HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-153B Council Resolution01-153B
Council Member Carlsohntroduced the following resolution and moved its adoption.
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. O1 -153B
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY
BUILDING IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE
FOOTAGE AND DENYING A VARIANCE FOR THE NUMBER OF
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ALLOWED FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
6180 WARE ROAD
WHEREAS, an application has been submitted to the City Council for a Variance from
the City of Lino Lakes Zoning Code, and
WHEREAS, the application is represented on a document titled "Variance" by Steve
Poser, dated August 10, 2001, and received by the City the same date, and
WHEREAS, the legal description of the property is:
Lot 1, Block 1, Scheunemann Corner
And
WHEREAS, Section 3, Subd. 4.D8.g.1 of the Lino Lakes zoning ordinance sets a
maximum of 1,120 square feet of accessory building space for property 32,671 square
feet to less than one and one-quarter acres in a Rural zone, and
WHEREAS, Section 3, Subd. 4.D.8.g.2 of the Lino Lakes zoning ordinance sets a
maximum of a) one attached garage and one detached structure, OR b) two detached
accessory structures for property 32,671 square feet to less than one and one-quarter acres
in a Rural zone, and
WHEREAS, a Variance would be required for this increased number and square footage
of accessory building space, and
WHEREAS, Section 2, Subdivision 4.A of the zoning ordinance states that in considering
requests for variances the City must make a finding of fact which is specified in the
ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes
makes the following findings of fact:
1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under
conditions allowed by the official controls.
2. That the plight of the landowner is due to physical circumstances unique to his
property and not created by the landowner.
3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable
use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance.
4. 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.
5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Lino Lakes City Council hereby
approves the variance for the construction of an accessory structure 1080 square feet in
excess of the maximum allowable square footage, with the following conditions:
1. A building permit is issued before construction begins.
2. The existing 160 -square foot non -conforming accessory building is removed prior to
issuance of building permit.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Lino Lakes City Council hereby denies the
Variance for the increase in number of accessory structures allowed.
Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this ,2 day of Sir 1-, 2001.
ATTEST:
Ann B1ay, City Clerk
eson, Mayor
The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council
Member Dahl and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Reinert, Dahl, Bergeson, Carlson & O'Donnell.
The following voted against same: None .
Whereupon said resolution was declared approved.
AMENDED AGENDA ITEM 7B
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Tanda Gretz
C. C. MEETING DATE: September 24, 2001
TOPIC: Request For Variances To
Allow:
1.) Accessory Building In Excess Of Maximum
Allowable Square Footage
2.) Accessory Building In Excess of the
Maximum Number Allow
Steve Poser, 6180 Ware Road
ACTION REQUIRED: 3/5 vote
BACKGROUND
The subject property is a 1.2 acre parcel zoned Rural. Mr. Poser has applied for a
variance from the prohibition of accessory buildings in excess of 1,120 square feet on a
lot of less than one and one-quarter acres, in order to construct a 1080 square foot
detached garage on the northern part of his property. A second variance from the
prohibition of building a second detached accessory building in excess of the allowed one
attached garage and one detached accessory building would also be required, as there is a
160 square foot shed already existing on the property. This shed is sited closer to Ware
Road than the house, and so is currently in violation of City ordinance Section 3, Subd.
4.D.1.c, which prohibits detached accessory structures from being placed closer to the
front lot line than the principal building.
This report is based on information from standard plat files and also plans and narrative
submitted by Mr. Poser.
The City's zoning ordinance states:
• The combination of accessory buildings and garages for a property 32,671 square feet
to less than one and one-quarter acres in a Rural zone shall not exceed 1,120 square
feet (Section 3, Subd. 4.D.8.g.1).
• The combination of accessory buildings and garages for a property of one and '/4
acres to two and Y2 acres in a Rural zone shall not exceed 2,020 square feet (Section
3, Subd. 4.D.8.e.1).
• The total allowable accessory building space for a property 32,671 square feet to less
than one and 1/4 acres in a Rural zone shall be limited to a) one attached garage and
one detached structure, OR b) two detached accessory structures (Section 3, Subd.
4.D.8.g.2).
• The total allowable accessory building space for a property one and 1/4 acres to two
and '/2 acres shall be limited to a) one attached garage AND B) two detached
accessory structures (Section 3, Subd. 4.D.8.e.2)
• No detached accessory structure shall be closer to the front lot line than the principal
building or its attached garage (Section 3, Subd. 4.D.1.c).
ANALYSIS
Mr. Poser wants to build a 1080 square foot detached garage on the northern part of his
property, with access via 62' Street, for storage of recreational vehicles and trailers. The
current garage (660 square feet) is attached to the house, which exists on the western part
of the property with access via Ware Road. There is a 10' X 16' (160 square feet) shed
located to the north of the house on the northwest portion of the property. It should be
noted that this shed is currently in non-compliance with City Code Section 3, Subd.
4.D.1.c, as it is placed closer to the front lot line than the house. The septic system is
located to the south of the house. The lot is wooded, with no apparent wetlands.
The property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Ware Road and 62"d
Street and zoned Rural. Miller's South Glen subdivision is located to the north of the
property and zoned Residential Single Family Executive. Fox Trace subdivision is
located to the northwest and zoned Residential Single Family. Property to the west, south
and east are similar in size zone to that of the subject property. Mr. Poser has support for
his variance from his three immediate neighbors to the north, east and south.
The property is 348 X 150 feet, or 52,200 square feet. This puts the acreage at about
1.2 acres, or just under the 1.25 -acre lot size required for the construction of an accessory
buildings of the size and number desired by Mr. Poser. In other words, City Code allows
an accessory building of 2,020 square feet on a lot of 1-1/4 to 2-1/2 acres, but only allows
an accessory building of 1,120 square feet on a lot of less than 1-1/4 acres.
In addition, City Code allows EITHER one attached garage and one detached structure,
OR two detached structures on a lot of less than 1.25 acres, but allows one attached
garage AND two detached accessory buildings on a lot in excess of 1.25 acres. Mr. Poser
already has a detached structure in the 10' X 16' shed located in his front yard (non-
conforming). Thus, adding a second accessory building would also require a variance for
a lot with his square footage.
Existing accessory square footage is 820 square feet: a 660 square foot attached garage
and a 160 square foot detached shed. Addition of the proposed detached garage would
result in 1,900 square feet of total accessory building footage, 780 square feet over what
is allowed under City ordinance. If the current non -conforming shed were eliminated
from the total accessory square footage, the proposed garage would still be 620 square
feet over what is allowed under City ordinance.
Construction of the proposed garage in the area desired by Mr. Poser would require a
separate, second driveway with access via 62"d street. City Code does not preclude
construction of such a second driveway. There are, however, easement issues. There is
an eighty-five foot United Power Association easement along the southern side of 62nd
Street. The proposed garage does not impact this easement, but the driveway would cross
the easement. Similarly, construction of the proposed garage does not appear to impact
the current road right-of-way, however the driveway would be affected by any future
improvements to 62"d Street.
Overall, Mr. Poser states that he wants to locate the garage on the northern part of the
property with access via 62"d street for two reasons: 1) the septic system is located on the
southern part of the property and precludes siting there, and 2) there is less traffic on 62nd
Street.
The above report was presented at the September 11th meeting of the Planning and
Zoning Board. After consideration of the issues, the board voted to recommend approval
of the Variance, with the following two conditions:
1. Removal of the existing non -conforming accessory building.
2. Moving the proposed driveway 20' to the east. This would follow the City's
Transportation Plan, which states that driveways should be sited 90' from road
intersections.
(NOTE: the above cited 90' guideline applies to arterial streets. Ware Road and 62"d
Street are Minor Collectors. According to City Engineer John Powell, the applicant's
drawings show the proposed driveway would be at least 65' from the intersection of two
Minor Collector streets, and thus he would not object to the driveway in the proposed
location).
The Planning and Zoning Board approval of the Variance was based on the following two
findings:
1. The subject property (1.2 acres) is only 2,178 square feet under the lot size required
(1.25 acres) for the construction of the proposed accessory building.
2. The applicant has shown that he has the support of his immediate neighbors.
FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE
In considering all requests for variance and in taking subsequent action, the City shall
make a finding of fact:
1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under
conditions allowed by the official controls.
Additional accessory building space is possible under City ordinance, although at a
smaller size. Two hundred eighty (280) additional square feet is allowed as an addition
onto the current non -conforming shed or attached garage; four hundred forty (440)
additional square feet is allowed if the existing shed were to be eliminated.
2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his
property not created by the landowner.
There are no unique physical circumstances to the property that require accessory
building square footage in the number and location proposed.
3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable
use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance.
Hardship has not been demonstrated. In addition, City ordinance does not preclude
reasonable use of the property: additional accessory building space is allowed, although
not in the size and configuration proposed by the applicant.
4. 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.
Granting the Variance would confer special privilege, as the additional accessory
building and square footage is prohibited by City ordinance and not available to other
property owners with lots less than 1.25 acres.
5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance.
The number of detached accessory buildings and square footage of allowable accessory
building space requested is prohibited by City ordinance.
FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE
OPTIONS:
1. Approve Resolution 01-153A Denying the Variance.
2. Approve Resolution 01-153B Approving the Variance for An Accessory Building In
Excess of Maximum Allowable Square Footage and Denying the Variance For
Buildings In Excess Of The Maximum Number Allowed.
3. Return to staff with direction.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Option 1.
Steve & Gail Poser 6180 Ware Rd
Proposed new garage. 30 x 36
Note: Siding & Shingles to match new remodeling of our house.
Purpose. Storage of Boats, Snowmobile's and their trailers.
Note: Trailers will not fit into existing garage
Variance #1
City Ordinance 1.25 acres = 2020 sq ft. Garage, Outbuilding, & Sheds
Property Size
150 x 348.06 approx. 1.2 acres = 1100 sq ft. Garage, Outbuilding, & Sheds
Existing 2 + Garage 22 x 30 = 660 Sq Feet
Shed 10 x 16 = 160 Sq Feet
Total Exist = 820 Sq Feet
t o80
New garage 36 x 30 = Sq Feet
Proposed New Total = Sq Feet
1'100
Variance #2
City Ordinance Garage, shed, or outbuilding must be further away from the road
than the closest part of your house.
The Proposed garage would be further from Ware Road but closer to 62nd Street.
• We wanted to exit / enter from 62Nd street because there is less traffic.
• Our septic system is on the south side of our property.
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 2
VI. ACTION ITEMS
A. Steve Poser, 6180 Ware Road, Variance
Staff presented the application by explaining applicant had applied for a variance from the
prohibition of accessory buildings in excess of 1,120 square feet on a lot of less than one and
one-quarter acres in order to construct a 1060 square foot detached garage on the northern part of
his property. A second variance from the prohibition of building a second detached accessory
building in excess of the allowed one attached garage and one detached accessory building
would also be required, as there was a 160 square foot shed already existed on the property. This
shed was sited closer to Ware Road than the house, and so it was currently in violation of City
Ordinance Section 3, Subd. 4.D.1.c, which prohibits detached accessory structures from being
placed closer to the front lot line than the principal building.
Staff presented its analysis of its request by explaining Mr. Poser wanted to build a 1080 square
foot detached garage on the northern part of his property, with access via 62nd Street, for storage
of recreational vehicles and trailers. The current garage was attached to the house, which existed
on the western part of the property with access via Ware Road. There was a 10' X 16' shed
located to the north of the house on the northwest portion of thsTprpperty. Staff noted that this
shed was currently in non-compliance with City Code Sectio Subd. 4.D.1.c, as it was placed
closer to the front lot line than the house, and the City wo ex pct that the shed be moved to a
location which met City Code. Staff stated the septic sy`sem wasated to the south of the
house. Staff indicated the lot was wooded, with no pare wetland,
Staff explained the property was located at the southeast • . er of the intersection of Ware Road
and 62" Street and zoned Rural. Staff statedersSout Q len subdivision was located to the
north of the property and zoned Residential Sin arn'Executive. Staff indicated Fox Trace
subdivision was located to the northwest zoned Residential Single Family. Staff stated the
property to the west, south and eas -- ere similar i size zone to that of the subject property.
Staff indicated Mr. Poser had supportmance from his three immediate neighbors to the
north, east and south.
Staff explained the property as 348 X 150 feet, or 52,200 square feet. This put the acreage at
1.2 acres, or just under the 1. cr rot size required for the construction of an accessory
buildings of the size and numbesired by Mr. Poser.
Staff explained City Code allowed either one attached garage and one detached structure, or two
detached structures on a lot of less than 1.25 acres, but allowed one attached garage and two
detached accessory buildings on a lot in excess of 1.25 acres. Staff stated Mr. Poser already had
a detached structure in the 10' X 16' shed located in his front yard (non -conforming). Thus,
adding a second accessory building would also require a variance for a lot with his square
footage.
Staff stated the existing accessory square footage was 820 square feet: a 660 square foot attached
garage and a 160 square foot detached shed. Addition of the proposed detached garage would
result in 1,880 square feet of total accessory building footage, 780 square feet over what was
allowed under City ordinance. Staff indicated if the current non -conforming shed were
eliminated from the total accessory square footage, the proposed garage would still be 620
square feet over what was allowed under City ordinance.
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 3
Staff indicated construction of the proposed garage in the area desired by Mr. Poser would
require a separate, second driveway with access via 62nd street. Staff stated City Code did not
preclude construction of such a second driveway. There were, however, easement issues. Staff
stated there was an eighty-five foot United Power Association easement along the southern side
of 62nd Street. The proposed garage did not impact this easement, but the driveway would cross
the easement. Similarly, construction of the proposed garage does not appear to impact the
current road right-of-way, however the driveway would be affected by any future improvements
to 62nd Street.
Staff explained Mr. Poser stated that he wanted to locate the garage on the northern part of the
property with access via 62nd street for two reasons: 1) the septic system was located on the
southern part of the property and precludes sitting there, and 2) there was less traffic on 62nd
Street.
Staff reviewed the five findings for variance, as stated in the zoning ordinance that the City shall
make in considering all requests for variance in taking subsequent action.
Staff recommended denying the variance for the reasons outlinedin the staff's report.
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment.
Steve Poser, 6180 Ware Road, stated he was .05 acres hort,from being allowed to do what he
wanted to do, which was the equivalent of 5 feet. Secoc a was not sure why there was a
violation on the present shed he had on his proprty. He -st4tsd he had obtained a permit and was
not informed at that time he would be in violation;
Chair Schaps asked if he had given any thought tq eliminating one of the structures. Mr. Poser
replied he could do that, but at there hdid not know when he applied that he was in
violation.
Chair Schaps indicated the Ordinances were there for a purpose, even if he was only .05 acres
short. Mr. Corson agreed and stated they did need to draw the line somewhere, and he could not
support this variance. ' ;
Mr. Zych stated Mr. Poser was only .05 acres short from being able to put as many buildings as
he wanted to on the property. He stated the neighbors had indicated it was okay with them, so he
did not see why they did not grant the request. Mr. Corson replied that the line needed to be
drawn somewhere and the rules were there for a purpose. He expressed concern about setting
precedence if this was granted.
Mr. Corson stated Mr. Poser did not have a unique hardship and therefore, did not qualify for this
variance.
Mr. Smyser stated the issue was that he already had an accessory building. Mr. Poser stated he
wanted to put the garage up to store additional trailers in. He stated the shed could not be seen
from any of his neighbors' yards.
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 4
Chair Schaps indicated the Ordinance allowed Mr. Poser to have a structure, but not the number
he wanted or the size he wanted.
Ms. Lane asked if the shed were removed, what size structure would Mr. Poser be allowed to
have. Ms. Gretz replied he could build a 1,100 -foot building.
Mr. Hyden asked about the driveway access off of 62nd. He asked if this would be a problem.
Mr. Powell replied the driveway construction would go over an easement and they would need to
receive permission to go over the easement, but this was not unusual and this was done all of the
time.
Mr. Corson asked if there was any problem with having two driveways. Mr. Powell replied the
Ordinances did not prohibit it, but he strongly advised against it.
Ms. Lane stated she was in agreement with Mr. Zych for allowing this, but only if the smaller
shed would be removed.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to allow the variance on the condition that the small accessory
building of 160 feet be removed, and the driveway be moved 29,feet further east, and was
supported by Mr. Zych.
After further discussion, Ms. Lane withdrew her motion.and Mr. Zych withdrew his second.
accessory building in excess of
Zych. Motion carried 5-0.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to deny the variance to al
maximum allowable square footage, and was supported
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the new garage contingent with the driveway being
placed in compliance 20 feet east and th, resent Qccessory building be removed for the reason
that Mr. Poser was extremely close in me mg the,Ordinance, and he had the permission of the
adjoining landowners, and was suppo WZych.
Mr. Corson stated staff mi g t wantrrchapge this Ordinance.
Chair Schaps clarified that what they were allowing was one accessory building and the shed
would need to be removed.
Motion carried (4-1 Corson).
B. Rick Piper, 6153 Oakwood Drive, Variance
Staff presented the application by explaining applicant had applied for a variance from the
required 5 -foot side yard setback for accessory buildings in order to construct a 465 square foot
addition on to his existing 624 square foot attached garage. The proposed addition would be
used primarily to house a third car, a secondarily for storage. In addition, applicant argued that
several homes in the neighborhood had three -stall garages, and that such an addition would add
value and marketability to the subject property.
Staff presented its analysis of the request by explaining applicant wanted to build a 31' X 15'
addition onto his existing attached garage. The current garage was located in the northeast
UX ONE
.'iWi►.N'iYV'wwY.NIrN
'11
worgracom
BALDW I N
LAKE
3
• w•aowp
110E322151EIG
■0000
i•:i111-1 '��
offs Iz 5 a
va
m
- —ASH ST
CORPQRATE p4S OF CITY OF LINO LACES
—' War—STATE—A10—HIGHWAY—NO. 32 ---
Y E
r R
DRAWN
REVISED
REV.
REV.
REV.
REV.
REV.
SEP. 1974
NOV. 1978
MAR.1980
SEP.1981
DEC .1982
JULY 1985
DEC. 1985
REVISED JAN. 1987
REV. MAY 1988
REV. AUG. 1989
REV. FEB. 1991
REV. FEB. 1992
REV. FEB. 1993
REV. MAY 1994
SCALE I" = 1500'
REVISED
REV.
REV.
REV.
REV.
REV.
REV.
NOV. 1994
JAN. 1996
JULY 1997
JULY 1998
AUG. 1999
SEPT. 2000
i6
0
:Z1L •
•.. NI J
O < 01
3
4
6
•
F O .... .
• N
•
2.61 •
tD •
N
•
n
L 61%
a
n
✓ N
L6L
N
z
t
1414
W
9
N
W 0
0
14
W.
Z
W
Et
FF
EASEMENT
•
▪ •
•
•
9
z
3
O
t
4
141
0
NV' I
4
90'1£G 391 -OZ -IN
_^ J Q .
W
Z
O W
>
1-
w
to
ti
to
e
Et
91'6
0 I 01tt:
W
I
#
O
6
90'964
,V, 10l1flO 90'6
rr) Cr -
• 391 -02-1 N 90'864
I �>` 90'94£ 091
41
3Z 9
fn =1
si m 90'9b£ o
o I 1 OZ TN 0 0 �� Dot
SLI z I "6.m
O _
ctN N
'J
"J ££ 0'94F 0£1
• M L 90\ Li02-I
N
rw in
h
N88 -02-65W 492
94'89£
HARRY 9 EVELYN NOREN
•
•
4
m
a .
W .
0
99'94£
---faainsa8--099'949Z---
Steve & Gail Poser 6180 Ware Rd
Proposed new garage. 30 x 36
Note: Siding & Shingles to match new remodeling of our house.
Purpose. Storage of Boats, Snowmobile's and their trailers.
Note: Trailers will not fit into existing garage
City Ordinance 1.25 acres =2020 sq ft Garage, Outbuilding, & Sheds
Property Size
150 x 348.06 approx. 1.2 acres = 1100 sq ft. Garage, Outbuilding, & Sheds
Existing 2 + Garage 22 x 30 = 660 Sq Feet
Shed 10 x 16 = 160 Sq Feet
Total Exist = 820 Sq Feet
New garage 36 x 30 = 1060 Sq Feet
Proposed New Total = 1880 Sq Feet
The Proposed garage would be further from Ware Road but closer to 62nd Street.
• We wanted to exit / enter from 62Nd street because there is less traffic &.
Our septic system is on the south side of our property.
City of Lino Lakes
To whom it may Concern
Aug 8 2001
We have no objection to Steve & Gail Poser (6180 Ware Rd) building a
• garage on the North end of their property, exiting on to 62 nd Street.
Bob & Liz Stokes 6150 Ware Rd .(
Bill & Sandy Trudeau 410 62 nd Street 64 (fit01-7
Nick & Esther Mangelsen 6202 Ware Rd
//i7e /1/ W/./4 of 5 W Seel/az,
t5 618 02' 5.8"E -482.16'
/j50.00
85.f,///"We
at
STREE7
/ 0. 00
Rower A s .s ocia /ion
Doc. No. 38424/
1-0e0,A 30
34
-3cs
)Jsc.,-) PrIA-Cpe.
JM.t0
2
i
/.0.00
-7-
\/ /50.00
3 0 0.00
- __S...8 8..f_ 0 21...5 3L.' .4" _
4
nos 1.1foo
s e
M
0
M
0
0
ikommaril
1
',3 0