Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 31, 2000 <br /> <br />23 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />dated January 5, 2000, conditioned on the apartment not being rented without <br />obtaining a special use permit. The motion carried unanimously (5-0), <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />Case #00-04, Edward Kajer, 1434 West County Road E, Side Yard Accessory <br />Structure Variance <br /> <br />Ms, Randall explained that the applicant was requesting approval of a side yard setback variance <br />(3 feet, 3 inches proposed, when 1 0 feet is required) for a new garage on a single-family lot <br />zoned R-1, The applicant currently has a 399 square foot detached garage, The detached garage <br />is currently three feet, three inches from the east property line, The applicant wished to demolish <br />the existing garage and rebuild the detached garage in approximately the same location, The <br />proposed garage would be 528 square feet (22 by 24 feet) which is larger than the existing <br />garage, The setback from the side property line would remain three feet. <br /> <br />The garage needs to be at least six feet from the house to meet the building code, The existing <br />garage is 12 feet from the house, The proposed garage would be seven feet from the house, Due <br />to the pie shaped lot and significant trees, the applicant would have a diflicult time building on <br />the west side of the home, The garage could be moved one foot closer to the house and still meet <br />the building code, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Several similar variances have been granted in this neighborhood including one for the neighbor <br />to the east at 1426 County Road E. The City, in Planning Case 97-11, approved the variance for <br />a three foot, three inch setback to the side yard setback for an accessory structure, Other <br />variances in this neighborhood had been approved for five foot side yard setbacks. <br /> <br />The applicant could minimize the request by reducing the garage width to a standard 22 feet and <br />then only need a five foot variance where 40 is required, The garage could also be moved one <br />foot closer to the house and still meet the building code, Because the house has windows facing <br />out to the garage, the applicant preferred to not move the garage closer to the house, <br /> <br />Staff found the configuration of the property to be unique, The parcel is not deficient in width, <br />however, due to the pie shape, the width of the parcel at the rear ofthe house and garage is only <br />approximately 75 feet. The Zoning Ordinance requires properties in the R-1 Zoning District to <br />have a minimum width of 95 feet at the front setback line, The pie shape of the subject property <br />was not created by the applicant. <br /> <br />Other properties in the immediate area have been granted side yard setback variances which were <br />in the range of what the applicant was requesting. The existing garage was just as close to the <br />property line as the proposed garage, <br /> <br />With regard to alternative locations, the pie shape of the parcel, trees, and setback requirements <br />would restrict a garage on the wcst side ofthe existing home, The garage could be moved back. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />The applicant could reduce the garage width to a standard 22 feet and then only need a five foot <br />setback where 10 feet is required, There is sufficient depth to the lot allowing the garage to be <br />extended out the back for more storage space, <br />