CC PACKET 01082008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

setback, but showed approximately 7 feet on the west side of the house and approximately 5 feet on the east 42 side. Staff advised the property owner that the side yard setbacks need to total 15 total feet; not 12 feet. The owner acknowledged that they were aware of the side yard setbacks and that the survey was in error. Staff received the corrected survey map showing a total side yard setback of 15.02 feet, with 9.15 feet on the west side and 5.87 feet on the east side of the property on December 21, 2007. The front yard and rear yard setbacks as drawn on the survey meet the requirements of the City Ordinance. The corrected survey is on file at City Hall. The Planning Commission also noted during the public hearing that the height of the structure was slightly more than the 25 -foot height maximum for a residential structure. They also noted that the fireplace cantilevered into the west side yard and asked staff to verifythat this encroachment is allowed. Section 1650.03 (a) allows for the up to a 3 -foot encroachment into the side yard but not more than 3 feet to the property line. The revised drawings show the fireplace to be approximately cantilevered out 2 feet. The height dimensions as represented on the drawings have also been corrected. The corrected drawings are on file at City Hall. Analysis. Avariance to the lot width ordinance is required because the property owner is demolitioning the residential structure located 3112 32nd Avenue NE. This structure was originally constructed in 1928 ,which was nearly 50 years before the City adopted its Zoning Code, whereby all R 1 lots are to be platted at a rninimum 75 -foot width (Section 161505, Subd. 2). Because this property's lot width is 68 feet at the building setback and platted prior to the 1976 adoption of the Zoning Code, it has been allowed as a legal non -conforming lot. Section 1665.06 outlines the requirements that must be addressed to qualify for a variance and the process by which a variance is granted. Subd. 3 states that no variance will be granted unless evidence presented discloses the following facts: Strict enforcement would cause undue hardshit) because: The property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. As stated above, Section 1605.05, Subd. 2 states in part that no dwelling maybe constructed or placed on an interior lot of less than 9,000 square feet, or less than 75 feet in width at the building setback line. Because the property at 3112— 32' Avenue is less than 75 feet in width at the building setback line, Mr. Schommer would not be permitted to reconstruct his residence to a modern, code -current structure. The lot has sufficient square footage to allow for the construction of a residential structure that could meet the current building codes, improve the property values and continue the City's goal of keeping housing stock that is safe and livable. The circumstances causing the hardship were not created by the owner. The current house was built in 1928, several years before the Zoning Code was adopted and the lot was platted at a time when lot sizes were not regulated. As stated previously, the City adopted its Zoning Code in 1976, whereby minimum lot sizes for all zoning districts, including residential, were adopted. Therefore, the current owner did not create the circumstances that are causing the hardship that prevents him from rebuilding a residential structure. The variance, if granted, willnot alter the essential characteristics of the locality. The zoning is R 1 and the structure proposed to be rebuilt is a single family dwelling of 1,562SF to replace the smaller, original home. There were other similar situations in this part of the community and several property owners have obtained variances to their lot widths. Building up-to-date homes keeps the neighborhood viable and the properties well - kept and attractive. The area, has over the years, changed over from the smaller, pre -WWII homes to more modern and code compliant structures. Rebuilding this home will: more in keeping with the essential characteristics of the area. Economic considerations alone are not the ._basis of the hardship. While the variance, if approved, would increase the property values of this property and the neighborhood, it is not the only consideration of the property owner. He currently lives at the subject property and feels that to continue remodeling a house that is nearly 80 years old is not practical. 121807 Lot Width Variance 3112 32 Ave Public Hearing.doc