Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/26/2021

Home

Chairperson Bauer asked for clarification as to the drainage and utility easement and side yard setback. Planning Technician McCann identified the boundaries of the property along with setbacks. Senior Planner McGuire Brigl commented that this would only be related to the side setback and not to the wetland encroachment as that would be handled in a different manner. Commissioner Walker asked if there are any pictures of the detached structure, rather than just the aerial photographs. Planning Technician McCann commented that there are some code enforcement photos but there is a hill on the property, therefore you can typically only see the top of the structure. Senior Planner McGuire Brigl noted that it is an attractive shed. Citizen Input Manuel Cuevas, applicant, commented that the variance notes that the structure is 120 square feet, which coincides with the allowance by City Code. He stated that his shed is actually 96 square feet and therefore was unsure if a variance was even necessary. Senior Planner McGuire Brigl commented that City Code regulates buildings over 200 square feet under the State building code, and uses a zoning permit to regulate structures under 200 square feet. Mr. Cuevas stated that this is not a permanent structure and is not set on a foundation, but prebuilt and could be moved. He stated that he did say he could move the shed, if the situation arises where it needs to be moved for access. He stated that the shed does not currently restrict any type of access to the drainage and utility easement. He noted that engineering mentioned that the shed could be a fire hazard but moving the shed closer to his fire pit would seem to be more of a hazard. He stated that engineering stated that the shed could restrict the flow of water but noted that the shed is on support and water can flow underneath. He stated that his subdivision and homes around the easement have very small backyards. He noted that 40 percent of his property is within the drainage and utility easement. He noted that only 2,400 square feet of his property is flat and therefore it would not be feasible to place the shed on an area that is not flat. He stated that most homes in Ramsey have larger lots that can support larger accessory buildings. He stated that some of his neighbors have applied for variances to construct a deck because of the constraints of the lot. Chairperson Bauer asked if the statement related to the decks is due to the wetland setbacks. City Planner Anderson commented that this neighborhood might have been one of the examples that prompted the City to require a buildability element into the City Code. He noted that there have been several developments over the years that resulted in very little usable backyards. He Planning Commission/ July 22, 2021 Page 4 of 22