental to the purposes <br />of the Ramsey 7_x~ining Chapter..." 18) "That ff granted, the variance will not substantially <br />increase the congestion of public stree~ .... " <br /> <br />Motion carriex:L Vpdng Yes: Chairperson Hcndrikscn, Board Members Bawden, La.Due, Deemer, <br />Holland, Ten-y, ar~d~r Tho~& Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Board <br /> <br />of Adjustment/September 7, 1993 <br /> Page 5 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />