PL PACKETS 11161999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Management Assistant Date: November 16, 1999 Subject: Lot Coverage for Kittelson, 3549 Stinson Boulevard BACKGROUND, John and Nadine Kittelson, 3549 Stinson Boulevard, have submitted an application for a lot coverage variance and a garage setback permit in order to build a two-car garage on the site of the currently existing single-car garage. According to the owners,the current garage is in poor repair and is in need of replacement. While planning this project,Mr. and Mrs. Mttelson determined that the current structures cover approximately 38% of their property. This situation is due largely to the fact that their lot is long and narrow, 54 feet x 153 feet or 8,262 square feet. Their property was platted and built on in 1951, twenty years before the zoning code was in effect. The zoning code now requires that an interior lot be at least 75 feet wide and 9,000 square feet. ANALYSIS. The City Ordinance states that an interior residential lot shall have no more that 35% of the lot covered with impervious surfaces. If the Kittleson's lot had been platted at the minimum required size of 9,000 square feet, their lot coverage with the proposed two-car garage would be 34.8%, including the shed that they have in the rear yard of the property. As it is, if they are granted their variance request, and they tear down the shed, the proposed lot coverage will be approximately 40.7%. Also, in reviewing their site drawing, it appears that a portion of the proposed garage will sit on an area that was calculated as part of the driveway, thus reducing the lot coverage percentage slightly. This lot was,platted at a time when the City did not regulate the size of lots. As such,this is a unique situation that was not created by the owners but by the City when it set its standard for interior lot sizes at dimensions that are larger than this and many other residential lots in the City. The Kittleson's request for a variance to the lot coverage restriction°app ears to meet-the evidentiary requirements as stipulated by the State of Minnesota's land use regulations and the City's ordinances,which require that strict enforcement of either would cause undue hardship. Because the property cannot be put to reasonable use by the owners without the variances and the circumstances causing the hardship are unique to the individual property under consideration, the Kittelsons are requesting that their-variance requests be granted so that they might reconstruct their garage, increasing it to a more useable size. Since the codification of the Zoning ordinance,the City has granted many variances for the construction of garages. Often this was done to encouraged the construction of two-car garages in residential areas so that vehicles and lawn equipment can be stored inside rather than outside on the property. This action has also supported the City's code enforcement policy that strives to keep properties looking neat and well kept. The variance,if granted,will not alter the essential residential character of the locality and economic considerations were not a consideration. Staff feels that the granting of the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code. The Kittelsons attended a concept review at the October 19'%Planning Commission meeting.