10/04/01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Lake Drive. Principal Planner Trudgeon noted the setback for the comer side yard in the R-1 Zoning District is 20 feet or equal to the setback of the adjacent structure, whichever is greater. The principal building on the adjacent property to the south is setback 30 feet. Therefore, Mr. Voit is required under City Code to have his accessory building setback 30 feet from the western side lot line. Principal Planner Trudgeon explained that Mr. Voit has stated that due to the location of the house and a large playground area in the rear yard, the only available spot to locate the accessory building is on the extreme southern edge of his property, where it is only 48 feet wide. If he were to conform to the setback requirements, Mr. Voit would only have 12 feet to construct the accessory building as he would like. Otherwise, he would need to severely alter the plans and construct an odd shaped building. Mr. Voit has stated that the narrowness of the lot in this area leaves him no other option but to apply for a variance. He further explained that Mr. Voit's site plan shows the accessory building being setback 19 feet from the western property line (Sunfish Lake Drive), five feet from the south property line, and 5 feet from the eastern property line. R-1 District regulations require a 6-foot side yard setback from interior lot lines for uninhabitable structures. The site plan shall be modified to show the required 6-foot setback from the eastern property line. With this modification, the accessory building will be setback 18 feet from the western property line if the variance is granted. Principal Planner Trudgeon said that City Code states that variances shall only be granted in instances where an undue hardship exists due to special conditions that are peculiar to the land. Under City Code, some of the special conditions that can be considered include, in the case of an existing lot of record, the narrowness, shallowness, insufficient area or shape of the property. It is staff's belief that the narrowness of the lot at the southern edge of Mr. Voit's property causes an undue hardship. He also noted that City Code also states that a variance cannot be granted unless it can be shown that literal interpretation of the zoning chapter deprives the applicant the rights commonly enjoyed by others. Certainly, strict interpretation of City Code would not allow Mr. Voit to construct the accessory building anywhere on the property without removing the existing play structure. Other properties in the R-1 Zoning District, especially interior lots, are able to construct this type of accessory buildings without a variance. For corner lots, .a greater setback is required on side lots. Principal Planner Trudgeon advised the Commission that under City Code, the Board of Adjustment must judge whether or not the special conditions and circumstances causing the undue hardship are caused by the applicant. The special condition (narrowness of the lot) is clearly not the result of the applicant's actions. However, it can be argued that the circumstances requiring the variance (only buildable area is at extreme southern edge of property) is caused by the applicant since he constructed the play structure in an area where the accessory building could possibly be located without a variance. Citizen Input The applicant, Gary Voit, 6198 146"~ Avenue N.W., Ramsey, was present. Chairperson Nixt asked if Mr. Voit had received any objections in writing. Mr. Voit replied he did not. Board of Adjustment/October 4, 2001 Page 4 of 6