Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> . wehrman <br /> bergly <br /> . PLANNING t~EMO TIQQ5;m~ <br /> To: Arden Hills Planning Commission <br /> From: Wehrman Bergly Associates, Inc, <br /> Orlyn W, Miller, Planner n. plaza bldg., ste. 220 <br /> Subj ect: Case #87-32 5217 wayzata blvd. <br /> Rear yard setback variance for room addition at minneapolis, mn 55416 <br /> 1891 Lake Lane 612 S44 7576 <br /> Applicant: Delores Kieffer <br /> Date: October 14, 1987 <br /> The applicant is proposing to construct a 10-foot-by-12-foot room <br /> addition to the rear of her house. The existing structure has a rear <br /> yard setback of 14 feet, The new addition will extend to within 5 feet <br /> of rear property line, requiring a 25-foot variance (30-foot setback <br /> required) , <br /> COMMENTS: <br /> 1. The subject lot is only 75 feet deep, This is typical of lots on <br /> the north side of Lake Lane. Because of this limited depth, <br /> enforcement of both front and rear setbacks would make the lots <br /> unbuildable. This is why the existing rear setback is only 15 <br /> feet. <br /> . 2, At least three houses on lots along the north side of Lake Lane <br /> have rear setbacks of 6 to 8 feet. The most recent variance <br /> granted in the area was a 24-foot year setback variance (6-foot <br /> resultant setback) for a room addition similar to this proposal. <br /> Reasons stated for granting the variance included the substandard <br /> lot depth and similar encroachment of structures on adjacent lots. <br /> 3, Based on measurements taken from the topography map, the house <br /> directly north of the subject property has a rear yard setback of <br /> approximately 50 feet, Although neighboring properties should not <br /> be expected to compensate for reduced setbacks of another property, <br /> the existing large setback is considered a mitigating factor in <br /> terms of building separation, <br /> CONCLUSIONS: <br /> Factors which support the requested variance include the substandard lot <br /> depth, similar encroachments of adjacent houses, and the deep setbacks <br /> of houses to the north, Past precedent in approving similar variances <br /> also supports approval. However, the lot width would seem to permit <br /> expansion alternatives to the east or west without increasing the rear <br /> yard encroachment, <br /> . <br /> planning' landscape architecture <br />