05/25/89 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Commissioner moved the adoption of the following findings of fact: PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT MR. GLEN RYCHNER That Mr. Glen P, ychner, hereinMter referred to as "Applicant", has properly applied for a Board of Adjustment Variance from Section 170.016 of the City Code regarding the front yard setback requirement. o That the Applicant appeared before the Board of Adjustment for a public hearing pursuant to Section 170.013G of the Ramsey City Code on May 25, 1989 and that said public hearing was properly advertised and the minutes of said public hearing are hereby incorporated as a part of these findings by reference. That the subject property is generally known as 6200 I77th Lane N.W. and is legally described as follows: Lot 10, Block 5, Rodeo Hills, Anoka County, Minnesota. That the subject property is located in the R-1 Rural Residential District and is approximately one acre in size. That Section 170.016 of the Ramsey City Code requires a front yard setback of 40 feet in the R-1 Rural Residential District. That the Applicant is proposing to construct an attached addition to the principal structure that will increase the size of the garage and provide space for an enu-y way and main floor laundry room. That there are unique circumstances applying to the Applicant's property, namely, that the front yard property line is interrupted by the curvature of the cul-de-sac and that it appears that the home was inaccurately staked at the time of it's construction in 1973. That because of the awkward angle in which the home was constructed on the lot, the northwest corner of the principal structure is closer to the front property line than that of the southwest corner. That because of the cul-de-sac curvature, the northwest corner of the proposed addition is subject to two front yard setback points; one measuring 42.5 feet and the other measuring 28 feet. 10. That the Applicant is requesting a 12 foot variance from the 40 foot front yard setback requirement at the northwestern corner of the front property line. 11. That the proposed expansion of the attached garage and the addition of an entry way and laundry room could meet setback requirements if it were proposed for the southern versus the northern end of the principal structure, but the southern end of the home is used for bedrooms. 12. That the Applicant has stated that the variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property fight, namely, the fight to expand the principal structure in a way that will be consistent with it's exisiting floor plan. 13. That the special conditions do not result from the actions of the. Applicant~l~ /.~ ~./~,~