Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 09/24/1976 . F UNAPPROM MINtAm BOARD OF APPE" AID ADJUSTMENTS Thursday, September 24., 1976 7s30 P.M., CITY HALL MDUM PRESENTs Chairman James Wedlund James Cardinal Joan Meyers Donald Sorenson Thomas Cebulla STAFF PBBS'ENTs Wayne Sanders, Chief Building Inspector OTHERS PREUNTs Mr. & Mrs. Len Nelson, Roger Sandviok, Richard Mavison, and Mrs. Sberman The meeting was called to order at 700 P.M. by Chairman Wedlund. I. Ire Ag}z Nelsog., 4101 Parklam Ave.. FALM,...Him., saue�st for front XLEd ee,t bIgh s a�Q feet 2N.Str_al ord Road.and 30 feet on LeNRbo ;A Wedlund asked Nelson to present his case. Nelson explained that he wants to build his house on the corner lot on Leesborough Ave. and Stratford Road. He said the setbacks for the older area are 50 ft. from the lot line, and • he is asking for a variance to 30 ft., because of the drainage pond in the back and the steep incline of the lot. He explained that he would have to stay in the highest corner of the lot or run into problems with footings and need for more fill, which would involve quite a bit more cost. Sanders commented that the question of what constitutes a block is involved here. He said that the Ordinance says that when it is 40% built up, and since this area is only 113 built up k2 lots out of 6), a variance may not be required. He added that the street has various setbacks already. Meyers questioned Nelson about adjacent homes, and whether his lot takes up the whole area. Nelson responded that the two lots neat to him belong to Mr. Wayne Gilbertson, who is using both of the lots for his building. He added that there is an easement coming up to the "pothole*, with Mr. Gilbertson and his lot coming up to the easement line. Sorenson asked whether there was a topographic survey of the lot? Nelson answered negative, but did have a map of the area and presented it for discussion. Wedlund inquired as to what type of house was being considered. Nelson responded that he was planning on a rambler, with a walls-out from the rear, and garage. Geballa asked what the nature of the soil was. Nelson said he had dug in various places and found gravel and clays and added that oak trees are growing on the land and felt that this was an indication of good soil. He said the ground starts to drop off at 30 ft. and was unsure of what was behind this. Hoard of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - September 24, 1976 Mr. Roger Sandvick, 14280 Stratford Road, expressed his concern regarding the setbacks and the drainage pond. He explained that he has a dwelling three lots from proposed dwelling on Stratford, and has lived there for seven years. He said his concern goes batik to 1974 when he had expressed his concern over set- backs to the Engineering Department and was assured that the lots were nnbuildable because of the`-soil and setbacks. He handed out sketches to better explain his concerns. He said the pond presented a significant problem because of Watershed runoff, and it is down this year approximately five feet from normal water level. San&I& added that he is requesting that Nelson conform to present existing set- backs, because he feels that a precedent will be set by a 30 ft. setback and will in turn affect the value of his property. He continued by expressing concern for other people in the area with whom he had talked to. Sorenson inquired whether Sandvick constructed his home and when. Sandvick res- ponded that he purchased it in November, 19699 and that it was built in 1957 or 1958. Sorenson oommented that this house was existing before the new Ordinance 135 which was passed in November of 1969. He said under prior Ordinance, no. 89 the required front setback is 50 ft., side yard is 15 ft., and rear yard is 25 ft* miniw m and no greater than 40 ft., while under subdivision 2.2 a of Ordinance no. 135,• a variance is needed only where 40%_of a block is developed. Sanders oommented that Ordinance no. 135 contains no definition of a block and questioned what we apply the 4% to. Mrs. Sherman, 6650 Leesborough,commented that if the house were facing Leesborough, • basically the side would be Stratford. Sorenson added,as a point of information, that according to the Building department when a road fronts on two streets, you have two front yards rather than one front and 2 sides. Sandvick was concerned with the aesthetic value of setbacks on Stratford, and felt that future builders could then come in and build ahead of his home. Nelson commented that there are only two dwellings in this particular block that we are talking about. He said that Qkn footings are put in, he will find out if it won't work and the City will stop further work. He added, ' that lookinj to the Fast, all of the houses have about 30 ft. setback. Cardinal asked whether Nelson had considered building a different type of house or to angle it in some way. Nelson responded that he had looked into this possibility, but the drop off going up Stratford is too steep and too moh fill is needed. Sorenson asked whether Nelson owned the lot or whether it was under purchase agreement. Nelson responded that he did own the lot, and added that he thought the 50 ft. setback was off the street rather than lot line. The lot between Nelson and Saadvick was discussed (14202) and Nelson said it was owned by the County. Meyers said, after looking at the property, it was her opinion that the only plaoe to build would be that corner, and felt the other lots looked too steep and Would require too much fill. She added that she did not feel that we should judge this lot by what may not be possible on the other lots. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - September 24, 1976 Mrs. Nelson added her opinion that she questioned hov anyone could build because • of steepness and being so heavily wooded. Sandvick said that he felt a contractor might come in and build, using our modern concepts in building Which would enable an attractive building to be pat up. The aesthetic value of the placement of houses from the road was discussed, with Sorenson questioning the look of a string of houses all the same distance from the roadway. Sandvick claimed that there should be no more than two to three feet difference. The possibility of hooking up to the sewer on Stratford was discussed. Sandvick felt that Nelson should have looked at all the variables before deciding to build, since other people have come in and decided against baying because of the problems. Sorenson, referring to Ordinance no. 135p expressed his opinion that under the terms of this Ordinance, since 40% of the block as defined in the subdivision ordinance has not been built on, that provision 2.2 c does not apply, and he does not feel that Nelson has to apply for the 30 ft. setback, because there is no need for a variance. Ceballa commented that he had also looked at the lot and could not see where it would cause a hardship by granting the 30 ft. setback, because of the 27 ft. set- back already present and which has already set the precedent. . Sandvick disagreed that there was no hardship, and claimed that a future hardship was present because this setback is not condusive because other setbacks on Stratford Road are further back. Sorenseon felt that what the Board is really faced with is what constitutes a block. Meyers stated that this Board has acted on setback variances many times and established subdivisions without determiairig a block - platted block division. Sandvick insisted that there were unanswered questions and that there should be a definition of a block. He requested that the Board consider the information pre- sented tonight and get a legal definition of "block" from the City Attorney and call another meeting. MDTION: Cardinal moved that we grant the variance considering the following findings: Currently, there are varied setbacks in the houses on Stratford and whole subdivision; the variance being granted will not be unusual here; and the variance will not cause any noticeable hardship to others, lots W02 and 14204 being unbuildable. Cebulla seconded. Motion carried with Sorenson abstaining for the following reasons In his interpretation a variance is not needed, however, if it were found that a variance is needed, it would be his feeling that if all six items spelled out in isbe ion 17.5 are complied with, he would be casting a vote in favor of this variance. Hoard of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - September 24, 1976 • Meyers responded to questions by Sorenson as to former action taken by the Hoard on a common sense basis, or general area rather than a block concept. She said this has been done before, but she felt that a legal description should be sought defining "block". Sandviek asked what other course of action he could take, since he was not in agreement with the Board's decision. Wedlund advised his that he had the right to appeal this Body's decision to the City Council or appeal it to a Court of Law. He said this is a fact finding body and does make decisions, but which can be reviewed. Ceballa moved to adJourn at 8:55 P.M.. Sorenson seconded, motion carried unanimously. Submitted by, Donna Stanley Recording Secretary