Agenda - Council - 07/23/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Principal Planner Patrick Trudgeon explained that City Code stated that detached accessory structures may not be located closer to the front property line than the home on the property. The City's most common variance request, with respect to detached accessory buildings, pertains to this restriction. Since January 1, 1997, the City has received 23 requests for variances to the setback requirements for detached garages. Of those 23, three pertained to the side yard setback. The other 20 were requests to be closer to the front property line than the home on the property. h All 20 requests for variances to be closer to the front property line than the omni, re approvect. Of those 20, 17 met or exceeded the standard front yard setback for ..... )ectlve zoning districts, even with the variance. All 23 requests were from rural lots. that it is evident that the exception has become the rule and it is time to setback requirements for detached accessory buildings. Staff is Code be amended to eliminate the requirement that the front yard the distance of the home for lots larger than one acre in size. The to protect the streetscape on the more dense neighborhoods, is there a concern with garages being closer to the front' in size, as long as the standard front yard setback is 20 requests received over the past five years were for the rural area, and e~ to fit a detached accessory garage on an urban lot, Staff feels there in City Code to prevent accessory garages extending closer to the front p~qp~rty line in urban density nmghborhoods. Staff recommends revlewmg::~ osed ordmance~?i~rect~ng staff to make any modifications deemed appropriate, and forw.~lngit~i~di-'nance to C~:Councfl for adoption. Commissioner Reeve asked if this issue came ~i:With ~e~c~aPt~}~¢~,C;ommittee. Principal Planner Trud elng rms~cI;:'fl~ae to the high number of variances that were granted in past years. Chairperson Nixt '~ia6ted that addressed with the rewrite. He read subdivision 9 and a variance has not been granted based on that criteria. He ~orts the concept of the amendment, but would prefer some refineme~nt: Pri.nfi~ish~l Planner get additional information on why subdivisions 7 and 9 ~e'being repealed and language for Section 8. Comm/ssioner Brauer one acre is being considered instead of 2.5 acres. Principal stated Ramsey has many one acre lots. Commissioner K6fiiscak stated he has lived on a one-acre lot and would not have wanted an accessory building in the front yard. Commissioner Brauer stated he would prefer the size be 2.5 acres. Planning Commission/July 11, 2002 Page 3 of 9