HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A - John Craig Zoning Appeal - Detached Accessory Structures
JAN 17 '97 03:09PM HUEMOELLER & BATES
P.1/1
FAX TRANSMISSION
HlJEMOELLER & BATES
I ee70 FflJINI(UH ~""l.
PRIOI'l Uo.KE, MN S5372
(1512) 447-2131
F.x: (612) 447-5626
To:
Jenni Tovar
Date:
January 17, 1997
1 of 1
Fax#:
447-4245
Pages :
From: James D. Bates
Subject: John Craig application for building permit
This is to con:fum that Mr. Craig requests further postponement of the city
council consideration of his appeal of the planning department's denial of his
application for building pennit. now scheduled for the Januaxy 21 council
meeting. He asks that the matter be rescheduled for a council meeting in the
latter half of Februaxy.
fc: John Craig
STAFF AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY
SUBJECT:
7A vr-
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER .Jr~
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 97-XX
RELATING TO AN APPEAL FROM JOHN CRAIG
OF A DECISION OF THE ZONING OFFICER
RELATING TO DETACHED ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES
JANUARY 21, 1997
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this item is to consider an appeal of John
Craig of the decision of the Zoning Officer to deny a permit
application to construct a 300 square foot addition to the
existing detached garage on the property. Mr. Craig filed
this appeal in accordance with the provision of Section 5-6-
1 of the City Code. He requested that this item be deferred
for consideration until this meeting.
BACKGROUND:
Mr. John Craig owns property located at 2855 Spring Lake
Road, which includes a single family dwelling with an
attached double garage and a 1,500 square foot detached
garage. The following is a chronological history of the
garage.
· 9-5-85 The Planning Commission denied a variance
request due to lack of hardship. The applicant had
sought to construct a 1,500 sq. foot detached garage.
· 11-7 -85 A building permit was issued for an "attached"
garage of 1,500 sq. feet. Administratively, the garage is
indicated to be "detached" on the permit application.
The new garage is considered "attached" by means of a
"covered walkway".
· 10-23-96 The applicant applied for building permit to
expand the 1,500 sq. foot garage by 300 sq. feet (25 by
12 foot addition).
16200 ~gg~~3ts&9Ff{~J. S.E.. Prior lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
· 10-25-96 Staff conducted a site inspection and found
that part of the "covered walkway" had been removed.
Regardless of that, staff's interpretation of the
ordinance is that a "covered walkway" does not render
the garage to be attached. There is no definition of the
terms "attached" or "detached" in the City Code,
resulting in conflicting interpretations. Staff is of the
opinion that the adequacy of an enclosed living area or
other habitable space (as defined in the building code)
would render the garage "attached". We believe this to
be the general accepted definition.
· 11-13-96 The conclusion of City Attorney is that the
permit issued in 1985 appears to have been issued
erroneously, and there is no basis to argue that the city
must perpetuate the error and to permit the expansion of
a use that appears unlawful.
· 11-26-96 The applicant appeals the decision of the
Zoning Officer not to approve the permit application.
DISCUSSION:
The staff report to the Planning Commission concluded that
the 1,500 sq. foot garage is detached, and hence non-
conforming. Under City Code, non-conforming uses
cannot be expanded. The majority of the Planning
Commission also agreed that the garage is detached, non-
conforming, and thus cannot be expanded.
The Planning Commission reviewed this appeal on
December 9, 1996, and voted 3 to 2 to recommend that the
City Council uphold the decision of the zoning officer.
ISSUES:
The primary issue is whether or not the 1,500 square foot
garage is detached. Staff and the Planning Commission
agree that the structure is detached, and thus non-
conforming and cannot be expanded. The issuance of a
building permit for the structure appears to have been
wrongfully issued.
The applicant contends that when the permit was issued in
1985 it was legally obtained and that the garage was
considered "attached" then, and it should still be considered
"attached" now so that the proposed addition can be
constructed.
96-123CC.DOC/JKT
2
Staff has been working with the applicant to reach an
acceptable means of attaching the garage to the principle
structure. The applicant has proposed to construct a
structure with a pitched roof, matching shingles, direct
access between garages, and of the same architectural
materials as the existing structures. Based on the
preliminary sketch plans, this appears to be conforming.
The applicant is currently having professional plans drawn
to be submitted as part of the building permit application.
AL TERNA TIVES: 1. Uphold the decision of the Zoning Officer by adopting
the attached resolution.
2. Uphold the position of the applicant. In this case, the
Council should direct the staff to prepare a resolution
approving the appeal.
3. Other specific action as directed by the Council,
RECOMMENDATION: Alternative 1.
ACTION REQUIRED: Adoption of Resolution #97-XX affirming the decision
of the Zoning Officer with findings.
96-123CC.DOC/1KT 3
RESOLUTION 97-XX
UPHOLDING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE ZONING
OFFICER RELATING TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, CASE NO. 96-123, AND
DENYING THE REQUEST TO EXPAND A NON-CONFORMING USE FOR JOHN
CRAIG ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2855 SPRING LAKE ROAD
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, the Prior Lake City Council conducted a hearing on the 7th day of January,
1997, to act on an appeal by John Craig of the Zoning Officer's denial of a
request to expand the size of a detached, non-conforming accessory structure
for property legally described as Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 48, Plat of Spring
Lake Townsite; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the eXlstmg 1,500 square foot garage is not
considered attached to the principle structure by means of the "covered
walkway", and is thus non-conforming according to the Accessory Structure
standards of Section 5-5-2 ; and
WHEREAS, the proposed addition to the 1,500 square foot garage does not meet the Non-
Conforming requirements of Section 5-1-1 (A) of the City Code, and;
WHEREAS, the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for overturning the decision
of the Zoning Officer; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended the City Council uphold the
decision of the Zoning Officer:
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
FINDINGS
1. John Craig appealed the decision of the Zoning Officer relating to the proposed expansion of
an accessory structure considered to be non-conforming as described in Section 6.1 (A) and
6.2 (A3) of the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit a 300 square foot addition of a detached
accessory on property located in the R-I (Suburban Residential) District and the SO
(Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
2855 Spring Lake Road, legally described as Lots 3,4, and 5, Block 48, Spring Lake
Townsite
16200 ~P~eek Ave. S.E., Prior lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQL.AL OPPORTLNITY ErvtPLOYER
2. The Planning Commission reviewed the appeal as contained in Case file #96-123, held
hearings thereon on December 9, 1996, and recommended upholding the decision of the
Zoning Officer.
3. The Prior Lake City Council reviewed this appeal on January 21, 1997.
4. The City Council has considered the effect of overturning the decision of the Zoning Officer
upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values
in the surrounding area and the effect of the appeal on the Comprehensive Plan.
5. On September 5, 1985 the Planning Commission denied the applicant a variance permitting a
1,500 square foot detached accessory structure. The applicant built the structure after
obtaining a permit on 11-7-95. A "covered walkway" was used to "attach" the proposed
garage to the principle structure.
6. On October 23, 1996 a building permit application was received from the applicant which
included a 300 square foot expansion to the 1,500 square foot garage. Staf~s interpretation
of the ordinance, is that the "covered walkway" does not attach the garage to the principle
structure. The existing garage is thus, non-conforming and cannot be expanded.
7. Upholding the decision of the Zoning Officer does not allow the construction of an addition
to the 1,500 square foot garage, as proposed on this property.
8. The contents of Planning Case file #96-123 are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of the decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the
Zoning Officer and concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and considers
the 1,500 square foot garage to be detached and thus non-conforming prohibiting the proposed
addition to the structure.
Passed and adopted this 21st day of January, 1997.
YES
NO
Andren
Greenfield
Kedrowski
Mader
Schenck
Andren
Greenfield
Kedrowski
Mader
Schenck
{ Seal}
City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
RES.DOC
- -~ --~--.
lf~~~lIu.
L:J tJU L ~ If
there is a future addition, it could cause an impervious surface problem. Suggested
keeping the garage closer to the house rather than moving it toward the street for
future developments.
· Agreed the hardship was not met regarding the additional garage size.
MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 96-
38PC.
Discussion: Motion was to move the garage one foot closer to the street making the
distance 43 feet and not approve the 872 sq. foot garage, based on lack of a hardship.
Concerned the applicant is aware of the future addition problems. Mr. Lemke said he
was aware of the situation but felt the garage is the present need. He is aware if the
garage was attached it would not be an issue but this is the only way he can work it out.
V ote signified ayes by Wuellner, V onhof, Criego and Kuykendall. Nay by Stamson.
MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
>
6.
New Business:
A.
CASE #96-123 JOHN CRAIG APPEAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT.
Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report.
Section 5-6-4 of the City Code provides for an appeal process from decisions of the
Zoning Officer. The Planning Director is the Zoning Officer in Prior Lake. In
September of 1995, the Planning Commission denied applicant's request for a variance
based on the lack of demonstrable hardship. In August of 1985, Mr. Craig applied for a
variance to permit a 1500 sq. ft. detached accessory structure (garage). The ordinance in
place at the time allowed for a detached accessory structure to be up to 800 sq. ft. in area.
Even though the Planning Commission denied Mr. Craig's variance, Mr. Craig submitted
a building permit application for the detached garage of 1500 sq. feet. The building
permit was issued on November 7, 1985 and a 1500 sq. foot detached garage was
constructed. It is the staff's understanding the building permit was issued based on the
premise the new garage (1500 sq. feet) would be attached to the principal structure.
Therefore, maximum area would not be an issue unless it exceeded the 30% impervious
surface standard. Upon review of the permit application, it appears a "covered walkway"
was accepted as means of "structurally" connecting the proposed garage with the existing
house.
The definition of structure has not changed since the original adoption of the Zoning
Ordinance in 1983.
MNI20996.DOC
PAGE7
8wF~~u
Mr. Craig applied for a building permit for various additions to his residence and garages,
one of which is a 12' x 25' addition to the 1500 sq. foot garage.
A site inspection revealed part of the "covered walkway" had been detached from the
principal structure. Furthermore, the covered walkway is not actually covered. It is a
trellis type fencing covering the walkway, but still open to the sky. The applicant claims
to have removed deteriorating parts of the walkway in preparation of the construction
activity .
Regardless of the removal of the "covered walkway", staff s interpretation of the Zoning
Ordinance is the 1500 sq. foot garage must be structurally attached to the principal
structure ( existing house) by habitable space in order to be considered an "attached
garage", and thus allowed to be expanded. A "covered walkway" open to the sky does
not warrant the 1500 sq. foot garage to be considered structurally attached. An
acceptable attachment would be in the means of habitable space.
Comments from the public:
Attorney Jim Bates, represented Mr. and Mrs. Craig in the matter. He felt ifthe structure
was conforming when the building permit was issued it could be expanded without a
variance and is permissible to make this expansion. The staff looked back at a permit
issued in 1985 and disagreed with the interpretation of the ordinance. Craig's variance
was denied. Mr. Craig later discussed the plans with the Planner and applied for a
building permit. The permit was signed off and Mr. Craig built his garage. Mr. Bates
went on to explain Mr. Craig removed part of the walkway in anticipation of building the
addition. Furthermore, he did not find any mention in the ordinance requiring the
attachment to be inhabitable. In the spring of this year, Mr. Craig submitted preliminary
plans to staff. Bates handed out pictures of the property and a copy of a letter from
former planner Michael Leek dated May 1, 1996. Craigs worked out their problems and
assumed their plan was acceptable. He feels staff is disagreeing with a mistake made in
1985. The building permit was properly granted in 1985, the situation nor the ordinance
has not changed. It is a conforming structure.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson pointed out the building permit issued in 1985, is clearly marked "detached
garage". Mr. Bates feels it was a mistake presumably by the building official.
Kuykendall:
. Horst Graser, Island View Circle, said the issue in 1985 was controversial. The
variance request went before the Planning Commission and was denied. Mr. Craig
revised his plans with a covered walkway attached to the house. He recalls the issue
was subject to a number of meetings between staff and the City's attorney. If it was
constructed as revised it would meet city standards. This was the subject of
PAGES
MN I 20996. DOC
~ ~'
WWF~~
~
u
considerable discussion by staff. It was a mistake on the building permit stating it a
"detached garage".
· Rye explained staff read the ordinance different than they did 1 0 years ago. Further,
the attachment is not there.
· Supports applicant because the attachment was taken down. The intent was there.
· It does not meet design standards of today.
· This is not a model - at the time, it was the intent.
Criego:
· Tovar explained the definition of "structure". Staff does not have a definition of
"detached" in our ordinance. Rye said definition of "detached" is common
knowledge.
V onhof:
· Difficult looking back at what happened. After listening to testimony and reading the
report, a permit would not have been issued if not for the intent.
· This would not fly today under our definitions. At the time it was acceptable.
· City records have not been complete in the past and have caused a lot of problems.
There was very minimum documentation.
· Favor the applicant based on the testimony.
Stamson:
· Rye clarified staff's interpretation.
· This is a detached garage. A walkway is not an attachment. The trellis is a covering
of the walkway and does not constitute as an attachment. It was a mistake as given. It
should never have been issued and by adding on would perpetuate a mistake.
· Regardless of what everybody remembers, someone on staff documented the garage
as "detached". What is written, is binding.
· Staff did consider it a detached garage in 1985 and should not be added on to.
MNI20996.DOC
PAGE9
/
.-
IJm&~u
Wuellner:
. Agreed with Stamson. At one point in time, by virtue of creative negotiation this was
considered to be an attached garage by someone's standards. There is a legal building
permit stating it is detached.
. Both parties admit there were mistakes.
. The mistake allowed Mr. Craig to enjoy a 1500 sq. foot garage for 11 years. Ifwe
allow this mistake to continue we are setting a precedent. A walkway is not an
attachment, nor does the City want it to be. It has to be inhabitable space. The
ordinance will have to be amended so this will not happen again.
. The Commission does not have to allow him to add on because someone made a
mistake 11 years ago.
Criego:
. Agrees with Wuellner and Stamson. The interpretation 11 years ago was not correct.
. Weare not asking applicant to remove the garage, just stating he cannot add to it.
. Agreed with staff.
. The City Attorney told staff they could force the applicant to take down the garage.
Kuykendall:
. Needs Building Code definition of "detached" and "attached".
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY WUELLNER, RECOMMEND TO CITY
COUNCIL TO UPHOLD THE RULING OF THE CITY ZONING OFFICER IN
REGARDS TO THE APPEAL OF JOHN CRAIG.
V ote taken signified Criego, Wuellner and Stamson, nays Kuykendall and V onhof.
MOTION CARRIED.
This appeal will go to City Council on January 6, 1997.
B. CASE #96-122 ST. PAUL'S LUTHERAN CHURCH CONDITIONAL SIGN PERMIT.
Jenni Tovar presented the staff report. An application was submitted by St. Paul's
Lutheran Church and School, requesting a sign permit in order to locate an illuminated
sign within the R-l District. The proposal is to construct a 12' x 8' monument sign
which has external lighting. In the spring of 1996, a storm destroyed an illuminated sign
located on the top of the hill facing T.H. 13. The proposed sign is a replacement sign on
the hill facing T .H. 13.
Comments from the public:
Tom Trishe, 4950 Credit River Road, representing the Church, stated they wanted to
meet city code and propose to use the existing lights from the previous sign.
MNI20996.DOC
PAGEIO
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
6A
CONSIDER APPEAL OF JOHN CRAIG FROM A
RULING OF THE ZONING OFFICER RELATING TO
DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (Case File
#96-0123)
2855 SPRING LAKE ROAD ../
JENNITOVAR,PLANNER j\(A
DONALD R. RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
YES l NO-N/A
DECEMBER 9, 1996
Section 5-6-4 of the City Code provides for an appeal process from decisions of
the Zoning Officer. The Planning Director is the Zoning Officer in Prior Lake.
The attached letters dated October 29, 1996 (Exhibit A) and November 14, 1996
(Exhibit B) were sent in response to a building permit application made by John
Craig on October 23, 1996. A letter of appeal was received from the applicants
attorney on November 26, 1996 and a copy is attached (Exhibit C).
DISCUSSION:
Section 6. 2 (A) of the Zoning Ordinance relating to accessory structures states
"In R-1 Residential areas, accessory structures shall not exceed the
coverage ratio of the principal structure or the maximum of eight
hundred thirty-two (832) square feet, whichever is less."
If the garage is attached to the principal structure, then there is no restriction on
size.
September 5, 1985 See attached minutes (Exhibit D), variance application
(Exhibit E), and staff report (Exhibit F).
Planning Commission denied the applicant's request for a variance based on the
lack of demonstrable hardship. In August of 1985, Mr. Craig applied for a
variance to permit a 1500 square foot detached accessory structure (garage).
The ordinance in place at that time allowed for a detached accessory structure to
be up to 800 square feet in area.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQL'AL OPPORTL'NITY EMPLOYER
November 5, 1985 See attached permit application (Exhibit G).
Even thought the Planning Commission had denied Mr. Craig's variance, Mr.
Craig, none the less, submitted a building permit application for the detached
garage of 1500 square feet. The building permit was issued on November 7,
1985 and a 1500 sq. Foot detached garage was constructed. It is the staffs
understanding that the building permit was issued based on the premise that the
new garage (1500 sq. feet) would be attached to the principal structure.
Therefore, maximum area would not be an issue unless it exceeded the 30%
impervious surface standard. Upon review of the permit application, it appears
that a "covered walkway" was accepted as means of "structurally" connecting the
proposed garage with the existing house.
The definition of structure has not changed since the original adoption of the
Zoning Ordinance in 1983. It reads:
Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires a fixed
location on the ground or any attachment of something having a
fixed location on the ground, including, in addition to buildings,
billboards, carports, porches, and other building features but not
including sidewalks. drives, fences and patios.
October 23, 1996 See attached building permit application (Exhibit H).
John Craig applied for a building permit for various additions to his residence and
garages, one of which is a 12' x 25' addition to the 1500 sq. foot garage.
October 25, 1996 See attached photographs (Exhibit I).
A site inspection revealed that part of the "covered walkway" had been detached
from the principal structure. Furthermore, the covered walkway is not actually
covered. It is a trellis type fencing covering the walkway, but still open to the sky.
The applicant claims to have removed deteriorating parts of the walkway in
preparation of the construction activity.
Regardless of the removal of the "covered walkway", staffs interpretation of the
Zoning Ordinance is that the 1500 square foot garage must be structurally
attached to the principal structure (existing house) by habitable space in order to
be considered an "attached garage", and thus allowed to be expanded. A
"covered walkway" open to the sky does not warrant the 1500 square foot
garage to be considered structurally attached. An acceptable attachment would
be in the means of habitable space such as an enclosed breezeway or
residential living space.
96123pc.doc
Page 2
November 13, 1996 See attached memo (Exhibit J).
Staff memorializes discussions with the City Attorney with the conclusion being
that the 1985 permit appears to have been erroneously issued and there is no
basis to argue that the city must perpetuate the error and permit the expansion
of a use that appears unlawful.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend to the City Council that it uphold the staff interpretation of the
ordinance.
2. Recommend to the City Council that it accept the appeal and find that
expansion of the 1500 square foot garage is in compliance with City Code
provisions.
3. Defer action on this request for specific reasons.
RECOMMENDA TION:
Staff recommends Alternative No.1.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Motion and second expressing the opinion of the Planning Commission.
96123pc.doc
Page 3
EXHIBIT A
October 29, 1996
Mr. John Craig
2855 Spring Lake Road
Prior Lake, rvtN 55372
Re: Building Permit Application #96-636
Dear Mr. Craig,
Upon review of a recent building permit application for structural additions on your
property, the planning department has a couple of issues that need to be resolved before
we can sign off and approve your building permit. Current City Ordinances require a
certificate of survey with all improvements shown thereon, as part of the application for
building permit.
The survey you submitted is dated 11/5/85 with revisions made 3/11/96 to show asbuilt
improvements. The proposed additions appear to be drawn upon that existing survey by
someone other than the registered land surveyor who provided the original survey. In
order for the planning department to approve of your additions, the improvements
must be shown on the survey, as drawn by a registered land surveyor. This insures
that the setbacks are correct, the size of the additions are to proper scale, and the
impervious surface calculations are updated.
The proposed addition to the 50 foot by 30 foot detached garage is not permitted. The
maximum size of a detached accessory structure is 832 sq. feet, see attached ordinance
copy. Upon reviewing the history of the original permit for the construction of this
accessory structure, it became apparent that the permit was issued on the basis that it was
part of the principle structure. The city recently made a visit to the site to determine if
this was still the case. It appears that there is no structural connection/relationship
between this building and the residential dwelling (habitable structure). Therefore, we
consider this garage to be a detached structure. The existing structure is nonconforming
because it exceeds the maximum allowed square footage of accessory structures. We
cannot issue a permit that would be in direct violation of City Ordinances.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
.-\N EQL".-\L CpDCRT'~ :'\IT, E:.:P!...CY~R
. """
The other proposed additions to the principle structure meet the requirements of the
zoning ordinance and are thus acceptable. This is assuming that the impervious surface
coverage on the lot with the proposed additions does not exceed 30 percent.
Please be aware that the building permits review is on hold until all issues are resolved.
If you should have any questions, you can call me or Don Rye, Planning Director at 447-
4230.
Sincerely,
~J~
Planner
cc: Don Rye, Planning Director
Gary Staber, Building Official
Paul Baumgartner, Building InspectorlPlans Examiner
EXHIBIT B
November 14,1996
Mr. John Craig
2855 Spring lake Road
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Craig:
Your building permit application, dated October 23, 1996, for a garage and house
addition has been denied for the following reasons:
1. The proposed detached garage would be over the maximum of 832 square feet per
City Code 5-5-2:(A)3.
2. A Certificate of Survey depicting the structure setback from the ordinary high water
mark (909.11).
We believe there were several portions of this project that are allowable under the
current City ordinance. If you would like to separate the various proposed additions, a
permit could be obtained for the majority of your proposed project. Please feel free to
contact me at 447-4230, Monday through Friday, 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M., in regard to
your options.
Sincerely,
Paul Bau gartner
Building Inspector
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
PB:jlp
16200 ~~.mreek Ave. S.E.. Prior lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
.-'\1'< EQL.-'\L OFDORTL\ITY E:VIPLOYER
HUEMOELLER & BATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
EXHIBIT C
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
POST OFFICE BOX 67
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
JAMES D. BATES
BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER
November 26, 1996
Telephone (612) 447.2131
Telecopier (612) 447-5628
Mr. Donald R. Rye
Planning Director
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek A venue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Re: John Craig -- Building permit application #96-636
Dear Mr. Rye:
This letter is intended as John Craig's notice of appeal to the Board of
Adjustment from the denial of the above referenced building permit, contained in a
letter of November 14, 1996 from Paul Baumgartner to Mr. Craig. The ground of the
appeal is that the existing "detached" garage was properly granted a building permit in
November 1985 after consideration by both the city planner and city attorney, as an
attachment to and a part of the principal structure, namely the Craig's house, and is
therefore a conforming structure that may be expanded. I have spoken with Horst
Graser and Glenn Kessel, the city planner and city attorney in 1985, who both recalled
the case and stated to me that they made this determination after review of the proposed
plans and the applicable Prior Lake ordinances, which to my understanding have not
changed since that time. Following the principle that zoning ordinances must be strictly
construed so as to be least restrictive on the property owner's desired use, it seems to
us the city's previous interpretation of the ordinance to allow the building to be built in
1985 should be dispositive of the situation. I further note that as recently as May 1996,
Michael Leek wrote Mr. Craig approving of his proposed expansion, after consultation
with the city attorney.
Without waiving any rights to pursue the pending appeal, but in the interest of
pursuing an amicable resolution of the matter, we request that the planning, engineering
and building departments inform us of what modifications to the existing area between
the house and garage would, in the city's opinion, render the garage properly attached
to the principal structure so the proposed expansion could be constructed. Enclosed are
Mr. Donald R. Rye
Page 2
November 26, 1996
photocopied pages from the plans originally submitted to the city in applying for the
1985 permit, showing the deck with pier footings, covered in part by a trellis which is
attached to the house and garage. I am copying this letter to Jenni Tovar in the
planning department and Paul Baumgartner in the building department, and ask that if
further information is needed they contact either me or John Craig. Thank you.
Yours truly,
cl
James D. Bates
JOB: bj
cc: John and Denise Craig
Jenni Tovar
Paul Baumgartner
.' .....(~ .:.... ~:~,~ ~.:. ~ :.~. ~".
. .' .' ., I:~; ~ ~ J .-~ !'., .. 'J '
:;, " ;/~'-' J.i J~
!./.~ .. , ~ ~..."... " ..~':'~ : ': - ". .
~J; i .: .' i 1 ( I t... ~
I" ,
:., , ~ l,a.j.Jj ~ ~ I J. :. .
, l"',, ~.. l .~..."..
, '.. ~ ~ ~ .' Ja. '
'f:.", ,,' ,,!.) .
"
I, " ~,J~ )Jlk~
I r--T? ,~\ Q.) Kif
'I~l ,._ ,..c r'/\:.
,/ r , ( t.l '. _
II ;~, ~-/..-.::;. V/..
I !'rr..' ~ 'y
I .-"-h~ (--
i I
t-. . i ,.-.....,
. '~~1~~--
,l1 i' SIIIJ
I.~" ~ 2fl
. \... A'~1 ,..J.?....).- ....___..
oJ v~ '~',~'"
.... ., /'~
../:.~.
'" ........ "-'l..
"---... r ,'/ ,.
. ~'" .<.1 _.~)
- y~
"i..v ~
_-' ' :..' ~'I,~.J L.. .j.~.(...;' .,'
J I I' . ,,'; ", Iii .
/'
.....---
".,
L
p:..
U:::
. ,
..r
"", .,!)'.-
~. ',,_.
I.
.:.....
~.
~
/
,-"
'. .
<.
'.
.
~;
'..--.
--. -j .
.--...._.
-------11
-.
""''''.
\,\
I
I
I
I \-.
.-.r .,.~._. ,.
.
I.j~ ~.}~
i:
I
)
,/
;
I:
I'
I
i
',.
~ i
. ,
,J
: !l
I 1,1
I f q
i : I',.
L-J!;
. 'I
il
~,\,\-,r/.,...
'. ~\ )~~>:-
~""...:~
---':::;:':-'" '~-:::....---
-~;-~~""'\ '~...~~
~/f)\~~~~
( I- J t~ '\ .
.
. ,
i
.-;
I
,.
!
~
/
if :
.,'I! I
i..... I ~ I .'l,.. _,' f . _ _, _:_ ..
:. I' .'_.
~~:~
.";.
111
:: i _
Ii :
:
,:
". ; . _--: 1'''' -~_ i . ,.I
, ~;..... .- " .j -' '--
/;.<<;;: :'-.!~", ,:'j' ',',,:1:;"
, .-
1RfLL-lS R~oJi.Cl\C>':
~l&', 4n'~ 1'-01'
Jll " ;;
,
,
Ii
! i
_ll
II
-r:- F. C ICe...' <.:;
Jul.--......,. -'\
L. k I;;: 0 .<; v-!
2. 8 s .s. ~ \'l ~..~ ~ .." ~
p \;: ,'u.... L, \ I< "- IV\. N S ~..;.3. .'1 '2...
'-\ '-\ '1.. S- '-{ ,<;- C
h, Co ." ~ t- ~ \ <: tt.
L~ l..."" ~ \. ~ \ t. II '-\ '-I '1 - ~ i "\ 2..
~
:, :1
t"
:
li
""-",, '
.~~ '. "".
~,"" ~
'" ~. ~
'~ ~ "
", ~'.\,"
", '\~ . ~~
/~.'X", ~..\. {:~- - -
; 'r;~I! /\'. .',,, ~l:-:,~_'_:::.
//"'I'!;;..';"'~:'"'' (' / ' _ . ..-:- -" __'~"~IIIJ' ,:', I, '.' ;...,.:,
,._...... '., ..~ .\ I ), ~114 .......... 4....
, ' 1 '"'rIJr A , .. " .
"_i....,;. ..I ~I;~ ...~7'}-I~ --...J.J,.....;~..~~....____..-~..
... I, I, . _, I 1"'. .... I I , '" . . t; j' '.... \, ,~.;..,.! t I. '.J 't 4 ;, . I .. ~ . ~ . i. ~ 1 . ... .
. ,.. I' ',-6'/.. I .
...' 'i I, '( (t a; ~'.' ..~ '.,: it:' , i r! . .) ,.: J\.7L., 6'; ..~. .....i . I -' .-..... ..... y. ~...,.~. .
/~:.i ,:, t i. i ~ ; (: t . . \; of t:" ~. . J;
~o,Jn
:~~~~
:3) --~~ 7
: ' ,
.
I" ,
, '
.,,\. f
. ..: -....., - .. ~..' .... ..... I
, .; ,
~.., , " <0 ", -... . i._ , .... ~ ~: t
..1, ','" "l4..; I
. , ..... I
. . . . ~. '. ~ l'~,
....1. I, :.:.,. ~._ I
r";
I
\.=. .
--.--'~_:_" ~~-
'j .,--. ._.ill
- ., l' ...' :.. ..........-......
~ J....:.. J. _..
..
',../
/'
/.
,/
.--
"
, .
,.~\~:, .~
.,,~
'" ,.
'~ .
'~./
. /
--
/: ..
'f i . 'I. !. ...
./" . t I.. ... '~.;' . J.': '
__--;-,. : l! . . f ;. :.
'h' '~ ~.,' I
L
y
S
'"-/
..
..
~
\
<1
)' I
-- '
....,
:J-
.;. ,~
\,
\
\
\
....-.....
"'.l
- .,"
t'
, -
..---.:'
: /-
;-::-<
1
~
1.-
ii"
.... -;:::
\ '-:--,,:, I i
t- J......~rr I
/"' "~IN 1
" ...lr.....' :' \. fo....... ,...... :
,. v .. f' ( ,---
. '.
:\
"
i:
.,
:1
:1
I]
..-----
,
c;r- --- ;-.0---.
lIilI
JI
!
i
i
I
I
d-
, ,
, .
!
&V~)iA.-: i d fi~V\ K?\I\~iOL-\
-t7?q Ie.... /~ 11 :. J 1-0 ,.
.
--
. .
~
I
--.
Cl
I
N
.... ~.
......
.J
.
'-.
Ita=- -.
I: :;-:~.__.~
1i,-'~. ~
, I ~ .. .-.... ... ---'r
11 . .'" :
I: I
i __'--=--"~-:j, ~
[Il____... . .~
I ", ,~ ,
'4-1_' II ,
I . .--:.-:--.-:.::"- , I
I I .... X'r
! L..___ '
: I: ;:. 'i ,j .'
'f //. // '/ - ,/: // '
; .'. '/,,'} " // /..>:./;-- // I
· .... '.- ..::==.:;.II'~' -. . ./- -\-. ,f:. ./ .'/ /{ . /// I
T Z-'J /P I"~ ~;;. ... #-\.":/ ,~' /;/
Ln. '. ... -.J '0 ..~'i.,1,/ .>\; ./;/ -./ /
',; ~.?- X. !p. ill. /</ ~-}/ .....<- //#~... ..,/ :
. .' // ' . V '/,n / ,. I
I" . ::.'.f) rt/ / .~ .,' .:-"-'" , '/ . ;.. i ,
~_::'-~--:.~i,,/. ~.->/ .., ~~... ".;r:./'.V //Z; ..> '.1\
~>-1" ^- /.. ./ -/ ./ //.\:-'".;,' /.
. /, . ., . / If -'/. n . /
", // ./ // /. // /. +'
~<...( .. / . . .'i/" '/<9 /
~>>.../ .. '/ / ...,';/.;/1,'- //
"'-S: /7 ... ../ / '/ .',/ .')
':,,:/ ,.' /.'- ../ </ . /'<. ~
....'.. /.. ./..;/ ./' ... )
..., / ," ./ .' / / ./ /
. ." .' , /,..( /' '" -;.
.....'...... // //..... //_\J
" ... /./
. ~:., /) //0"" / ' //v. .
""., // h~ -' ..;:/ . ..:....... ../.;
/>,-,,-, . ,/ / ~(//\.. / \' ~I
. / ~..:// ..;;. /. ~. ....'V - ' , ::'. II'
/ "../ //,. ./ .. ~/.. .~. :.
.~ .~. ./.r-f'/ // /. ..." ./ ../ /' :,".,.>/..y
"'~.. . .....".. ~ /. / : "". // '/.:,
<', "'~/ / // // "<~~< " .. :1
~',/7'\'{ /' //./.. "~~../ ...<1:1,
'... .. '<,.. ,/ .' /, .. ..:-..:....
,/ "'~/ //' /: f; - ~~-
::.~ -;;/ ,/;:;/ ! l! .
'~,>-, .
i1'_~ /I
51- '3 II
-;. f. 2..'
f/
'"t.,
:"J!.P
!
, I
I ,
I )
i,l
:1
"./ /
'.
. ,
/ /
i i
: I
//
1 ;
: I
; 1:..<,) i
.'.2:
----.::--., ,;.~
FY~V11ln~ nt1 n
~?-Ale.: J4/'1::=. 11-01'
....,..,
~n---F.l~
: I" ...
. , I
i! -....::l:
::: -'
j! ~ ~,
: !! ,~)
- :-F-j -2f
----J ~':
"..'
.:::
~
-
';s:-,
''>./)
, ~ , ~. :
2-'1..'"
>
N
-.;f
..-"
.;~==0=.=-_ ~~'-"--_.'
---.-. -- '.0.._..._. n_
o .
."'i'l. 10
..0
o
....:..- ....... '. '.''"'-
-'-..- .- hp ... _. 0_
~
~
- I
- I
~i
Z-'X&>
;:
()
o.
c:
o
~
o
, ,~...;..
~: _:--,
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
~
PLANNIr~ CDMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMB~q 5, 1985
The Seotanber 5, 1985 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting was called to order
by Chairman Felix at 7:30 P.M. Present were Commissioners Arnold, Loftus,
Larson, Roseth and City Planner Graser.
'!be :ninutes of the AUgust 15, 1985 meeting were amended as follows: paragraph
5, line 3, place a period after applicant and delete "and". Motion by Loftus to
approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Arnold. Upon a vote taken, the
rnotionwas duly passed.
~. Item I, Jor~ Craig variance request for an accessory structure exceeding 8~m sq.
-1' ft. limit for 2855 Spring Lake Road.
City Planning Intern, Lee r1eilleur. commented per memo dated 9/5/85.
John Craig COllI1lented that they are staying in compliance with the ordinance
except for the ::.q. footage, which is 30' wide, 50' long building.
Hrs. Craig ccmnented that the building will te aesthetically pleasing like the
house.
'!be Planning Commissioners had concerns over the distance from the roadway and
the size of the ~ructure. At this time Commissioner Loftus abStai.!1ed fr.om tl:e
Commission due to a business conflict vith the person buying the prop::,rty.
Motion by Larson to deny the application for a 1500 sq. ft. accessorj structur O!
for 2855 Spring Lake Road, since the applicant failed to show a hardship, the
structure size is teyond the code and approval would set t\ dangerous precedent,
seconded by ~.::no1d. Upon a vote taken, 4 aye, 1 abstention. 'The motion
carried.
Item II, Richard Booth request for a 1 foot side yard variance for 15214
Edgewater Circle. Mr. & Mrs. Booth were present to answer questions.
Mr. Booth corranented that this is vn addition onto the house and 2 areas need
small vari.:mces.
City Planning Intern, Lee l1eilleur canmented per memo dated 9/5/85.
At this time Mr. Booth presented a letter f rem neighOOr' s ThOOlM & Kathy
Schlick, 15213 Edgewater Circle NE, in favor of the variance. Exhibit "A".
(612) 447.4230 4629 DAKOTA STREET S.E. P.O. BOX 359 PRIOR lAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
.~
City of Prior lake
Application For Variance
.-.1 ''''I.J v. 'k"l;ff""" ~'l~' (' v. ~P'f;;~l~'r::~"~ 'f\t
'7.'viS/f3EXHIB/T>E;
'--. ., 'I
. ,
The Planning Commission meet~ on the f "" ,~
.... first and third Thurdsay of each month. All ~~.".^.;'
applications must be completed and sub..~':,:,.<~
milled 10 days prior to the meeting it will. :':;,
be considered on. ~,(
. ,;i~t";\~~i\
}. ~-'l" ~\r~
,:\'-~" .~,...~
.. :.;~
Inlormation
Applicant: John F. era i g
Adriress: 2855 SprinQ Lake Road S.W. Prior Lake. MN
Property Owner: .J.ohn F. era i Q
Add 2855 Spring Lake Road S.W. Prior Lake. MN
ress:
Type of Ownership: Fee X Contrac\
Consultant/Contractor: ~
Phone: 447-5950
55372
Phone: 447-liQr;O
55372
Purchase Agreement
Phone: 447-5950
Existing Use
of Property:
Vacant
Pres~nl
_._____Zoning: R-1
Proposed Use
of Property: GaraQe
Parcel
No: 31-133081-1
Legal Description
of Variance Site
Block 48 Lot S
Variance
ReQueqed: To construct a garage on Block 48 Lot 5 and try to comply witn city ordinance
""O':7(A)3
Has the applicant previously sought to pial. relone ortain a variance or Conditio..al Use Permit on the subject site or any part
of it?: NoOCJ Y p.sG
Whitt was requested:
When:
Describe the type of improvements proposed:
DiSpo,i~lon :
30 I X 50 I <Ja rage
Describe the type of undue hardship which exists based upon circumstances unique to the property: He fee 1 it i s
~c~ssary, in order to beuutify our property and that of our neiQilbors. By el"lclosing our
personal belongings, which now ~ust be outside to face the elements and be ~iewed by our
nr. fgTioor s .
~,ubmission Requirements
(A.)Completed application form. (B.)Fi::ng Fee $50.00 (C.)Certifi-:J from abstract firm, names and addresses of pro.
perty owners within 100 f'?et of the exte;ior boundries of the subject property. (D.)Complete legal description.
(E.)Deed restrictions, if applicable. 'j!;)An area map at 1" - 200' available from the City Engineering Section showing: ex-
isting topograph, utilities, lot boundries, building easements and soil test data if pertinent within 300 feet. (G.lA parcel
map at 1"-20'-50' showing: The site devolpment plan, buildings: parking, loading, access, surface drainage. landscaping and
utility service.
The above items shall be submitted unless clearly not applicable and of no value in the review of this request.
Only complete applications shall be reviewed by the Board of Adju5tments.
Submitted this .2.C.tld~ ~;ust ~ 19 .~.
. //,(~/! /" C ~~
~/'''-?' /) App'llcanlS S,gnature d)
(.. '_ ~1,f /1
Property Owners Signal e
If within one year from the date of granting a variance upon recomml?ndation of the Zoning Oficer, substantial
:tf~;'~~;x<:}~~t.~~. ~ade to Implement it's purpose..the Board of Adiustm~ntssh~tl.~,~,1~~e~~~yadance ~u.I~.~~~v.Oi~;. .......:.. .'...~'\'.~_. ......
;';,' .~:;.~:}:;:I.;;" '_~~'., ~.:-; :' -::: :":..:<.._:':j;;", ;./~. ~ '~',;. ~-.._~-~.~;'_:.jJ;;ri""..#..i.::~;~~t~,4[;;:; ,>~.-'l":'~', : - :~!~ ~'-,. ....':': "'~-'.:..L~, > ::.. --;'/',-S4;f.,~;,,~.-.-:.~.::.>.:!.;.('t-g..,! p';..t;~:";';
.~._:.iN.-~
,I
(
{
~
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
BUILDING PERMiT.
TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF ZONING COMPLIANCE
AND UTILITY CONNECTION PERMIT Pennlt No.~~ ~
\
J
I
PACIS NUM'I"l!O 1 TH"U 17 MUST II ,.LLID IN
aeflOR!: Pl!RMIT IS IssueD (Pl.... Ptlnl Of Type Ind "'on .1 boilOf'!
2. 51 ADO S
2855 Spring Lake Rand S.W. Prior Lake. HN
a.l.EOAL DESCRIPTION 31 1'3081 1
PROPERTY 1.0.' - wi -
SECTION -.S.r.lUNlLLAKE__l.OT_Ja!i..&'__.
ADDI~ION TOWNSITE P\.AT NUMBER.
4. OWNER (Nlmel
1. DATI!
11-5-85
5S372
Bl.OCK _4.8_____
PAACEL NUMBER ) 1-1J ~81-
(Ade"...,
II. ARCHITECT (Nlmel
Dennis lIall u!llt & t.8Boc!ntoR
O. BUIl.OeR (Nlme.
EXHIBIT G
...
, .... Ca,
,.-.-
.- -..--
.---
IVII.on,a 1"'OIWA'flON
II.
(":~I"I 12 '(WId'''' 30 10epU.. 50
'2. ~O. OF STORIES
13. TYPt! Of! CONSTRUCTION
c~~nt block & wood
'4. I'LOO" AR!A APPuRTIONMeNT
USE (lr
I'. NUJ.:8ER OF OCCUPANTS OR
SEA TS
OCCUPANTS nnn..
SEATS ""',,,.
,6. ESTIMATED VALUE
$21.000.00
17. COMPlETION DATE
'.......,.-tIIyttoo,....,. '-- ...--...''''' _... _"" ......_...... ................._ _.,_.....,..... t ______
Ior'...-----.-'....Ill........'____..................______..oc____..__.....
1111 ...- ....~.'....-..,--_.......,-...---.f:"M';r--...---
'10ft, .
-;.' ,1..: .. /1.5 PI.._
....e4"'. De..
OfF STREET PARKINQ___
SPACES REO.
PACES ON P\.AN'I"t ._.___ SURVEY 0 COPIES
PERMIT VALUATlOJ(c:9JrO~~ PLOT PlAN "_
Amoun' BroUQht Forwlrd . .. .. . .. . .. .. I / 'S. 1'. ~
Plrt! o.d . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. I
SIC. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...... . .. . . .... S
Plumblno ............................ I
Sew... TIp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. ... ,_
Sewer Hook.up . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .... S
Wll... HOOk-vp . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. I
Mil... Hom ... ...... . ................. I
W.11f Motif. .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. I
Check ., '. s.- & W.III Co-tnecllOf'l FlHI ....... I
Deterred ;WIlII ':'ow.r FM..................... I
WII... Tap. .......... ............... I
CltYFM..............................~
Othlf ...... .......... ...... .......... .
Total Due..... ............ .....
PlId RecelP1 no. /~l ~ \~
Det. It -7.. 0' By ~
-.....-It"'__..OIy,.....O"-__.......~_n._
..,..........-..oo_..._.___~..~..~
UIrIlCl
ActuI'
AO"'INISTRAnVE USE
'-'
n.",
-
-
PROPOSED ORADE FOUNDATION
IN RELATION TO CURB OR CROWN
0' STREET
USE OF BUILoINa:l:.L:L,",..b~,-u ,.
""'"
TVPI! 0' CONSTRUCTION; I II III IV<!:>
Occupancy Oroup A BEl H R ~
p..,~) ,. J .
Permit FM . . '.. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... ~. ",~_
Plln Checking Fell. . . . .. . . , . .. .. . . . ... I
SI.te Surch.rgll .............. ....... ,-Lf:~o.
Plnally . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... ,___
Septic SYlt.m .. ..................... ,
Oth.r .........,....................... ~r? dC\
Sublot. ......,................ ~
Clly:
o
o
0.'.,(/- }7--~
Becom.. Your Bulldlno Petmll When
. ..,...,JI
J4 _ """......_
..,..a .,....... . _.....
MA
RIAL FILED WITH APPUCATlON
ENERQYDATA 0
SOIl. TESTS
"tUNO l.OGS
P\.ANS & SPECS C
o
o
PERCO\.A T'vN
TEST lJ
SETS
~l
..!
::'~
;:=t
.~i::
DATE RECEIVED CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
BUILDING PERMIT,
TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF
'i..3~ ZONING COMPLIANCE
AND UTILITY CONNECTION PERMIT
EXHIBIT H
I. While
1 Pink
3. Yellow
File
City
Applicant
DIRECTIONS 1. DATE
SPACES NUMBERED 1 THRU 17 MUST BE FILLED IN 1/ - J.J: 1c.
BEFORE PERMIT IS ISSUED (Please Print or Type and sign at bonom) BUILDING INFORMATION
2. SITE A'~FSJ-./ j0, [<4- M SiV ZOR~ 1 1. SIZE OF STRUCTURE
~?.5 ) f 1.~1 '/57) (Height) (Width) (Depth)
3. LEGAL DESCRIPTION I 12. NO. OF STORIES
LOT L sg BLOCK ~~ oCl'J-. 6 r: I .
PI - / 33 - (f I-I
13. TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION
ADDITION I~ ~/ ~ LaL: J?:7--<.: f 1.
4. OWNER ,jc ~.'\ (Name) (Address) O( (Tel. No.) /"./ 14, FLOOR AREA APPORTIONMENT USE
C ' .21//51 ifib 'l..{"!-7 - ~ .; ),,:.7
rAI<1 I :)..:> ....,....Lei . '~
5. ARCHITECt;:,. (Name~ J ...- (AddreS}'!_ f-i."Sf (T~ NO.)! ./
',,..1.L IA (( :)(.; ( 5.f .5 (.',: ( i,-;; !. . .3(-1. 15
6. BUILDER (Name) (; (Address) (T el. No.) 15. NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS OR SEATS
OCCUPANTS
7. TYPE OF WORK Fireplace ::J Sectlc :J DecK :J Re.rooting ::J Porcn :J SEATS
New Construction :J AlteratIons :J Additio~ Finish Anic :J Re-s'ding CJ Finish Basement :J 16. PROJECT COSTNALUE
Chimney CJ Misc. /'c:-' C7, ~c/' c.)
8. PROPERTY AREA OR ACRES 19. PROPERTY DIMENSIONS 110. CULVERT SIZE 17. COMPLETION DATE
Sq.Ft. Width Depth Yes No .//(11;;' t.. 11
I hereby certify that I have fumlshed information on thIs application WhiCh is to the best of my knowledge true and correct. I also certify that I am the owner or authorized agent tor
:~e m,ent~oneCl property and that aU construcl1on WIll contorm to all eXIsting state and local laws and WIll proceed in accordance with submrtted plans. I am aware that !he
bu n ~n rev~~rmlt fOr~t cause. Furthermore, I hereoy agree that the City oHIClal or a Cleslgnee may enter upon the property to perto~ needed inspecl1ons.
X ./,. V1 Jr ,'^ .... - , Ie"; _ (. .\ _~' (
I SlQnature I Wcense No. Dale ?
'j
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE
SETBACKS: ReqUIred MATERIAL FILED WITH APPLICATION
Actual SOIL TESTS 0 ENERGY DATA 0
Front BaCK Side Sica
BUILDING DEPARTMENT VALUATION OFF STREET PARKING PILING LOGS 0 PERCOLATION TESTS 0
SPACES REQ. PLANS & SPECS :J SETS
USE OF BUILDING SURVEY COPIES
SPACES ON PLAN :J
PERMIT VALUATION PLOT PLAN :J
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: I II III IV V Amount Brought Forward .... .... .......... $
City
Occupancy Group A B E F H I M R S U Park Support Fee ........................... $
DIVISion 1 2 3 4 SAC ........ ..... ...... ....... ...... ......... $
Permrt Fee ................................... $ Collec:or Street Fee ....................... $
Plan Checking Fee ............. ...... ...... $ SewerTap ................................... $
License Check Fee ......................... $
State Surcharge ............................. $ Pressure Reducer ............,............. $
Penalty .............. ............. ............ $ Meter Horn ................................... $
Septic System ............................... $ Water Meter ................................. $
Other............... .......................... $ Sewer & Water Connection Fee ........... $
Water Tower Fee ........................... $
SuOtotal ............................... $ Water Tap ................................... $
This Application Becomes Your Building Permit When Approved. BuilClers Deposit ............................ $
By Date Other ......................................... $
Certificate ot Occupancy Toral Due .............................. $
PaiCl Receiot No.
Issued
Date Bv
This is to certify tIlat tile request in the above applical10n anCl accompanYing aocuments is in accorClance with the City Zoning OrClinance anCl may proceed as requested. This oocument When
signed by the City Planner constitutes a temporary Certificate of Zomng compliance and allows construcbOn to commence. Before occupancy, a Certificate of Occupancy must be issued.
City Planner Date Soec:al Conditions it any
Permit No. BP7t-?3?
24 hOur notICe for all inspections 447-4230
9c,- '3?~
'"
"
tt_ EL "
9ZZ.93 . r'\ .
. \,,)..<:) ....
~ .....
~.....
G'
.....
."
O(l'
('of-
~
HOUSE
BIT DRIVE _&<c"
t>t'"
, ~
/", #
,', ~,o, ~~
. .... 0"''''1'
... ""
~ _ ~(b ",.,.
.>~ 'iJ'"'
~,-1,'O)~f
(~ t>t" - ~
~ ~ ,~O
~c.
'"
"
.....,
"
< -<l '.
~.....
'"
~ .....
O..yO '-....
.....
.....
I"'c "-
o " '
. . .~;. '
~""-
()
..... ,
Ji! ,..<.~... o.
'7~' "
.0'
~-
~
"
,
,
, "-
'- ,
'''",'
'0'
....'"
"
rOP 'RON
I!L 919, 83
&0 _
,"*
/
/
(
"
"-
//
-;;'
PROPOSED '- I
ADDITIONS
>~~ /~
, ~~~/fl)-
'JJ.... t ')
/s, /0'
U'STJNG s_",." )
HO'JS I! -.....,....
9ZZ 3
9ZZ ,0
.
" <c,.
.00 / ~
ot>.'" O/.,~
t)r.0 0 0'
~ ,t>.'1; ,~(b
/ ,'~
c., <v
SPRING
..... '.
, '1.1
" "(5\
,'.
.....
\ ,
" ,
,
.
, '
, ,
".. ....
'S' ....
" ....
....
....
~
",,~0
'.;I' (' /
~ .,.~ .so,lot.
~ '/-z, /-t-G'
'-
rop OF ICE
EL 911 0
3-4-96
LAKE
DESC:: r ;':.I'~,: i
Y.nts
1 ': ~
, c..1 ~)r _ :: i.
j ~
"
'"'l :. [' 1('
L?... K~~
;':)!ir: J:~ I T'r:
, Sr;ot.t
County I M-
n. Of
9 22 ~ -
rr..... ~
,......-1..,....
r 1 o-j ~.
r' Y'~ --..... :
'-: '"' , ~ ..-
EXHIBIT I
EXHIBIT J
Memoran um
.
.
Date: November 13, 1996
To: Don Rye, Planning Director
Suesan Lea Pace, City Attorney
John Craig File
From: Jenni Tovar, Planner ~
Subject: Summary of conversation with Suesan Lea Pace (11/13/96)
regarding the interpretation and legalities of proposed
additions.
The following conclusions are in respect to Building Permit application #96-636 from
John Craig.
1. The new attached garage appears to meet setback requirements (exact setbacks not
indicated on survey). Subject to reviewing a survey from the applicant and assuming
all setback requirements are met, , the conversion of the existing attached garage into
living space (exercise room) is acceptable. The new entry way appears to be
acceptable. The exact setback for the entryway are not on the survey.
2. The proposed spa room (NE of eXist8. ttached garage) must be setback a minimum
of 50 feet from the OHWL which igi 909.1 EL. A variance was granted for in 1978
(case V AI978-0004) from the 75 foo WL setback. The revised survey must
indicate this.
3. The proposed addition to the detached garage (50 by 30 foot garage) is an expansion
of a use that appear illegal. City code permits an 832 sq. foot detached garage and the
applicants garage is 1500 sq. Feet. The applicant was denied a variance to construct a
1500 sq. Foot detached garage (case V A85-18). The applicant appears to have been
issued a building permit erroneously, and thus the building was illegally built. The
city does not have to perpetuate the mistake. Because the structure appears to have
never been legal to begin with (never attached to the principle structure with a
structure meeting the definition of structure), it cannot be expanded.