pm_000510 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chair Klausing asked for details of the setback permit process. Member Wilke asked for clarification regarding adjacent structures. (How close?) Member Cunningham noted in project report, Section 4.2, why the applicant cannot meet the 5' setback. Member Egli asked how many other nearby houses and garages would exceed 40% coverage of required rear yard. Is this structure a garage, work area and porch? Thomas Paschke noted that all of these are considered as one accessory building. Member Olson asked if the house was as large as the proposed garage and porch. Member Mulder noted the accessory building is larger than the house footprint. Member Rhody also asked for clarity on placement and size. Mr. Honigschmidt, 1378 Sandhurst Drive, explained the size of the structure in relation to the house size. The building would store lawn and garden equipment and two vehicles. There is no room to attach the porch to the house. The porch is already attached to the existing garage. Member Cunningham asked why not meet the 5' setback? Mr. Honigschmidt stated the garage would encroach on pavers, garden and patio. Along the property line there is no useful space. The garage extends 10 feet to the east. The neighbors have agreed to the setback as proposed. Member Egli asked if trees will be endangered by the proposal. (No) Member Olson asked how tall the structure will be (15 feet). The home is approximately 22 feet. Member Cunningham asked if there are plans for other development of the house (none). Would this impact the developable area? Chair Klausing asked about the principle structure in the rear yard coverage. (The size of the principle structure is not affected by size of accessory buildings.) There was no public comment. Chair Klausing closed the hearing. Member Mulder expressed concern regarding the three foot setback. (The structure would have to be shifted south and west to meet code.) The building, at 32 feet in width, should be set back five feet because of its size. The driveway should be extended. Member Rhody stated that this proposal was exactly what the housing improvement program strives to do. The screen porch is not the same impact as a shed. He noted the neighborhood appears to be accepting of the proposal. Member Wilke asked the applicant to respond to the five foot setback. The driveway would have to move closer to the house; it would encroach in the garden and block a view of the yard. Chair Klausing expressed concern about size of building and coverage of the rear yard, and has a detrimental impact on neighbors. Motion: Member Rhody moved, Member Wilke seconded, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to allow construction of a 1,000 square foot detached accessory building, based on the findings in Section 3 of the staff report dated May 10, 2000, and subject to the conditions listed in Section 4 of this report, as listed below: 1. The existing principal structure and proposed detached accessory building with driveway and sidewalk area is limited to 30% of the lot area or 3,532.5 square feet. 2. The proposed detached accessory building and hard surface driveway expansion, if not five feet from the property line, must either comply with the five foot setback or the applicant must apply for a setback permit. 3. All roof drainage created by the new structure must be collected in gutters and channeled to the natural drainage way within the applicant's property. 4. The exterior of the building must be of similar materials and color of the home. 5. Because of the size of the new structure (1,000 s.f.) no other accessory building or tool shed may be permitted on the property. 6. The maximum height (as defined in Section 1004.01) shall be 15 feet. 7. The existing detached accessory structure must be removed from the site. 8. Prior to issuance of a building permit, and within 60 days after approval of the conditional use permit, the applicant must record the conditional use permit with the Ramsey County Recorder. 9. This conditional use permit expires 6 months after approval if a building permit has not been issued. (Section 1013.03) Motion: Member Rhody moved, Member Egli seconded, to amend to substitute 4.2, to maintain a 5'0" setback from the