07-13-2010 Council Work Session Packet

Home Browse Search

J vat`iance request, we reverse and remand to the City for reconsideration under the correct standard. � Liebeler owns property located in Minnetonka. Krummenacher is Liebeler's neighbor to the west. Liebeler's property consists of a 2.4-acre lot, which contains a 2,975-square-foot home and an attached two-car garage. The properiy also contains a detached flat-roofed garage that a previous owner constructed sometime in the 1940s. The City has an ordinance requiring that the detached garage be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the property's boundary line. Minnetonka City Code § 300.10. Liebeler's garage was constructed before this ordinance went into effect, and it does not satisfy the setback requirement. Specifically, the garage is nonconforming because it is set back . only 17 feet from the front yard lot line. Because the garage was constructed before the ordinance became effective, however, the garage is a permissible nonconformity. On March 31, 2008, Liebeler applied for a variance to expand the detached garage by adding a pitched roof and a second-story room above the garage that could be used as a yoga studio and craft room. Liebeler's proposal was to renovate the garage itself, both to fix its leakage problems and improve its appearance, and also to expand the garage by adding a Iiving space above it. Secause adding a second story to the garage would result in a vertical expansion of a nonconforming structure, Liebeler was required, under the Minnetonka City Code, to apply for a variance from the City.' See Minnetonka City 1 It appears that Liebeler did not attempt to move the garage to a confornung location because the unusual characteristics of the Iot made relocation impracticable. � Liebeler's lot is L-shaped with only 45-feet of frontage on the road. Moreover, there is a ' (Footnote continued on next page.) 3