10-15-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Whitbeck PC Report October 15, 2003 Page 2 The existing two-car garage is located at the northwest corner of the lot and is partially hidden from the road by the house. The current setback is approximately 6 feet form the north lot line and 16 feet to the west lot line. A third stall would be added on the south side of the garage, which would not be visible form the street. (The third stall addition would not encroach into any required setback.) If the additional third stall were the only expansion proposed, the garage would be 960 square feet. If the addition were only 8 square feet less (e.g., 39.66 x 24 instead of 40 x 24) a conditional use permit would not be required and the garage could be constructed without any planning action. However, the Whitbecks are adding a secondary addition of 150 square feet attached behind the garage which brings the total area up to 1,110 square feet. The proposed expansion on the backside of the garage would bring the garage 10 feet closer to the west line but still within the setback limits. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 7850 Spring Lake Road, as low-density residential. The lot is larger than most lots and one of only seven homes that have direct access to Spring Lake. Most of the homes in this area were built with single or small two stall garages, which by today’s standards are under-sized for the typical multi-vehicle family. A variance is required for this request because the garage would exceed 35 feet in width. If the area of the garage were 952 square feet or less, there would be no limit on the width. While there are no explicit width limits for garages less than 952 square feet, there are practical limits due to minimum garage depths. The rationale for limiting a garage width is based solely on aesthetics. Previous Commissions and Councils have h eld that by limiting the width of a garage, the garage cannot dwarf the home or be the dominant feature on the lot. While one can argue and disagree about what is or is not aesthetically pleasing, garages tend to be devoid of any interesting architectural features and lacking in character. Limiting their width helps preserve the ideal of the home being the dominant feature rather than the garage. To further the goal of minimizing the visual impact of garages on a lot, the Commission may want to consider granting “width bonuses” for side loaded garages, garages located in rear yards or for garages that are otherwise shielded or concealed from public view, such as the Whitbecks’ garage. Variance Considerations: For a variance to be considered favorably, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission, in this case) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control.