Resolution - #92-04-069 - 04/23/1992

Home

Commissioner Deemer introduced the following resolution and moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION #92-04-069 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT #0309 RELATING TO JEFFREY CROSS' REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ON THE PROPERTY GENERALLY KNOWN AS 5730 142ND AVENUE N.W. That Mr. Jeffrey Cross, hereinafter referred to as "Applicant", has properly applied for a Board of Adjustment Variance from Section 9.20.12 of the Ramsey City Code to construct an addition to the existing attached garage that will encroach on the front yard setback on the property generally known as 5730 142nd Avenue N.W. and legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, and the easterly 20.00 feet thereof of Lot 3, Block 1, Ramsey Terrace, Anoka County, Minnesota. That the Applicant appeared before the Board of Adjustment for a public heating pursuant to Section 9.03.05 of the Ramsey City Code on April 23, 1992 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. That the subject property is zoned R~ 1 Urban Residential and is approximately one (1) acre in size. 4. That the subject property is surrounded by R-1 Urban Residential zoning. That Section 9.21.12 of the Ramsey City Code requires a thirty-five (35) foot front yard setback in the R-1 Urban Residential District. That the principal structure and attached garage on the subject property is currently located approximately thirty-five (35) feet from the front property line. That the Applicant is requesting a five (5) foot variance to the thirty-five (35) front yard setback requirement in order to construct a 13'x23' addition to the front of the attached garage on the subject property. That there is not a sufficient amount of side yard remaining to construct the garage addition to the southwest. That the Applicant has stated that there is no alternative location on the subject property to construct accessory garage space due to wetlands. 10. 11. That the request is not a use variance. That the hardship is the wetlands located on the subject property, a condition v~hich is not applicable to other lands in the same district and that the variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property fight similar to that possessed by other properties in the R-1 Urban Residential District. 12. That if granted, the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property.