Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-015 Council Resolution U �o u � eco cAe Council Member Gallup introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 08-15 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK FOR THE PROPERTY AT 2221 REILING ROAD. WHEREAS, the City has received an application for a Variance to allow an existing detached accessory structure to remain at 2221 Reiling Road, described as follows: Lots 11 and 12, Otter Lake Hills, Lino Lakes and; WHEREAS, the zoning ordinance requires a 5 foot side setback for detached accessory structures; and WHEREAS, the property owner constructed a detached accessory structure that is 4.29 feet from the side property line; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning & Zoning Board on January 9, 2008; and WHEREAS, as required by Section 2, Subdivision 4 of the zoning ordinance, the City Council made the following findings of fact regarding the structure: a. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Reasonable use of the garage, which was permitted, constructed, and inspected at what was believed to be the appropriate setback; would be eliminated if the setback was strictly enforced in this case. b. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Due to the topography of the lot,the location of the rear property corner is extremely difficult to ascertain and verify. At the time of the building permit for the structure, no survey was required and the property owner believed he was meeting the setback requirement. C. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. The structure was permitted, constructed, and inspected approximately twenty years ago and was believed to meet all ordinances at the time. Since then more thorough information has identified that the structure is encroaching approximately 8.5 inches into the setback. While the structure could be removed and reconstructed to meet the ordinance, the cost would be extreme in comparison to the minor nature of the variance being requested. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. A 0.71 foot reduction to the side yard setback is a minor deviation from the ordinance, and is not dissimilar to previous variances granted to existing structures that encroached upon setbacks. e. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. A 0.71 foot reduction to the side yard setback is a minor deviation and will not contravene the spirit and intent of the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Lino Lakes hereby approves the Variance to the side setback for the existing detached accessory structure at 2221 Reiling Road based on the certificate of survey submitted on December 10, 2007. Passed by the Lino Lakes City Council this 28th day of January 2008. a Q�,� Jo J. Ber eson, ayor ATTEST: ---<,LS:� Julie ar ell, City Jerk Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 28th day of January, 2008. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member°'Donne"and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Gallup, O'Donnell, Reinert, Bergeson The following voted against same: none (Stoltz absent) • Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. AGENDA ITEM 6.D. STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson CC MEETING DATE: January 28, 2008 TOPIC: Resolution 08-15 Variance to allow a 4.29 foot side yard setback for an existing detached accessory structure (garage) where 5.0 feet is required. Kenneth Muehlstedt 2221 Reiling Road Section 5, Subdivision 2 of the City of Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance requires that a 5- foot side setback be provided for all accessory structures in the Rural Executive zoning district. The property owner was notified that a portion of the structure was encroaching on the setback. He requested a Variance in 2005, was recommended for denial by staff and the Planning and Zoning Board, and subsequently withdrew the application before it went to City Council. He then removed what was thought to be the offending portion of the structure,the west five feet of the shed addition. In the fall of 2007 the neighboring property owner again brought up the issue of the setback and it was reviewed by staff. It was at this time that the property owner was informed that the setback of the garage itself was believed to be deficient and this application came about. The applicant has since obtained a certificate of survey which depicts a 4.29 foot setback where 5.0 feet is required, a deviation of 14%. This is the only request that is being made by the property owner at this time. The other zoning violations on both this property and the neighboring property will be corrected when weather permits. When the building was proposed the city did not require the submission of a survey. Simple line drawings indicating the required setback are acceptable, as long as the property owner can demonstrate to the building department that they do know the location of property lines. This is done by finding property monuments that are placed in the ground when the subdivision is platted by the developer. The rear property line is placed on a great slope that makes identifying the position of that pin very difficult. As such,the property owner believed to be meeting the appropriate setback, and represented enough evidence to the building official to lead them to believe that as well. Since the neighboring property at 2215 Reiling Road was vacant at the time, it wasn't until the lot was developed that anyone noticed the discrepancy. BACKGROUND 4/21/1987 A building permit was issued for a 26-foot by 30-foot(780 square foot)detached accessory structure(garage)for the subject property. ?/??/???? At some point the property owner built a 10-foot by 30-foot(300 square foot) addition to the rear of the garage without obtaining the proper building permits from the city. (Permit was eventually obtained) 1/24/2003 The city received, as part of a building permit application for the adjacent property to the west, a certificate of survey from Kurth Surveying,that depicted the properly permitted structure and the attachment both within the five foot setback area as required in the R-X(Rural Executive)zoning district. 4/23/2004 The City of Lino Lake's Building Department contacted the resident at 2221 Reiling Road in regards to the certificate of survey submitted for the construction of a single family dwelling at 2215 Reiling Road. This survey depicted a portion of the existing detached accessory structure(garage) setback 1.2 feet from the side property line. The resident was informed that the structure would either need to be made to meet the 5.0 feet setback, and if it were to remain in any way, the resident would need to obtain a building permit. 9/17/2004 The City of Lino Lake's Building Department again contacted the resident at 2221 Reiling Road on September 17, 2004 to reiterate the options for the existing detached accessory structure(garage). 11/24/2004 The Community Development Department received an application for this Variance request to allow a 1.2-foot side setback for a detached accessory structure(garage)where 5.0 feet is the minimum required by the zoning ordinance. 1/12/2005 The Planning and Zoning Board voted to recommend denial of the Variance request. 3/22/2005 Mr.Muehlstedt had a property sketch completed by Hult&Associates. This document is attached, and clearly states that the existing property line monuments do not match the corresponding recorded distances shown on the plat for the Otter Lake Hills subdivision. 3/24/2005 Mr.Muehlstedt withdrew the Variance request prior to it continuing to City Council. 3/30/2005 Mr.Muehlstedt obtained a demolition permit to remove a portion of the shed addition to bring it into conformance with the five foot setback requirement, and obtained a building permit for the addition. Staff and the property owner both believed that this completed enforcement on the issue and closed the case. After this was completed the neighboring property owner requested that the city review the structural integrity of the shed addition. It was determined that the shed addition was not structurally sound and would need to be corrected. 8/30/2007 Structural repairs proposed by Mr. Muehlstedt were reviewed by both the City's Building Official and a Structural Engineer and determined to be adequate. • 8/31/2007 The neighboring property owner raised the issue of the setback for the original garage, which was not believed to be encroaching into the setback area and requested that the city enforce its ordinance. BACKGROUND (Continued) 9/05/2007 The City's Building Official inspected the structural repairs to the shed addition and determined that they were completed in accordance with the previously reviewed plans. Therefore the shed addition to the garage meets all of the city's ordinances and is no longer an issue. 10/01/2007 The Community Development Department informed Mr. Muehlstedt that the existing garage was believed to be closer than five feet to the property line and that a Variance would be required to allow it to remain in its current state. 10/17/2007 Mr. Muehlstedt submitted an application for a Variance to allow the existing structure to remain. 10/17/2007 The neighboring property owner raised the issue that Mr.Muehlstedt's fence was actually sited over the property line. 10/23/2007 Staff requested that Mr.Muehlstedt obtain an updated survey so that the extent of the encroachment could be clearly identified. 10/26/2007 The city's Building Official informed the City Council and City Attorney of the review process of Mr. Muehlstedt's shed addition. This memorandum is attached, and staff considers this issue to be closed. 10/29/2007 Kurth Surveying issued an update to the 2004 survey of the neighboring property. This update is hand written and states that the location of Mr. Muehlstedt's fence was known to be encroaching when the survey was completed,but no information as to this fact was shown on the survey at the time. This survey indicated that the fence encroaches as much as 0.3 feet onto the neighboring property. 11/14/2007 The neighboring property owner attended the Planning and Zoning Board meeting to speak at open mike. They expressed concern over the delay in having the action heard, and over the structural repairs to the shed addition that were completed by Mr. Muehlstedt. Staff explained that an updated survey would be the best avenue to define the Variance requests. As of September 5,2007 the shed addition was considered to be completely in compliance with the city's ordinances and is therefore not an issue. 12/10/2007 Mr. Muehlstedt submitted a new certificate of survey which is the basis of this application and review. VARIANCE FINDINGS In considering all requests for Variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: a. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Reasonable use of the garage, which was permitted, constructed, and inspected at what was believed to be the appropriate setback; would be eliminated if the setback was strictly enforced in this case. • b. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Due to the topography of the lot, the location of the rear property corner is extremely difficult to ascertain and verify. At the time of the building permit for the structure, no survey was required and the property owner believed he was meeting the setback requirement. C. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. The structure was permitted, constructed, and inspected approximately twenty years ago and was believed to meet all ordinances at the time. Since then more thorough information has identified that the structure is encroaching approximately 8.5 inches into the setback. While the structure could be removed and reconstructed to meet the ordinance, the cost would be extreme in comparison to the minor nature of the variance being requested. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. A 0.71 foot reduction to the side yard setback is a minor deviation from the ordinance, and is not dissimilar to previous variances granted to existing structures that encroached upon setbacks. e. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. A 0.71 foot reduction to the side yard setback is a minor deviation and will not contravene the spirit and intent of the ordinance. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD On January 9, 2008 the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval of the Variance request based on the certificate of survey and findings of fact presented by staff. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending adopting Resolution 08-15, approving the Variance request based on the certificate of survey and findings of fact. . ATTACHMENTS Resolution 08-15 Applicant's justification letter Certificate of Survey submitted December 10,2007 Kenneth Muehlstedt 2221 Reiling Road • Lino Lakes, MN 55110 612-240-5178 October 15, 2007 RE: Variance Application To whom it may concern: In 1984 the City of Lino Lakes through TKDA & Associates (TKDA) contracted out the installation of Reiling Road to Northern Asphalt. Northern Asphalt sub- contracted the removal of trees and the grading of the road to Dell Contracting; while bulldozing the road, Dell Contracting removed all the front survey pins up and down Reiling Road. I informed John Davidson of TKDA that the survey pins had been removed and Mr. Davidson sent out a survey crew to replace the pins. At the time, Reiling Road dead-ended at my property and only my survey pins were replaced. In 1987 1 applied for a permit to build a 26 x 30 garage; I based the placement of the • garage on TKDA's survey which at the time was well within the five-foot setback. In 1992 Reiling Road was extended west beyond my property. In 2002, Sally Bachmeier and Lloyd Chalupsky purchased lot 10 adjacent to the west of my property. Ms. Bachmeier and Mr. Chalupsky informed me that the northwest corner of my garage was 6 to 8 inches off the setback; they said they didn't have a problem with it but wanted me to be aware of it. There have been numerous disagreements between us which resulted in Ms. Bachmeier and Mr. Chalupsky bringing legal action against me and in turn the courts found that "the Plaintiffs' testimony lacking in credibility". After losing two trials and an appeal, the setback and other issues became a problem to Ms. Bachmeier and Mr. Chalupsky. A permit was issued for my garage and was inspected and approved by the City of Lino Lakes building official Mr. Pete Kluegel; Mr. Kluegel based his inspections on the same survey done by TKDA. A recent survey done by Hult & Associates (see- attached survey) states "the plat of Otter Lake Hills does not meet the standards set by Minnesota Statue 505 ...". 1 am asking for a variance on a very small portion of my garage that was constructed over 20 years ago (see enclosed digital photographs). Also enclosed you will find photos of my driveway which has also been questioned as to the setback requirements. See enclosed survey that shows the driveway setback at 7'1"; the radius on the west side is closer to the property line but is in the 15' right of way. • Respectfu y, Kenneth Muehlstedt Enc. CER TIFICATE OF SUR VEY FOR 110EN MUEHL,S TED T • PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2221 REILING ROAD LINO LAKES, MN 55014 Scale:l'-30' t FILE SOP S89e09'37"W PP'----- 100.00O RP ._... SET IRON,/ `PP \SET IRONS I L 0 T ' > \I All I L_ ut =m 0 1.42— 66 j 25. � 8.11 N EX GPR w tin 11 EX BLDG­I --EX BLDG N4.6 11:1. PP Q / � x w Q w tC FENG� Q I_ w J cc \ K WW J d' G � u� a ar , • o� N aLL \ \ Co 0 to o n 11) 6 ,--e 00 o 0 N 6= PECK 6 o N N �� z2 N N F0— \0 Z W 1 L l LJ 11 si g z 1 / t S n9 _IN 4 1$ Well 3 1 m 260 �RON g i 3 1 111 SEZ I I „, -- L�6�519 —il FND IRON 24 SET IRON R1 2g4.00 �o / 24''E / AI / - � REILING _ DESCRIPTION: LOT 11, OTTER LAKE HILLS, ANOKA COUNTY, MN Subject to easements of record, if any. ' I hereby certify that this survey, plan or N report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws stat of MinnabMLSE Ronald. P. Alwin Mean Land Surveying rw.ti��n•a�,wr8wa.,m. 9325 Upland La Nosh R350,Maple Gm ,MN 5536945W DATE O LIC. NO. 17765 Telephone:(]63)3986830 Fu:(76319&2466 a'w...�o-nta.ron E,nan:alwaypnmo-ols.com E L'mo Lakes Pine Ciry DRAWN BY GSO PROJECT NUMBER 2099.0010 BOOK —PAGE _ Record ID 2083545 CITY. 01 IN KfS CITY OF LINO LAKES CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. 08-15 STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF ANOKA) SS CITY OF LINO LAKES) 1998824 . 011 I, Julianne Bartell, City Clerk of the City of Lino Lakes, in the County of Anoka and State of Minnesota, certify that I have examined the attached copy of Resolution No. 08-15, approving a variance to the property at 2221 Reiling Road, approved by the City Council on January 28, 2008, and have carefully compared the same with the original on file in this office, and that the attached copy is a true, correct and complete copy of the original. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed and affixed the city seal on February 7, 2008. J-City Mr �f 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes,MN 55014 Phone: 651-982-2400 Fax: 651-982-2499 ' 7 Council Member Gallup introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 08-15 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK FOR THE PROPERTY AT 2221 REILING ROAD. WHEREAS,the City has received an application for a Variance to allow an existing detached accessory structure to remain at 2221 Reiling Road, described as follows: Lots 11 and 12, Otter Lake Hills, Lino Lakes and; WHEREAS, the zoning ordinance requires a 5 foot side setback for detached accessory structures; and WHEREAS,the property owner constructed a detached accessory structure that is 4.29 feet from the side property line; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning & Zoning Board on January 9, 2008; and WHEREAS, as required by Section 2, Subdivision 4 of the zoning ordinance,the City Council made the following findings of fact regarding the structure: a. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Reasonable use of the garage,which was permitted, constructed, and inspected at what was believed to be the appropriate setback;would be eliminated if the setback was strictly enforced in this case. b. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Due to the topography of the lot,the location of the rear property corner is extremely difficult to ascertain and verify. At the time of the building permit for the structure, no survey was required and the property owner believed he was meeting the setback requirement. C. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. The structure was permitted, constructed, and inspected approximately twenty years ago and was believed to meet all ordinances at the time. Since then more thorough information has identified that the structure is encroaching approximately 8.5 inches into the setback. While the structure could be removed and reconstructed to meet the ordinance, the cost would be extreme in comparison to the minor nature of the variance being requested. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. A 0.71 foot reduction to the side yard setback is a minor deviation from the ordinance, and is not dissimilar to previous variances granted to existing structures that encroached upon setbacks. e. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. A 0.71 foot reduction to the side yard setback is a minor deviation and will not contravene the spirit and intent of the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Lino Lakes hereby approves the Variance to the side setback for the existing detached accessory structure at 2221 Reiling Road based on the certificate of survey submitted on December 10, 2007. Passed by the Lino Lakes City Council this 28d' day of January 2008. Jo J. Ber eson, ayor ATTEST: Julie at ell, City lerk Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 28th day of January, 2008. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Membero'Donnelland upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Gallup, O'Donnell, Reinert, Bergeson The following voted against same: none (Stoltz absent) Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1 ANOKA COUNTY MINNESOTA Document No.: 1998824.011 ABSTRACT I hereby certify that the within instrument was filed in this office for record on: 02/14/2008 1:48:00 PM Fees/Taxes In the Amount of: $46.00 MAUREEN J. DEVINE Anoka County Property Tax AdininistratoriRecorder/Registrar of Titles BMC, Deputy Record ID: 2083545