CCP 04-28-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . 2. Would granting the variance be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance? No. The Zoning Ordinance allows principal structures (attached garages are included as a part of the principal structure) to be set back as close as ten feet from interior side yards in the R-l: Single Family District. The applicant has proposed constructing the garage four feet from the northern property line. The applicant has indicated that the four fool setback would allow for the proper framing for the 16-foot garage door, any smaller variance would not allow for the proper framing and would also result in a garage door that is too close to the north wall of the house. The applicant has attempted to shift the garage away from the north property line by having the south 6 feet of the garage tucked behind the house. The applicant has also reviewed whether a smaller variance would work, however, that would not accommodate for the framing of the 16- foot garage door and vehicles trying to enter the garage would be right next to (probably within a foot of the house) the northern wall of the house. However, this would represent a deviation from the minimum side yard setback for one side and also a deviation from the minimum total side yard setback. Given that there is another way for the applicant to convert from a one-car to a two-car garage (detached) while meeting the requirements of the code; staffis of the opinion that granting the variances would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Could the property in question be put to a reasonable use without the granting of the variance? Yes. In variance cases that the Minnesota courts have review, converting from a one-car garage to a two-car garage has been interpreted as a reasonable request for a variance. However, this only comes in to play when a variance is necessary for a resident to convert from a one-car to a two-car garage. In this particular instance the applicant could construct a detached garage in the rear yard and still meet the setback regulations outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, this property would not be denied reasonable use without the granting of a variance. 4. Was the hardship created by the owner? No. The property was developed in 1954, long before two-car garages became the norm. When the house was constructed the garage was built right up to the minimum side yard setback, not leaving any room for future expansion. Also, since the applicant moved in to the house some 16 years ago he has acquired recreational vehicles and a boat which would require additional garage space. While this may be a consideration for someone purchasing a house in this day and age, 16 years ago garage space for recreational vehicles was not much of a consideration for someone buying a home. PC #03-09 - PC Report 03/27/03 - Page 4 of 6