CC 08-30-1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Arden Hills Council 4 August 30, 1993 Fritsinger explained that Section VI. c. 2. a of the Ordinance requi res a 40-foot front yard setback, and allows a 3-foot encroachment for eaves, canopies, decks, steps, etc. if part of the principal structure. He noted that the subject house is located at the end of a cul-de-sac with the current setback (without the proposed deck/porch) varying from 38.5 feet on the south end, 38 feet at the nearest point, and 43 feet on the north end. Summarizing these figures, Fritsinger stated that a 5-foot front yard setback is being requested (38 foot current setback at nearest point less 6 foot width of proposed deck/porch plus 3 foot permitted encroachment). Fritsinger reported that the City planner reviewed this case and concluded that although some of the issues presented by the applicant (environmental, safety and reasonableness) are supported by the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, they do not strictly meet the requirements for the granting of a variance. The City Planner's recommendation was to approve a 2-foot front yard setback variance as a compromise. . Fritsinger explained that the Planning Commission reviewed this case and unanimously recommended approval of the 5-foot front yard setback variance based on the following rationale: l) Drainage from the street into the front yard causes run-off problems, creating a hardship to the property, 2) The location of the house is at the end of the cul-de-sac, therefore, there is no front yard alignment issue with neighboring houses, 3) All neighbors who would be affected by the requested variance have indicated their support for the variance and their belief that the proposed renovation would improve the neighborhood and not adversely affect anyone. Councilmember Probst stated that he will support the recommendation of the Planning Commission, but it should be clearly understood that the circumstances surrounding this particular variance request are unique, that granting of this variance would not be a precedent-setting action. . Councilmember Malone concurred with Probst's comments adding that though the typical findings required for the granting of a variance may not be strictly satisfied in this case, it should be understood that front yard setback requirements outlined in the ordinance are intended to assure that houses in a line along any given street have consistent front yard setbacks. He emphasized that the subject property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac rather than being situated amongst a line of other houses, therefore, strict enforcement of the ordinance may be inappropriate in this case.