09-26-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, , e . . Overview The applicant is proposing to remove the existing I-car garage and replace it with a slightly larger I-car garage in approximately the same location, 1. Setbacks - Does not meet requirement. The Side Yard setback for Accessory structures in the R-2: Zoning District is 10 feeL The existing garage was built both too close to the west (side) property line, Staff advised the applicant that the side setback for accessory structures will likely change to five feet when the Zoning Ordinance revisions are contemplated by the Planning Commission and City CounciL The application contemplates placing the new, slightly larger (16 x 26 [416 sf]) garage in approximately the same location as the previous garage, just shifted slightly to the north to allow an addition and a deck which are being added to the principal structure, It appears that there should be the 6 feet of separate that is required by the Fire Code, 2. Lot Coverage - Meets Code Requirement, The requirement for all residential districts is a maximum of25%, detached garage would constitute 20 % lot coverage, The principal structure and 3. Landscape Lot Area - Meets Code Requirement. The requirement for all residential districts is a Minimum Landscape Lot Area of 65%, Construction of the new garage wouid leave approximately 89% of the lot as landscape area. Variance Criteria A. State Requirements Minnesota State Statue in Chapter 462.357, Subdivision 6, (2), defines "undue hardship" as: ".., means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstance unique to the \\Metro-inet.us\ArdenHlIIs\Planniog\PlanningCases\2005\OS_20 Ruppel Variance (PENDING)\09-07-05 PC Report Ruppel Variance PC-05- 20.doc Page 2 of6