Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />AGENDA ITEM 6.D. <br />STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson <br />CC MEETING DATE: January 28, 2008 <br />TOPIC: Resolution 08 -15 <br />Variance to allow a 429 foot side yard setback for <br />an existing detached accessory structure (garage) <br />where 5.0 feet is required. <br />Kenneth Muehlstedt <br />2221 Reiling Road <br />Section 5, Subdivision 2 of the City of Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance requires that a 5- <br />foot side setback be provided for all accessory structures in the Rural Executive zoning <br />district. The property owner was notified that a portion of the structure was encroaching <br />on the setback. He requested a Variance in 2005, was recommended for denial by staff <br />and the Planning and Zoning Board, and subsequently withdrew the application before it <br />went to City Council. He then removed what was thought to be the offending portion of <br />the structure, the west five feet of the shed addition. In the fall of 2007 the neighboring <br />property owner again brought up the issue of the setback and it was reviewed by staff It <br />was at this time that the property owner was informed that the setback of the garage itself <br />was believed to be deficient and this application came about. The applicant has since <br />obtained a certificate of survey which depicts a 4.29 foot setback where 5.0 feet is <br />required, a deviation of 14 %. This is the only request that is being made by the property <br />owner at this time. The other zoning violations on both this property and the neighboring <br />property will be corrected when weather permits. <br />When the building was proposed the city did not require the submission of a survey. <br />Simple line drawings indicating the required setback are acceptable, as long as the <br />property owner can demonstrate to the building department that they do know the <br />location of property lines. This is done by finding property monuments that are placed in <br />the ground when the subdivision is platted by the developer. The rear property line is <br />placed on a great slope that makes identifying the position of that pin very difficult. As <br />such, the property owner believed to be meeting the appropriate setback, and represented <br />enough evidence to the building official to lead them to believe that as well. Since the <br />neighboring property at 2215 Reiling Road was vacant at the time, it wasn't until the lot <br />was developed that anyone noticed the discrepancy. <br />