My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/09/2015
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2015
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/09/2015
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:22:42 AM
Creation date
5/14/2015 9:03:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
04/09/2015
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
343
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular Planning Commission 5. 2. <br />Meeting Date: 04/09/2015 <br />By: Chris Anderson, Community <br />Development <br />Information <br />Title: <br />PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Request for a Variance to Side Yard Setbacks for an Accessory Building on the <br />Property Located at 6520 170th Ave NW; Case of Jeff Rieck <br />Purpose/Background: <br />The City has received an application from Jeff Rieck (the "Applicant") for a variance to the required side yard <br />setback for an addition to an existing, attached garage at the property located at 6520 170th Ave NW (the "Subject <br />Property"). The proposed addition to the garage would be located five (5) feet from the eastern side property <br />boundary of the Subject Property. <br />Notification: <br />Staff attempted to notify all Property Owners within a 350 foot radius of the Property of the Public Hearing via <br />Standard US Mail. The Public Hearing was also published in the City's official newsletter, the Anoka County Union <br />Herald. <br />Observations/Alternatives: <br />The Applicant would like to construct a twenty-four by forty foot (24' x 40') addition to the attached garage that <br />essentially would convert it from two stalls to a three stall garage (a portion of the existing attached garage would <br />be removed as part of this project). The purpose of the addition would be to provide indoor parking for the <br />Applicant's vehicles as well as for additional storage space. The addition would be serviced with a driveway and <br />the exterior finish will match that of the home (Applicant will, as part of this project, be updating the exterior finish <br />of home as well). The attached garage presently is 440 square feet in size (20' x 22'). The Applicant had originally <br />considered constructing a detached accessory building but, based on several provisions in City Code, found that <br />that was not necessarily feasible. <br />The Subject Property is located in the R-1 Residential (Rural Developing) Zoning District, is about 1.15 acres in <br />size, and is a corner lot. City Code Section 117-349 (Accessory Uses and Buildings) states that on parcels less than <br />two (2) acres, a detached accessory building shall not be located closer to the front property line than the principal <br />building. The home is setback approximately 100 feet from the front property line, which eliminates almost half the <br />lot from consideration for placement of an accessory building. <br />The majority of the western and northwestern portions of the Subject Property serve as a collection point for much <br />of the neighborhood's drainage. This area was platted prior to the practice of encumbering these low spots with <br />drainage and utility easements. So while this low area is not encumbered with easement, allowing fill in this area <br />would displace stormwater and potentially result in flooding of other areas and/or structures. <br />As a corner lot, the Subject Property essentially has two (2) front yards, and is subject to a forty (40) foot setback <br />along Azurite St. Additionally, the septic system is located south of the home and structures must be located at least <br />twenty (20) feet from the drainfield and ten (10) feet from the tank. Thus, between the drainage area and septic <br />system, the western portion of the Subject Property is essentially eliminated from consideration for an accessory <br />building. While there is some potential space in the southeastern portion of the Subject Property, it would be <br />preferable to reserve that area to serve as an alternate location for a septic system should the current system fail <br />and/or be replaced. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.