11/14/2001 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 5 the front yard, with the septic drainfield in the rear yard approximately 40 feet from the house. There was a ten -foot drainage easement along the western property line. Staff stated the subject property was zoned Rural, with lot coverage of 44,280 square feet. Under City Code, the property was allowed 1,120 square feet for accessory buildings. The existing attached garage measures 26' X 24', or 624 square feet. The addition of the proposed 15' X 31' garage would bring total accessory square footage to 1,089. Staff explained construction of the proposed would result in a side yard setback of zero. The affected neighboring property had street access on the Oakwood Drive cul -de -sac and was heavily wooded along the southern property line. It was currently vacant, with the owner residing in California. Staff stated further implications to a zero side yard setback include City Code Section 3, Subd. 5.F.2, which required curb cut openings and driveways be a minimum of five feet from the side yard property lines. Additionally, Minnesota Building Code required construction of a one -hour firewall with no openings on buildings constructed less than 3 feet from a neighboring property. Staff reviewed the five findings for variance, as stated in the zoning ordinance that the City shall make in considering all requests for variance in taking subsequent action. Staff recommended denying the variance. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Rick Piper, 6153 Oakwood Drive, stated he was a licensed real estate agent and it was his experience that improvements made to a property not only enhanced the property, but also enhanced the neighborhood. He stated he was not contemplating selling the home and they were looking to put an additional car in the garage. It would not be for additional storage. His intention was to reduce vandalism to the cars in his driveway, as well as getting the vehicles off of the street and driveway. He stated he had a problem with oak wilt on his property and he intended to take one of the diseased trees down when adding the garage. He stated he would also be willing to take down the diseased trees on the neighboring lot where the owner no longer resides in Minnesota. Chair Schaps asked if the neighbor who lives in California knew about this proposal and if he was in agreement. Mr. Piper replied he had not been able to get a hold of the landowner, but in the past, the landowner did not have a problem with Mr. Piper putting a garden on his property. Chair Schaps asked if having a zero lot line would affect the value of the lot. Mr. Piper stated it was his experience that zero lot lines did not devalue any property. Mr. Corson indicated he agreed with Chair Schaps, because the future property owner would not be able to do what he wanted to do with the property. • Mr. Piper replied that where he was proposing to place the garage, the neighbor would not place his structure because of the layout of the lot.