09/23/86 Board of Adjustment - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT TI~ OMAS WADEL 1. That Mr. Thomas Wadel, hereinafter referred to as "Applicant," has properly applied for a Board of A~justment variance to construct an accessory structure in the front yard forward of his house at 1632] Hedgehog Street N.W. 2. That the Applicant appeared before the Board of Adjustment for a public hearing pursuant to Section 170.013G of the City Code on September 23, 1986, and that said public hearing was properly advertised and that the minutes of said public hearing are hereby incorporated as a part of these findings by reference. 3. That the subject property is generally known as 16321 Hedgehog Street N.W. and is legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 5, Oakridge Estates, A~oka County, Minnesota. 4. That the Bubject property is located in the R-IR Residential District and is approximately 2.5 acres in size. 5. That the Applicant is requesting a variance to construct a 26' x 40' accessory structure in the front yard of his property. 6. That Section 170.015G of the City Code requires all detached accessory structures to be located in the side or rear yards. 7. That the Applicant is proposing to construct the accessory structure approximately 30 feet forward of the existing house on the property. 8. That Section 170.015G of the City Code states that no accessory structure shall be located nearer the front lot line than the principal building on that lot. 9. That the Applicant has stated that the proposed accessory structure shall be located approximately 60 feet from the front property line. 10. That the City Code requires a front yard setback of 40 feet in the R-IR Residential District. 11. That Mr. Wadel has stated that he is proposing to construct the proposed accessory structure in the front yard forward of his house in order to preserve a row of trees. 12. That Mr. Wadel has stated that there are unique conditions, namely, the row of trees, that do not apply generally to other properties in the district. 13. That Mr. Wadel has stated that such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the same vicinity. 14. That Mr. Wadel has stated that the unique condition is not a result of his action.