Laserfiche WebLink
Principal Planner Patrick Trudgeon explained that City Code stated that detached accessory <br />structures may not be located closer to the front property line than the home on the property. The <br />City's most common variance request, with respect to detached accessory buildings, pertains to <br />this restriction. Since January 1, 1997, the City has received 23 requests for variances to the <br />setback requirements for detached garages. Of those 23, three pertained to the side yard setback. <br />The other 20 were requests to be closer to the front property line than the home on the property. <br />All 20 requests for variances to be closer to the front property line than the home were approved. <br />Of those 20, 17 met or exceeded the standard front yard setback for their respective zoning <br />districts, even with the variance. All 23 requests were from rural lots. He explained that it is <br />evident that the exception has become the rule and it is time to reconsider the front yard setback <br />requirements for detached accessory buildings. Staff is recommending that City Code be <br />amended to eliminate the requirement that the front yard setback for detached garages match the <br />distance of the home for lots larger than one acre in size. The one-acre threshold is an attempt to <br />protect the streetscape on the more dense neighborhoods. However; this raises the question: is <br />there a concern with garages being closer to the front property line, even on lots less than 1 acre <br />in size, as long as the standard front yard setback is met? Even though all 20 requests received <br />over the past five years were for the rural area, and even though it is difficult to fit a detached <br />accessory garage on an urban lot, Staff feels there should be some threshold in City Code to <br />prevent accessory garages extending closer to the front property line in urban density <br />neighborhoods. Staff recommends reviewing the proposed ordinance, directing staff to make any <br />modifications deemed appropriate, and forwarding the ordinance to City Council for adoption. <br /> <br />Commissioner Reeve asked if this issue came up with the Chapter 9 Committee. <br /> <br />Principal Planner Trudgeon stated it is being raised due to the high number of variances that were <br />granted in past years. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt noted that subdivision 7 is being addressed with the rewrite. He read <br />subdivision 9 and asked why that would be repealed since a variance has not been granted based <br />on that criteria. He stated he supports the concept of the amendment, but would prefer some <br />refinement prior to adoption. <br /> <br />Principal Planner Trudgeon stated he will get additional information on why subdivisions 7 and 9 <br />are being repealed and will provide the language for Section 8. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer asked why one acre is being considered instead of 2.5 acres. <br /> <br />Principal Planner Trudgeon stated Ramsey has many one acre lots. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kociscak stated he has lived on a one-acre lot and would not have wanted an <br />accessory building in the front yard. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer stated he would prefer the size be 2.5 acres. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/July 11, 2002 <br /> Page 3 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />