Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 11/18/1976 UNAPPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS Thursday, November 1% 1976 7:30 P.M., City Hall FEES PRESENT: Chairman James Wedlund, James Cardinal, Donald Sorensen, Joan Meyers MEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Cebblla STAFF PRESENT: Wayne Sanders, Building Inspector OTHERS PRESENT: Roger Sandvick, Ken Nelson, & Mr. & Mrs. Lewis The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. by Chairman Wedlund. Approval of past Minutes was postponed until later in the meeting. I. Request for variance fro re fired front d se ck at Lot 2 B oc Kings Forest Addition to Stevens Heights, 14202 Stratford Mr. Lewis spoke to his primary reason for the request for the variance, which' was to keep the scenic, natural look of the lot, rather than bringing in fill and turning it into a fabircated lot, which would not blend in with the majority of houses in that area. He felt that the 20 ft. setback would preserve the beauty of the lot, and eliminate the cost of necessary fill if the house were moved further back on the lot. Wedlund inquired as to whether he owned the land at the present time. Lewis responded that he had earnest money on the lot, subject to contingencies. There was discussion pertaining to action taken at previous meeting on Lot 1 of that addition, where, based on the fact that 40% of the block had not been developed, the variance was not necessary. Meyers referred to a letter, dated August 22, 1976, written by City Attorney Perbix, which contained the statement that it was his understanding that only, two of the lots. had been built upon, and that only a 30 ft. setback was required, therefore no variance was required for Lot 1. Sanders added that since 40% is now developed, the required setback will be equal to the average setback. Sorensen said the Ordinance sets the setback, and that the old Ordinance set it at 50 ft. The requirements of the present Ordinance protects prior citi- zens preventing houses from jutting out. He spoke to eomments he had made from past meeting, explaining that he only put out a query, because the definition of a block was somewhat restrictive as to what the Council meant for that Ordinance. Lewis questioned the intent of the Ordinance, and felt that if its purpose was to protect people on flat, level lots, than he did not feel it would apply here because a number of things are involved that do not block anyone's view. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - November 18, 1976 • Sorensen asked what the contingencies on his offer to purchase the land were. Lewis answered that they were baled on a 30 ft. setback and approval by Minnesota Finance Agency. Sorensen questioned Lewis as to whether he had been aware of the setback as stated in the Ordinance and whether the owner had made reference to it. Lewis responded that the owner had felt that building on a 30 ft. setback could be done, but that he had made no reference to the requirements of the Ordinance. The nature and extent of the trees on the property was discussed, with Lewis stating that in moving the setback further back, more trees would have to be destroyed, and more fill would be required. Lewis spoke to two different types of house plans that they were contemaplating, adding that they would have to purchase the lot before we see what type of house we can build. He presented his specs and plans to the Board members for their study. The amount of fill necessary was discussed, and Lewis said that at a 30 ft. setback, 900 cubic yards would be neecb6p according to his builder. He added that for a 20 ft. setback the only fill necessary would be to fill garage from basement floor level to proposed garage level. • Sanders commented on the plumbing, saying there would be normal plumbing on the first floor, with the sewer put in high in basement ceiling and out of basement side wall, with a small sump pum installed in basement floor to raise laundry water only up to sewer level. There was discussion as to this method, and the future possibility of being able to add plumbing for a full bath at the lower level. Sanders said this has been done by putting in a larger pomp. Meyers commented that it would be very costly and might fail. Mr. Roger Sandvick, 14M Stratford Road, commented that the 20 ft. setback would put the house one full width ahead of his house. He added that he realized the problem of building back to " ft., such as his was, and suggested the tapering off of setback footage. He said he was concerned with the proposed request for the 20 ft. setback, and hoped that for his protection, some kind of tapering could be worked out. Wedlund expressed his understanding of Mr. Lewis's request, but felt a 20 ft. might be extreme, and he stressed that financial problems could not be considered in the allowing of a variance. Sorensen asked Mr. Nelson, 6601 Leesborough, to give his view. Nelson responded by speaking to previous meeting, and said that the engineer who walked his lot recommended 30 ft. on his lot and 30 ft. on lot no. 2. He said he was not opposed to the 20 ft. setback. Sorensen felt that the Board should take into consideration the effect of surrounding properties, that fiscal consideration should also be a basis for our action, but that the Ordinance contains certain criteria that should be looked at. He spoke to lots 2, 3, 6 and perhaps 1, and what would happen in the future. He felt the Building Department should know why we are taking the action. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - November 18-, 19?6 Lewis asked if he could offer a closing statement. He said that he had for their consideration a suggestion for the setback to start at 20 ft. and go back. As you take a side view from the road, the woods waltld give privacy etc. and that he feels that houses look more natural than building on fill. Cardinal asked whether it were feasible that the City require a lot owner to state when the lots do not qualify under the Ordinance before they sell. Sorensen commented that he has held the opinion that in platting property, the planner should take into consideration whether the lot is buildable. He added that everybody who buys property is under legal obligation to be knowledgable about what the restrictions of the lot are. Sandvick inquired whether it was possible of running the sewer on the back lot line. Sanders responded that there would be problems of easement, but felt it might be a possibility. MOTION:Cardinal moved that princi;al.V based on the findings that the request for variance does not comply with variance requirement and would cause rather drastic variance on the setbacks on the block whether the houses are far apart or not, and because of visual lack of continuity, we consent to a 35 ft. setback which was recommended by the Building Department. Meyers seconded. Cardinal withdrew motion, and Meyers withdrew her second. Wedlund asked whether Lewis would be willing to amend his application to 35 ft. Lewis responded that he could consider 30 ft. but was against artificial topography where there was natural topo, He added that if this were not possible, he would rather see them act on the 20 ft. variance. MOTION: Cardinal moved to deny the variance with the following findings: Variance does not comply with variance reguirement; would cause drastic variance on setbacks on the block, whether the houses are far apart or not; there was a visual lack of continuity; Sorensen adding his findings which were; that the granting of a variance setback along Stratford Road, Lot 2, block 39, subdivision Kings Forest, Stevens Heights is not justified by the topographical: . changes in the lot; it is further- not justified on engineering basis;that further along there are financial consider- ations; those considerations as applied to a lesser degree of variance are not sig- nificantly substantial; that the granting of said variance would constitute a di- vergence from the intent of the Ordinance of such a degree as to violate the spirit of the Ordinance and past interpretation thereof. Wedlund added his findings: As a greater degree of setback less than required by the Ordinance could be accomodated although the applicant has decided to refine to consider such a possibility; that the granting of such a variance would deprive adjoining property owners of the bene- fits of the Ordinance; and by allowing this variance would be a special privilege and by denying the variance, it would not deprive Mr. & Mrs. Lewis of use of that property. Meyers seconded, motion carried unanimously. Wedlund informed Lewis of his alternative actions; to go before the City Council or appeal before a court of law. Sanders added that he could petition for a 35 ft. setback, accept and not make use of it should he change his mind on it. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - November 18, 1976 Sorensen added that if it is not acted upon within a year, according to the Ordinance, it will expire. Nelson asked how the average setback is arrived at. Sorensen responded that the distance between side of the house and front street line is used to determine the average setback. Meyers commented that Lewis did have another alternative, and that is to request a continuance to the next meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 20, JUNE 17, JULY 15. & SF92. 24 Sorensen moved to approve Minutes of above dated meetings. Cardinal seconded, motion carried unanimously. There was discussion on Council action taken during Hamilton appeal, and there was concern expressed that the Board was unsure of proper approach to similiar cases will be upcoming. Sorensen requested list of land divisions, why, size division was made, and what zoning of property was when it was divided. He commented that land divisions are a problem, and suggested that a solution might be re-zoning of property. Discussion of Minnesota Trees sign took place. Sorensen stressed the importance of stipulations in variances granted. Cardinal moved to adjourn at 10:15 P.M. Meyers seconded, motion carried. Submitted by, Donna Stanley Recording Secretary