10/11/2006 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• Front Setbacks. Where principal buildings on adjoining Tots existed at the time of adoption of this Ordinance have a lesser setback from that required, the required front yard setback of a new structure shall not be less than the average front yard of the adjacent buildings on each side lot for four hundred (400) feet and in no case shall be less than twenty (20) feet. The submitted plat depicts the setbacks for the adjacent properties at 13.1 feet (to the existing right of way line) and 28.1 feet. Staff's interpretation of this ordinance is that because these setbacks are side /corner setbacks rather than front yard setbacks; that this provision would not apply to these lots. The proposed reduction of 37% would result in single family dwellings being built a mere 25 feet from the property line. While at the current width, this would mean a separation from Birch Street of over 50 feet; when/if Anoka County expands Birch Street the separation would be reduced to as little as 35 feet, and the road could be developed as a four lane divided highway. Furthermore, this would require the realignment of the city trail provided within the right of way to be placed right on the property line a mere 25 feet from the dwelling. Another issue surrounding the reduction of front setbacks is the size of the building pads provided on the submitted plans. The pad for Lot 1 is 65 feet wide and 55 feet deep. The pad for Lot 2 is 65 feet wide and 49 feet deep. These pads seem rather excessive for single family dwellings, in particular on lots that do not meet upland area requirements. If these pads were reduced in depth, then the setback could be increased. Again, with the setback variance the state mandated findings must be made. Staffs initial attempts to make Shese findings are as follows: FINDINGS In considering all requests for Variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: a. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. This parcel could easily be developed with one single family dwelling at this time that would meet the 40 foot setback. b. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. While the impact of the wetland on the lot depth causes part of the need for reduced setbacks, the larger cause is the desire to divide the lot into two lots. This parcel could easily be developed with one single family dwelling at this time that would meet the 40 foot setback. c. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. This property would be able to be developed with one single family dwelling that would meet the 40 foot required setback.