pf07-030 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.0 BACKGROUND 4.1 The applicant owns the residential property at 1689 County Road C2. The property has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Low-Density Residential (LR) and a zoning classification of Single-Family Residence District (R-1). 4.2 The initial proposal included a larger garage addition with an encroachment into the required side yard setback, but the applicant has made a conscientious effort to address the concerns his neighbors, resulting in the current, more modest proposal. 5.0 STAFF COMMENT 5.1 Section 1004.01 A6 (Maximum Total Surface Area) limits impervious coverage on a residential property to 30% of the lot area; on this 13,550-square-foot lot, 4,065 square feet of impervious surface area would be permitted. The applicant has measured the existing impervious coverage to be about 3,525 square feet, or about 26% of the lot. The proposed addition would add 505 square feet to the garage and roughly 235 of additional driveway, resulting in a total of about 4,265 square feet (31.5%) of impervious surface area on the property. 5.2 Local and regional storm water management systems are designed to accommodate run off from residential lots with a maximum of 30% coverage, and the existing flooding problems will be progressively exacerbated when such coverage exceeds 30% on more residential lots if mitigating measures are not implemented. 5.3 Section 1013 of the Code states: "Where there are practical difficulties or unusual hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the pYOVisions of this code, the Variance Board shall have the power, in a specific case and after notice and public hearings, to vary any such provision in harmony with the general purpose and intent thereof and may impose such additional conditions as it considers necessary so that the public health, safety, and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. " 5.4 State Statute 462.357, subd. 6(2) provides authority for the city to "hear requests for variances fYOm the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual properry under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. `Undue hardship' as used in connection with the granting of a variance 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 circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the properry exists under the terms of the ordinance ... The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect ". PF07-030 RVBA 071107 ^ .-� Page 2 of 3