07-13-2010 Council Work Session Packet

Home Browse Search

_ _ .__ _ _ . • i . i , � i another detached garage on a nearby property that was also set back only 17 feet from the i road. I Krummenacher appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the Minnetonka City Council. The City Council held a public hearing on the variance request on June 30, 2008, at which both sides presented their arguments. After an examination of the record, the City Council upheld the Planning Cominission's decision a.nd findings. The City Council found that Liebeler's "proposal is reasonable and would meet the required standards for a vaxiance." The council listed four requirements and found that the variance satisfied those requirements as follows: (1) Undue Hardship: there is an undue hardship due to the topography of the site, width of the lot, location of the driveway and e�sting vegetation. (2) Unique Circumstance: The existing, non-conforming setback is a circumstance that is not common to every similarly zoned property. (3) Intent of the Ordinance: The improvements would not increase the footprint of the garage, and would comply with the zoning ordinance requirements for a detached garage for maxi.mum height and size. (4) Neighborhood Character: The garage improvements would not alter the character of the neighborhood. The improvements would visually enhance the exterior of the garage. There is also a detached garage on the property to the east that is set back 17 feet from [the street]. Krummenacher then brought suit in district court challenging, among other things, the City's finding of undue hardship. Krumtnenacher served discovery requests asking for additional documents from the City, but the City obj ected to providing more than the City's record on the grounds that the case was properly subject to record review. The court declined to order the City to produce the additional documents, and affirmed the 5 _