12-01-87 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DECEMBER 1, 1987 PAGE 4 Tompkins is asking for a variance to the sideyard setback of 10 feet in order to allow him to construct an addition to the side of his existing attached garage. The size of the addition would be approximately 9' x 22'. The question raised in the 11-17-87 discussion concerned the distance from the sidewall of the existing garage to the newly surveyed propertyline. City Administrator Overby pointed out tht Mr. Tompkins' action to remove an existing carport -style roof overhang and an existing asphalt parking area eliminated a non -conforming situation. Also, if the garage wall is 10 feet or farther from the sideyard property line, then the current situation would conform to City ordinance. Building Official Jim McNamara had field checked the site and determined that the garage wall is situated parallel to the property line and is approximately 13 feet 3 inches from the side property line. This means that the existing garage conforms to City ordinances. Mr. Tompkins was not present for the meeting, but his contractor stated Tompkins' hardship was there was no other logical place for a garage. Councilman Johnson asked why could not the addition be put directly behind the existing garage. Previously it was stated that this would interfere with the septic system, but according to the map Johnson did not see the interference. Johnson felt this was an option, but the contractor did not feel this was very practical. The Council could not find a hardship that would justify granting these variances. Armstrong had an additional concern on access to the septic system for pumping which was installed under the 201 Program. Also, the neighbor already has a fence lined up with the backyards toward the front and they could extend the fence on the property line which would give 1.8 feet at one point which does not give enough line for a man with a hose to pump the septic. The future owners could be very unhappy with the garage being there. Armstrong based her denial on Section 301.060 C.1.b. of the Lake Elmo City Code. M/S/P Armstrong/Moe - to deny a request for a variance to the R-1 sideyard setback for Robert Tompkins at 3291 Lampert Avenue N., as no hardship was demonstrated and based on Section 301.060 C.l.b. of our City Code. (Motion carried 4-0). B. Eden Park Water Problems: Valley Branch Watershed District Response The City Council had requested that the City Administrator contact the VBWD to find out what the watershed district will do in 1988 to _r-es;elve the drainage and petential high water preblems en Eden Park Pond. City Administrator Overby and several Eden Park area residents attended the 11-12-87 VBWD meeting.