09-15-87 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 PAGE 2 Mr. Thomas Tennis proposed to construct a new garage and construct both vertical and horizontal additions to the house at 2855 Lake Elmo Avenue. Setback variances are being requested for the garage and the horizontal house addition. This property is located east of Lake Elmo and Shoreland Regulations apply. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Lot size is not part of the variance request because this is a previously developed parcel. (The lot east of Lake Elmo Avenue is 0.7 acres.) 2. Side Yard Setback for Garage The applicant proposed to construct the garage six feet from the property line where ten feet is required. 3. Side Yard Setback for House An existing addition to the house is within six feet of the south property line. The applicant proposes to construct a three season porch in line with the existing non- conforming addition. A ten foot setback is required. 4. The applicant proposes to add a story to the house. No variances are required for this vertical addition. 5. No bedrooms are being added, therfore, the septic system is not required to be evaluated. Willard Griffin, 2835 Lake Elmo Avenue, objected to the approval of the sideyard setback variance allowing the porch to be within six feet of the the property line, because he felt this would take value away from his property. Mayor Christ closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Councilwoman Armstrong stated the Council has approved previous requests like this before, but she was not in favor of the garage. Councilman Graves had no problem with the improvements to the house, but did have a problem with the porch and deck being 6 feet from the side property line. Councilman Johnson was in favor of the house variance because upgrading the house would be an improvement. No hardship was found for the garage. M/S/P Armstrong/Graves - to approve the sideyard setback for construction of a porch on the house (not the garage) at 2855 Lake Elmo Avenue North based on the hardship being it does not increase the non-comformity because it already exists; contingent on the addition not exceeding the sketch plan without further consideration from the City Council. (Motion carried 5-0).