CC PACKET 09272011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

August 24, 2011 Subject: Construction of Garage at 2610 30" Ave NE Owners: Glenn and Traci Bergum Contractor: Mark Van Patter— MVP Construction Project Description: IN This project entails the demolition of a 1949 vintage 2 -stall garage whose dimensions are roughly 20' X 22'. The garage is leaning because no wall sheathing was used beneath the siding on the original structure giving it less rigidity than a modern construction. Age and other unknown factors have produced a distinct lean to the westerly direction. The owners wish to replace the garage with a new 2 -stall garage with an upper "bonus room" which will be used for scrapbooking and other creative and wholesome crafts. It is not clear that any variances are needed since the proposed structure (24' X 32') falls within the square footage allowances for a garage in an R-1 District. With the given dimensions the square footage totals 768 square feet. On pg. 50 of the St. Anthony Village code it is stated that an accessory building (garage) cannot be larger than the principal structure or be more than 1000 square feet. This criteria is met. The current garage (approx. 455 sq. ft) sits within the setback zone at the rear of the property as it is approximately two feet from the rear property line. The new garage will be moved out of the setback zone (five feet from rear and side property lines) and will therefore be in compliance with city code. In section 152.176 (B) the minimum setback for an accessory building is defined to be three feet from any property line. In section 152.176 (F) it is stated that a garage that covers no more than 528 sq. ft. may be located within the side and/or rear setbacks if a permit is issued. This appears to be a square footage limitation for garages within the setback zone and does not apply to the subject project as the new structure will be moved out of the setback zones. The homeowner's interpretation is that variances are not required either for setback or square footage. Despite the opinion of the owner that the proposed project meets the above city codes, it is my understanding that a variance was requested for either setback or square footage. Therefore, to support any application for variances the following evidence is provided, per section 152.245 (C) (2) of the city code. Strict enforcement of the city code causes practical difficulties because; (a) the property will simply include a 2 -stall garage to replace the current 2 -stall garage with the addition of a bonus room above the garage. The height of the new garage will be less than the height of the house and will therefore comply with city code. (b) The plight of the homeowner is entirely due to the fact that the original garage was located within the rear setback. The new plans however rectify this by providing five feet of buffer to the rear and side property lines. (c) If any variance is granted, the new structure will not alter the essential character of the locality, and in fact will enhance the neighborhood by removal of the old structure. (d) There are no economic considerations that factored into the proposed structure which resulted in any of the practical difficulties addressed here. Respectfully, ILi't �6144�7 Glenn R. Bergum, PE