CCP 12-16-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Memo to Planning Commission Planning Case #02-28 Page 4 of6 yards which are either too close to the building (per the Building Code) or low lying areas (which tend to accumulate water/ponding) the applicant could not place a shed on their property. Due to the unique issues on the applicant's property, granting a variance from the zoning restrictions would be consistent with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance while still being flexible enough to meet the needs of City residents. 3. Could the property in question be put to a reasouable use without the granting of the variance? No. On corner lots in the R-I zoning district, accessory sheds are permitted uses. Accessory sheds are subject to the setback requirements outlined in Section 5 of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, a shed can be located a corner lot with a standard configuration in the same R-I zoning district as the applicant's property. However, the applicant's property is an unusual configuration in which the house faces the northwest corner of the property (the attached garage faces Nursery Hill Lane), so the rear yard area is a much smaller triangnlar piece. Furthermore, the sloping of the property at its southern border drains water from the west to east and creates areas ofponding in the southeast quadrant of the applicant's rear yard. The Arden Hills Zoning Ordinance states in section VIII, D, 4, c and d: "A variance or variances mav be granted from specific provisions of this ordinance because such land factors as the length of a side of a lot, the shape of the lot or the unusual terrain prohibit reasonable development equivalent to that which would be permitted without variance on a similar size lot located in the same district, but which lot has no unusual confil!:uration." If the applicant's property did not have the unusual terrain (sloping and ponding in the rear yard) or the unusual orientation of the house (which creates a small triangular rear yard) then the applicant would have been able to construct a shed on their property just as any other corner lot in the R- I district. However, due to the unusual confignration ofthe lot and the drainage and ponding issues, there is no suitable place that the shed could be located on this property and meet both the Building Code requirement (for separation from the main structure), and the required setbacks outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. In this light, staff suggests that when considering whether the property could be put to a reasonable use, that "reasonable use" be viewed by what would be considered reasonable on any other corner lot in the R-I district. There are unusual circumstances on the applicant's property which preclude the applicant from locating a shed anywhere on this property without receiving a variance. This seems to indicate that the property does experience a hardship and that the . . .