PCAgenda_95Sep25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Planning Commission Meeting 6/26/95 Page 4 Ruggles Avenue. A variance was obtained when the house was constructed for a rear yard setback of 21' rather than the required 30' rear yard setback. Although the proposed deck would be on the side yard of the property it would actually be located to the rear of the front entrance. It would be 10 ft. wide and 20 ft. in length. An existing sliding glass door, which currently is unusable because it is about two feet from the ground, would be used for access with stairs being built down to the ground from the deck. The deck would be located 13 feet from the neighboring property owner's deck with no overlap between the proposed deck and the neighboring structure. Planner Asleson said that alternatives had been considered for placement of the deck in another area of the house but barriers existed to prevent this. 1. To place the deck on the Hamline side (east) would mean building the deck in the "technical" front yard with access from a bedroom rather than the family room. This is not permitted except by variance. 2. To place the deck on the Ruggles side (south) would mean building the deck in • the "visual" front yard but access would again be from a bedroom unless a bow window was removed and the access would then be from the living room. This alternative would be permitted by the zoning code but would be visually unattractive. 3. Placing the deck on the west side of the house is possible and could be accessed off the family room but would require the applicant install a second door in the family room. 4. The deck could be placed in the current location and the width reduced to 8' rather than 10'. This would meet the side yard setback requirement but the owner indicated an 8' wide deck is too small for his needs. Asleson said there does not appear to be a reasonable alternative placement for the deck. A previous variance permitted this house to be built in an unusual configuration which leaves little or no buildable space on either the north (side yard) or west (rear yard) sides of the house. This could be interpreted as a hardship and be legitimate grounds for granting the variance. After a discussion by the commission, Henschen moved to approve the requested variance of two feet from Chapter 9-2.05 subd.2(a) of the zoning code by recommending the city council adopt a resolution that this property meets the standards for granting a • variance, specifically 9-15.03 subd.4(c); the amendment is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; 9-15.03 subd.4(g), that the property is