Laserfiche WebLink
��tb�cl< F�epdi°fi <br />77�'f Long L.��ce f��sad <br />P,pril �, 2�t�3 <br />F'a�� 2 <br />Based on the above informa�ion regarding "prevaili�g setbacks", if becomes readify apparent <br />fihat fihe sfir�cture under cons#rucfiion at 7741 Long Lake Road is �oo close fo th� street. The <br />building permif for the sfirucfure should nofi have been issued; fihe error is admifitedly the <br />City's. Incorrect setback information was provided fio the developer and/or his surveyor, and <br />upon submission of the buildi�g permif applicatiar�, anofher error was made in no� verifying <br />the setback of the building. After learnir�g of fhe po#ential error, �he Cifiy's temporary <br />inspector fie[d-verified preva►iling setbacks and at fhe same time siaff reviewed �he Long <br />Lake Road recortsfruction as-built pians, survey quali�y plans which include buifding se#back <br />informafiion. The field inspection and r�view of the as-builfi pians indicateci that the home <br />(ocated at 7801 Long Lake Road was the closest to fhe s�reet at 41 feefi, and as such, 41 <br />feet would con�titute the prevaifir�g setback for fihis bfock of Long Lake Road. <br />Once the prevailing sefback had been determined, ihe buifding official posted a"Sfop Work" <br />order on the property and sfafFthen nofiified the d�veloper, Neaf Zinser. Three optians were <br />presented fio Mr. Zinser: Remove 1 i feet from the garage fio s�fisfy the prevailing setback, <br />slide fhe whole structure back by 11_feei, or apply for a vari�nce. Mr. Zii�ser indicafed thaf <br />the second option {move fihe building back an additional 11 feet} was NOT an option due to <br />the extent of fhe consfruction already complefed and immediately requested fo be h�ard for <br />a variance reques�. Mr. Zinser also requesied �o c�ntinue consfructian on the house itseif, to <br />which the building ofFiciaf agreed, amending the Sfop Wark order accordingly. <br />One additional issue regarding the constructian is inconsis�enfi wi�h fhe ,Zoning Code. <br />Subdivision 1 c of Secfion 1106.03 of #he R-i Zor�ing requirements indicates fihaf no garage ''; <br />shail exceed 952 square feef in area except by conditional use permit. The size of fhe <br />garage at 774i Long Lake Road, at 25 f�et by 42 feet, is 1,050 square feet, 98 square feefi <br />more fhan the maximum withaut a.CUP. Furfihermore, ihe Zoning Code sfafies that the <br />maximum square footage of accessary building space on a lot is 1,800 square feet. A shed <br />has been constructed on the [of which, at 30 feet by 31.66 feet, totals 950 square feet. The <br />shed and garage space fogether totafs 2,OQ0 square feef, 200 square feet more than what is <br />allowed by the Zoning Code. Thus, in addifiion to the front sefiback issue, to maintain #he <br />size of the garage, a CUP would need to be obtained; and to maintain the TOTAL square <br />footage, a variance would need to be approved far ihe additional 200 square feet. <br />:. .- . <br />For a variance to be approved, the applicani needs to demonstra�e a hardship or practical <br />difficulty associated with the praperty that makes a iiteral ir�terpretation of the Code overly <br />burdensome or restricfive. Minnesota stafutes require thaf the governing body (the Piannirrg <br />Commission, in IViounds View} review a sefi of specified cri�eria for each appfication and <br />mal�e its decision in accordance with fhese cri�eria. `�hese criteria are set forth ir� Secfian <br />9125.02, Subdivision 2, of fhe City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exisfis <br />wher� all of the criteria are met. The criteri� ar� as follows: <br />