The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8A - Detached Accessory Structures ST AFF AGENDA REPORT AGENDA #: PREP ARED BY: REVIEWED BY SUBJECT: DATE: 8A JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER 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 6, 1997 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. 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 1500 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 1500 sq. foot detached garage. · 11-7-85 A building permit was issued for an "attached" garage of 1500 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 1500 sq. foot garage by 300 sq. feet (25 by 12 foot addition). 16200 E8~~~ef{:><A~T S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 4417-4245 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 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 1500 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 in favor of and 2 opposed to recommend that the City Council uphold the decision of the zoning officer. ISSUES: The primary issue is whether or not the 1500 square foot garage is indeed 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 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. f ReVi~ By(r d Bo les, City Manager ~( ~HY /~ 96-123CC.DOC/JKT 3 w, 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 existing 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-l (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shore land 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 E~~ek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 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 6, 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. Staffs 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 7th 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 !l fCJ.' ~ R l? LJ uU L ~J U U 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. Vote signified ayes by Wuellner, Vonhof, 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 PAGE 7 Jmg~~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 acti vi ty . 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 if the 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: Starnson 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 MN120996.DOC PAGES [Dill&~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. MN I 20996. DOC PAGE 9 -' mOOffi~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 staffreport. 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 .R. 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. MN I 20996 DOC PAGEIO ~--.-- -- f~ 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 .A"" JENNITOVAR,PLANNER j\LA 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 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 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,!vtN 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 ,I Fax (612) 447-4245 .-\N EQCAL OPPCRT'-."IL E:.IPLO\ER n-::-;- 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 Inspector/Plans 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 ~9'\@.mreek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQL..;L OPPORTL"ITY ~:VIPLOYER HUEMOELLER & BATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 16670 FRANKUN TRAIL POST OFFICE BOX 67 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 EXHIBIT C 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 Avenue 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. cl James D. Bates JDB:bj cc: John and Denise Craig Jenni Tovar Paul Baumgartner '> .' II I. ;;':.J~~~~lli'~, fIE',1 ~ ) Hf I I 7, r-- ('etf'(\- () II i, I ,--. . ',-"'\ L a . ;~~1~'~- :J~ i' ,~ Sill] 1.-, " V \.. "':!-J " 'Jot --' - . i v~ ,'\.1,' ..' ,,", '." /"'~ .1 "~\' '. "'" '"'lo. ._-;~ Y,:, ( :-.... 'Ii)' ~ VI I" .~ -- ..." '-'~"...J.L...j.i.~..'f' 'J ; \ '. ~.' . / ,'; ,I '/J f ~ .. :.. . I .' . .....: .~... ......' i ' ""; I' , I .:j~ ~J ....i..~ . '", ~ ; t ~"'i. J.i . t . !J.~ .., i I...:....., .~......; !... .. ; I Ii i-... ::. ~I i,' i .' ! ", .~~~d.H~'. .J 1 rh . , .," . '. ; :','.: :~ 'i::j: / ~,'~." ,".!.;} .. " ........J JO .r /. ~ ~ .", ) ,- \ .-,J'.. ~, ',. - .- ,,' . '. -' r' ~; " .~ - I' l-~ v.... , , '---' - -~~:~.. "\ '~ \'-"~(:::I ~~~I :---...~ , - - tN' I ..-;:-.. --.. :, . j- - \,['....'f.....f- ; '. . \, 1'...1' 'I .r . ! ! -, "'. I I I I \ " --.r ..,..~._..... , I oJ" ~'J_ , . I; . - 1 i .J - , o - 0 ....... I ,. \, ! ir': ..'I! I ----; , '.: l i :j . . ) ~_..- - .j -' :...- I' " \ \~'.. 1:'1 f.'-'... ,. ~.,.. ..... .. :. i';'".... /<1::.;;'.' ; '_ ! ~ :, .:' " ','" : J : ; ,:: , . r .. Jni i ~ : i: . ! !i ; Ii :: i " I, -r c C ,c-." c.. ..j i)\r.", ,-, , _ \ L. k.. I:;: 0 _~ v-.J 2.. 8 s ~. ~ ~ ~:.... ~ ,,' ~ Q' k ~(<'-'-~'1'2.. r- \;: \ (j ... L" <.. IV\ ,.... -' _~. ._ L.j '4 'l'~) '-1-') C "'-c.,,,, ~ i- ~\ ~ tt. ..., . '\ .., L...:. I... '" l<.. \. c \ <. l~ '-\ '-\ {_ .... \ "- , I ,- , . I' ~l~', 41',=, 1-0 ~ : I J /r"i-"7fl \-l'.~ 'C?,? 'J:.C-'I /\:.. I '/ .-; \ \:--- I / I V / ; l \ L.-- .r ~" U ~.~fJ.-- IE~j !~~~ .. \ \ \ \ .:. .~ ,... ,.....bI.:.:........ f r-"'; t , ~ ~ '"7 ~'</ . I ....... " . .., '"J- " ..-" L_ , I. ~ ,. . t""" - "".- ....-- 'j ,,--. .,..iLi l-'~:' ::.:': ..:::-:.:- 0.;:. , ./-- j-:', < I ~ 1-._ -Ji~' '.... :--'1 \ -;-...:. : rr:--I ~t'_j~\ I /' ,.... }J I / '''...1,:' ,/'0-.. j, ," v .. I I'....... . '. " .. ._-.-~.~_:..,;.-.....- - "; .. ...' ; : :.......-.... '1.A~:4 }..;.,..,. ~ .. .. ;i t .. !I il ., :, :1 II ~. . - r'~'---- I )ff , /,/ /' / ,/ -- ." " ~'~<, '~.~ '. '.0... ,,~~."", " ., ~~ "', " '\~" '" "'. . ~. -"e> ~ .~ /~'x ., ..~.~ .', ,..--- ;~~rl~ ..:.'\... ~. #~-~....,::.;., . ,: ,<~.: ,', ":'"::>~lJ~0,~ ~0::0.;; ~:'!::~;~"\',,": ,-'-"" , .,~; 1,",,'I1-.,..J"''''''f.I'_''''\__A~~/. "!.I I .l, .J.~.~..., " . . ~ ~. I' ", -v:/; . .' '. . /' '.; I I , ~ (, I; ~ \.' ;,: ..,! ~.:. , i Ii' . . .. ~ ,,71. . J. J ..... I.m<O. '.f ,. . . .-... 4.. ....,; 1"';' ....-"If' '~'" -"'. '.::, "'\", ",,- '<'\~ " .~ .' .~ ' '''./ -.. cr- , , " , '" llIlI /: .. . ,/':.i , : ~ i i.; , : !: i .. . ~ ';" ./ ~ , . ~' ':; II ! i i I I I d- ! ! .: i "1 ~ :, .. ~ .. ..<" t,'J.., 1,.;' . ).." .:. ,._-~. ,l!. ~It.:. .' " ,I '.. ". bv~;i.rf": 1 d fl~Y\ K?'iI7;O~\ 't7t~ Ie..', /~ :1 =- 1'-0" JI '2 , I I i I .,...- ....: ~. ~ '" i ;:. 'i.j ..; // ~~\J,j-/. ;/F ;.. '1;;:;/;:/ I i"i"jLP,___'}'\~/.:/~')( //;/) Ln.'... " , / "-', '/ . ...... y / ./ I I',;. ~: ;(.,Ip :1\ /:F' "~,~F ..,"r!;' ,/~o ~/ ,': I I . III // /" " ' ~, ..L / , I !' -;""p ~F "/:\ ,./ ."/<'~. .';', I I ~---- ------. ': . / t "'\9"/ . I I ~~<~, ,-Z.;<!?( ,.})/ ,// .~7 fi~ ". / / '.', // ,/ // / ,.f" .~, ,--; ~,~-/{ , / / /',/ . - ,/"... ~ / ~,:., //"/ /.-;'/ ;// 'V / "':~.F f/' , /> ,/ .,,/ /.',/ i) .'.. // ./ ../ / . ./.....,. '.....,/.. /' // /;/ '/ ..;/ '-.- ) '~.. --;:' // . -/ // -;/ "l'-;' F' "'// .' /:;' '/,' . /, \)' , "'':-'''' / .,;/ /-;:~'f/ "". / y":" ~/ '~". // // 0' '", '///'2 '-..',' /. /'\, / .. '" ,,:/ //..,. '-..", / //<.:i.F . / ~" //',i( " /'..::::: ... / " '/'.' -' /// '~ ;/ // ./".".7 /,' ~ /, /yf';/ ./.; ./->. -""~", """\, ,// // /;:,<~,~,~./, .',/1', ' ' ~ '..' "~.. i '~',/7~~~<:/ // /' .<,.~<).! \, " ,;.. ", /"'/" .' "/,"'~ 'F """,6, ./' .,// /, .. ~ ,~ ,/ ,> ,." '1:'~ -- .::..-: ',-,--- l1~-r . ''<'' ,y' // I!t ,! ~ ".', '" .' " ;, i' -.:\, '<'.' ,II ,,' I .., l' I ,.: - ':'. // I I I:' ~ ' :'.<: / / II , II . I ; l! ...., /,/ >.;:::: ... -U~}-- : :"':':';!:"i:J7 k 3'.1" ~(C,~~~O" ~ fl\ () \ N J JI'-(;" 5 / - '3 II ~y.~ .,~ -:"''J~ .... ':";j .... '~J' ,~'# FY~VV1ln~ n~ n ~?-^1e: J4/"1::. 11-011 .....,.., '.' > ...------ ...--...- z..'I./p Z'iID '~~E:::"-=:-:--::-. . .~ ,..-. -:;..~_::.:.-.--":"':'-...._.- '.;'..... . "-'.. ';.~-'. -----....--...... '...-.......-. o , . ""L'" 10 ,..0 o ..,...- ...~'.., ..- .. .~- .............. '", ~:..:~~-------- .- ...--....----..P "'I .-..-.,-......-... -..........---.... ----.. '. .-. - .-: -_. -.- '" ..-........--. --- -"- ~ I - I - I -....':ji Z-K&, = N .,,- () o. t: ~ Q CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ~ PLANNIll; CDMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBE.~ 5, 1985 The September 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. '1lle :ninutes of the August 15, 1985 meeting were amended as follO'Ws: paragraph 5, line 3, place a period after applicant and delete "and". Motion by Loftus to apprOlJe the minutes as amended, seconded by Arnold. Upon a vote taken, the !OOtion was duly passed. "L Item I, John Craig variance request for an accessory structure exceeding 800 sq. -f\ ft. limit for 2855 Spring Lake Road. City Planning Intern, Lee r1eilleur' commented per memo dated 9/5/85. John Craig conmented that they are staying in compliance with the ordinance except for the ::;q. footage, which is 30' wide, 50' long building. ~1rs. Craig ccmnented that the building will I::e aesthetically pleasing like the house. The Planning Commissioners had concerns Oller the distance from the roacMay and the size of the ~"tructure. At this time Cormnissioner Loftus abstaL'1ed fr.om the Comrni.ssion due to a business conflict \"lith the person buying the prop::rt;'. Motion by Larson to deny the application for a 1500 sq. ft. accessory structur ~ for 2855 Spring Lake Road, since the applicant failed to shO'W a hardship, the structure size is I::eyond the code and apprOlJal would set" dangerous precedent, seconded by ~.::nold. Upon a vote taken, 4 CJ:je, 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 commented that this is ~n addi tion onto the house and 2 areas need small vari.:mces. City Planning Intern, Lee 11eilleur commented per memo dated 9/5/85. At this time Mr. Bootll presented a letter frem neighOOr I s Thomas & Kathy Schlick, 15213 Edgewater Ci rcle NE, in favor of the variance. Exhibit "A" . (612) 441.4230 4629 DAKOTA STREET S.E. P.O. BOX 359 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 ~..;., -~ City of Prior lake Application For Variance ''''''':~.'J.r~.f!:-;f:V'\'';~.' ,.._,....JgJ:~,.ii1"....at;1A-4il'.'.T..~~.....;.1........~E'..."'. ';"1' '. _<,:!);~;;::~' '; ,!.VC:1-<,'{\nJDt.'f~~i~., Th'e PI;nning Co;mlssion meets o'n the;:;'';;~'~:~: .~ first and third Thurdsay of each mornh. All }'~;,";:~ applications must be completed and sub. ';,~,\.;...".:, mitted 1.0 days prior to the meeting it will . :...:~ . be considered on. . ',,' ~.w?:>;~;~~t~~~\;t~:l ....:~,. :~ oI:'~I~~~.! ,,~,.~"}~ .~,,-: ~ "~"'., ::~i.':J~ l ~ ~~~ .~;~~ Iniormation Applicant: John F. Cra i g Adciress:_ 2855 SPI-inQ Lake Road S.W. Prior Lake. MN Property Owner: John F. Cra i q Add 2855 Spring Lake Road S.W. Prior Lake, MN ress: Type of Ownership: Fee X Contrac.\__ Consultant/Contractor: Se 1 f Phone: 447-5950 55372 Phone: 447-11QliO 55372 Purchase Agreement Phone: 447-5950 Existing Use of Property: Vacant Present .____Zonin~: R-1 Proposed Use of Property: Ga raQe Parcel . No: 31-133081-1 Legal Description of Variance Site Block 48 Lot S Variance Reque~ted: To construct a garage on Block 48 I.ot 5 and try to comply with city ordinance l>.7\A) j Has the applicant previously sought to plat. rl'lOne obtain a variance or ConditioLal Use Permit on the subject sill' or any part of it?: NoiXJ Yp.sO Wh;.t was requt'sted: When: Dispo, i~lon: 30' X 50' 9arage Describe the type of improvements proposed: Describe the type of undue hardship which exists based upon circumstances unique to the property: t'le fee 1 ; tis necessary, in order to beautify our property and that of our neiq;,bors. By encloc:;inQ 0111" personal belongings, which now ~ust be outside to face the elements and be ~iewed by our Iif. igTl150rs . ~.ubmission Requirements (A.)Completed application form. (B.)Fii:ng Fee $50.00 (C.)Certifi-:.J from abstract firm. names and addresses of pro- perty owners w:thin 100 f'?et of the extetior boundries of the subject property. (D.)Complete legal description. (E.)Deed restrictions, if applicable. '3DAn 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. (C.)A 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 app!ications shall be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments. Submitted this 2.C..tJrl~ ~ugust 19 ,~ . /~~~ / L' 'U.u.p) ~v-.. App'I,canlsSignalure d I (~Z '-1/1,f. /1 Property Owners Signat e If within one year from the date of granting a variance upon recomml?ndation of the Zoning Oficer, substantIal ogress has 1 , not been made to implement it's purpose. the Board of Adjustm.ents shaH ~~.Ia~e ~he,yar.ianc.e nun,a~dvoid: ..... . .... ,;,.~.\j... "'h~ ";~%':"~;:"~~>;~"';",':';:~Y ~ ..' ,;'~;, ,;;:;~'J:i\\;."c. /'. . . '::~; i~.l..,t'l~,EGJ';~;Jj~~lt:.;.,~..,::;~=:, ;;;ci~,;1~;~ii:.i:?e~~41\~:tti) ~:.:" Q o . '........,1 / i ~ CITY OF PRIOR LAKE BUILDING PERMtf, TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF ZONING COMPLIANCE AND UTILITY CONNECTION PERMIT Pennlt No. ~ ~ 3 } J IILOCJ< _'t8___ - PARCEL NUMBER .l.!:.!2.:!{)81- (Tel. No.) 447-5 (ftl. No.' fiN 831-IS7S (ft'. NO., 447-2316 AtI'OIIllllQ I J R"lcllllQ 0 C,umneyG Mltc._ 10. CULVERT SIZE V.. No PAC.S HUMII"ED 1 TH"U 17 MUIT 1.IltLLlD 'N BIFORl: PERM'T IS IHueD cP'.... Pt'n, 0' Type and "'on I' bollOt9'l 2. 81 ADO S 285~ Spring Lake Road S.W. Prior Lake, HN 3. LEGAL Dl!SCRIPTION 31 1')081 I PROPERTY 1.0.' - oJ - SECTION .J.rlUNC-LAKIL_ LOT _.lc'~&S_ ADD'-ION TOWNSITE PlAT NUMBER. 4. OWNER (Nam., (Ackl,..., 5. ARCHITECT (Nam. Denn!. Hall uiat & As.oeinteR O. BUILDER (Naml' EXHIBIT G - , ..... CIt, ,. .,.... . ....... . - . ........ - .-.- 1. DATI! Il-S-85 IUII.OtNQ 'NFOlUlAllON 55372 II. (..:~"" 12 'lWIdt"1 30 '010''', 50 '2. 1flJ. OF STORll!S 13. TYPe 0 CONSTRUCTION c~~nt block & wood 14. "LOOR ARfA APPvRTIONMl!JlfT USE or 15. NUJ.:BER OF OCCUPANTS OR SEA TS OCCUPANTS nnn.. SEATS "^ftft 16. E8TtMATlD VALUE $21,000.00 11. COMPLETtON DATE '....... OIfttty"", I..... "'""- ",-....-... _............. _.. Ie.... _.......---.. _ _ _.1_ -... _, _ ...._. __ """'-"--~_I""OU""""""""___""-",..,______",,,____,___ ::::. 1ft_,. "~'''''-''I''''''____-".,~-,..t'''<'~-...___ '~~7'. JJ...s Rs ....Ute 0... AD~INISTRAnVE USE O':F STREET PARKINO_ ___ SPACES REO. PACES ON Pl.AN-,r.____ SURVEY 0 COPIES PERMIT VALUATtOR'c09~~ PlOT PlAN '"' Amoun' BroUOh' Forward. . . . . . . . . . . .. I Par1l Dtd . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ... I SIC. .. . . . . .. .. .. . .. . ........ ... . ..... S PIumblnO ............................ I Sewet Tap . .. . .. . . . . . .. .. . . .. . .. .. ... I_ s.- HOOk-up . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. .. .... I Wa.... Hook-up .. . . . . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. ... I Mat... Hom.................. ......... I We.... Mat... . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. ... I ChICk " , ; Sewet & We.... eo"nlCtlQft Fee ... . . .. I Ot'8If1cl ; Wa.... TOWtt 1'............. . . . . . . . ... I Wa'... TIO. .......... ............... S elly F........................... ..... ~ Other ................................ . To.el Due. ..................... P81d AecelCIt no. "11 ~ \~ De1. Ii -?- 0' By ~ -....._...._-....CItp,.,...~-...,-T_~ ..,."...--...._II_.....~..~.._ '_t II... - PROPOSED GRADE FOUNDATION IN RELATION TO CURB OR CROWN 0' STR!!ET USE OF BUILDINQ~LL.....b~~ . """" TYP\! 0' CONITftUCTION: I II III IVt!:> OcCullency Oroup A 8 E I H R Ii) o...~H J . Pe,mll F............................. ~J;?_ P'en ChlCklng Fto. . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . " S S.a't Surcherce .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . '" S / C. ~ ~ P8nllly . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. S___ Sellllc Sya'''''........................ I Otll., 's" 'b" .'..1.... .. . .. .. ... ... .. .... :c ("? Co' (\ u '0. ....................... . CUy: Become. Your Building Pttmll When Oa'I,(/- J7-'~ lNIII - "--....- ..,- ........ lOGO..... MA RIAl. FIUD WITH APPUCAr'ON - SOIL TESTS "'UNO LOQS PLANS & SPECS C ENEROYDATA 0 PEACOI.A TtuN TEST IJ SETS o o .~ ~, DATE RECEIVED CITY OF PRIOR LAKE BUILDING PERMIT, TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF - 'L.3~ ZONING COMPLIANCE AND UTILITY CONNECTION PERMIT EXHIBIT H 1. White 2. Pink 3. Yellow File City Applicant Permit No. BP7t-?3? DIRECTlONS 1. DATE SPACES NUMBERED 1 THRU 17 MUST BE FILLED IN III -./J- 'Ie BEFORE PERMIT IS ISSUED (Please Print or Type and sign at bottom) BUILDING INFORMATlON 2. SITE A'~FSj--./ J4. . Uk M Siv zOR~ . 11. SIZE OF STRUCTURE ~,fj ) ,(. 1..~7 1/<:) 7) (Height) (Width) (Depth) 3. LEGAL DESCRIPTION I 12. NO. OF STORIES LOTL3?f BLOCK ~iu p,~--/~3-62/-/ 13. TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION ADDITION I:.. ;r/~ ~ ---r-t;;..A:.; I . 4. OWNER . (Name) (AddreSs) (? . (Tel. No.) ././ 14. FLOOR AREA APPORTIONMENT USE ,Jc~.'\ Cr"'(\~ 21:(5 Si.., ~L4 L;. L 1<C( . ~wf'7 - ':) '; ).;.? 5. ARCHITECf.;:,. (Name~ ..- ,- ("ddreS~j ~5f (Tj' No.) .- " r1.~ /-A ( ( a 1./ ( 'j.j. .s..,..f L...:, / . .3(-/11<)" 6. BUILDER (Name) (; (Address) (Tel. No.) 15. NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS OR SEATS OCCUPANTS 7. TYPE OF WORK Fireplace ::J Septic ::J Deck :::J Re-rooting ::J Porcn .::J SEATS New Construction ::J Alterations :::J Addition,X Finish Attic ::J Re-slding 0 Finish Basement ::J 16. PROJECT COSTNALUE Chimney ::J Misc. /"c:" c;7 ~C/'c:--' . 8. PROPERTY AREA OR ACRES 19. PROPERTY DIMENSIONS 10. CULVERT SIZE 17. COMPLETION DATE Sq.FI. Width Depth Yes No ,4~/~';;' 17 I hereby certify that I have fumlshed information on thIs application whICh is to the best ot my knowleoge true and correct. I also certify that I am the owner or authorized agent for :~e mentioned property and that all construction WIll conform to all eXIsting state and local laws and will proceed in accordance with submitted plans. I am aware that the bu' n ~ rev~~rmit for)ll:jt cause. Furthermore. I hereby agree that the city oHicial or a designee may enter upon the property to pertorm needed inspections. X '-t:.' ./I {)..' -- . Ie; -?."\ -9/- I Signature.J License No. Dale ~ FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE SETBACKS: Required MATERIAL FILED WITH APPLICATION Actual SOIL TESTS 0 ENERGY DATA 0 Front BaCK Side Side BUILDING DEPARTMENT VALUATION OFF STREET PARKING PILING LOGS 0 PERCOLATION TESTS 0 SPACES REa. PLANS & SPECS 0 SETS USE OF BUILDING SURVEY 0 COPIES SPACES ON PLAN PERMIT VALUATION PLOT PLAN 0 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: I II III IV V City: Amount Brought FOIward ........ .... ...... $ Occupancy Group A 8 E F H I M R S U Part( Support Fee ........................... $ DiviSIOn I 2 3 4 SAC ...... -.............-.................... $ Permrt Fee .._................................ $ Collec:or Street Fee ....................... S Plan Checking Fee ............-.-.......... $ SewerTap ................................... $ License Check Fee ......................... $ State Surcharge ............................. S Pressure Reducer .......................... S Penalty ...................._................_. $ Meter Hom ........................_.......... $ Septic System ................_.............. $ Water Meter ................................. $ Other ..............._......_..._.............. $ Sewer & Water Connection Fee ........... $ Water Tower Fee ........................... $ Subtotal ..._........................... $ Water Tap ................................... S This Application Becomes Your Building Permit When Approved. Builder's DepOSit ..._......................_. S By Date Other ..................._..................... $ Certificate of Occupancy Total Due ...._......................... $ Paid Receiot No. Issued Date Bv This is to certify that the request in the above application and accompanying documents IS in accordance with the City Zoning Ordinance and may proceed as requested. This document when signed by the City Planner constitutes a temporary Certificate of ZOning compliance and allows construction to commence. Before occupancy. a Certificate of Occupancy must be issued. City Planner Date Soeclal Conditions d any 24 hour notICe for all inspections 447-4230 91:.,-, '3~, "'-. , ~ E:1. " 9Z".93 . ~ . ~ V..() " ~ " ~" , G' " " " "- <-<l " ~" "" ~O " ~a "- " ", BIT DRIVE 1(;' o ).. -1>...i " o ~~o~ " "- ;(~ " ~ "- "- , TOP l1fON E:1. 919. 83 PROPOSED ADD ITlONS -..., ..: '...-) - ) 9ZZ .0 . ,,~ ,00 / '? o~<-; o/",,~ ~ ro 0 0'" ~ <~)c.rV~e / " / ,'~ '-J~ rop OF ICE EL 91 J 0 3 - 4 - 96 LAKE , , " , , , , ' , , ".. ' 'S''' " " " " " ,"j ", .,~< / ^ ',', ~,L "'+ ~ '.v (' / "'" o;r <9 .1'.. ~ '/-z, /-1-G' "'- SPRING DSSC- ~ ;,'_ T r' ,.... I {~., , '.. .':1. T.r:ts . , U:I: , c'.l,::)( ...j [.." LI.... K~~ ,;'()!"r:l~~PT " Sr;ot:t Countv . , Mi: ;~. . ., :'~ , 922 0:- 'T'r ., 1~~, .,.. . 1 '-j).' r, :... ~ ...... "- : ;"i \...""',.... 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 eXis~t' . ttached garage) must be setback a minimum of 50 feet from the OHWL which is 909.1 EL. A variance was granted for in 1978 (case V Al 978-0004) 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-I8). 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.