CCP 09-29-1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I".' .. I CITY OF ARDEN HILLS if MEMORANDUM I DATE: September 29, 1997 TO: Moyoc ~d City Com" k- I FROM: Kevin Ringwald, Community Development Director I SUBJECT: Case #97-18, Variance - Front Yard Setback & Size of Accessory Structure Gerald Sievers, 3224 Lake Lane I Request The applicant is requesting approval of a Variance for a front yard setback and size of an accessory I structure (Exhibit A). Back~round I The applicant wishes construct an addition to an existing detached garage. The existing garage has an existing front yard setback of five (5) feet and is 572 square feet in area. The applicants addition would also have a front yard setback of five (5) feet and would be 312 square feet in area. The Ie minimum front yard setback (Section V, F, 8) as required by the Zoning Ordinance is forty (40) feet and the maximum size of an accessory structure (Section VI, A, 5) is 728 square feet. I The applicants existing garage (detached) is setback five feet from the Lake Lane right of way when a setback of 40 feet is required. The proposed addition would extend this existing five foot front I yard setback. The existing house is 51 feet from the Lake Lane right of way. Therefore, the existing/proposed detached garage could not be placed on the lot such that they would meet the required front yard setback of 40 feet. The City has also received a letter in support of this variance I request from Robert and Barbara Lechner of 1151 Edgewater Avenue. The Zoning Ordinance in Section VI, A, 5, states the following in relationship to the size of I accessory structures: "In R-l and R-2 Districts, no accessory structure shall exceed seven hundred twenty eight (728) square feet in floor area and for accessory structures located in the rear yard of a principle structure, the total floor area of all such accessory structures shall not exceed twenty-five I (25) percent of the minimum required rear yard area for the principal structure." The applicants property is steeply sloped from east to west. The applicant wishes to enclose materials which are currfntly stored outside and correct a failing slope in his front yard. The availability of alternate I loca:tions on the property is severely minimized due to the size of the property when compared to other properties within that zoning district. The size of the proposed addition is modest and would appear to be able to enclose the materials which currently sit outside in the front yard. I if I