PCAgenda_94Mar28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

02/23/94 17:23 ~'BI2 S37 5601 DSD', INC. ~ 003/005 WlgerlVariances 212~19~ 2 • • • The existing house is only Slightly non-cortformirtig with respect to the front and rear setbacks, bath of which are about 28 feet now, compared to 30 feet required by ordinance. Many of the homes on the block between Asbury and Snelling are in the same Situ2~#ion and have front and rear setbacks slightly bass than the 38 feet required, but aEl appear to be at least 25 feet. None are as small as the 14'-~" sett~aek requested by the applicarrts here. The nearby corner houses on Garden Street face perpendicular to the side streets and are separated by about 10 feet. But this is a side yard condition. not a rear yard. s The existing detached garage conforms to the required setbacks. It is Sept basic w6'-9' and 8'-7" from the side and rear yards respectively. The required setback for both side and rear is 5 feet. The "rear 2fl°fu" rule from §9-2.fl4 Subd. 1(c}, which would albw a 1 foot setback, does not apply here- It only applies if there is an allay at the rear of the lot. • The proposed project will rBSuft in the fioAowing: 1 } The rear setback for the house will be reduced from 28'-T' down to 14'-7", requiring a substantial variance imm the required 30 feet. The proposed addition is two stories tail, which makes the situation even mare intrusive. 2} The side setback for the nEw garage will be reduced from 6'-9' to 2'-9", also requiring a variance, but a small one, from the required 5 feet. 3} The rear setback for the new garage will be reduced from 8'-7" to 5'-T' - no variance needed. 4} The front setback for the house will not change - na variance needed. • Many of the lots on this block are of similar size to the 1Niger bt and face the same constraints: adequate width, but less than adequate depth or area_ Some lots in the area have been combined ar rearranged to make larger lots, including the neighboring lot at 1789 Asbury. Even on the smaller lots, the homes and garages in the immediate vicinity appearto follow a common pattern: homes suet back almost 90 fee# both front and rear, garages set back 5 feet side and rear ~ Even though the Wiger lot is small, there is room tp expand on the south side of the house without needing a substantial variance. The applicants have chosen instead to expand to the west, into the rear yard. While the existing house may pose soma difficulties in expanding to the south, this has to be weighed against the public interest in encroaching into the setback areas. The rear yams on this block are already shallow and the houses seem very close to one another. To allow an encroachment other than a garage would break the pattern that exists in these rear yards, and sat a negative precedent. •