Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 02/17/1977 UNAPPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPF,ALS AND ADJUSTMENTS Thursday, February 17, 1977 7:30 P.M. CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman James Wedlund, Donald Sorenson, James Cardinal, and Joan Meyers MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Chris Enger, City Landscape Architect OTHERS PRESENT: Frenchie Faucher, M. B. Hagen Realty, Jim Connors, James McMahon, Ken Schmitz, Bruce Bren, Ecklund & Swedlund Custom Home Builders, Marilyn Jensen, Mr. & Mrs. Don Sethre, and Glen Gehrke APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 20, 1977 MEETING Pg. 10 last para., 2nd sentence; delete "the" after "and", add "an" after "and". 2, 2nd " first sentence; delete "41.3", add "42.411. " It,, seventh " , fifth sentence; delete"they", add "that". " 3, first " , first sentence; delete "nave", add "have on" before "undeveloped". Correct misspelling of "Sorensen" throughout Minutes. Cardinal moved to approve Minutes of January 20, 1977 meeting as corrected. Meyers seconded, motion carried unanimously. I. Re guest for a variAnce from averagge e2jisting front Yard setback 434 feetw a 30 foot front setback Re nest made by Herb Mason. Excelsior B Ho kins Minn on Lot 9 Block 3 Edenview 2nd Addition. So Lund Mr. Frenchie Faucher, M. B. Hagen Realty, representing Mr. Herb Mason, spoke to the need for the variance in order to complete development of the last six lots which they had acquired from Lund Home Builders. He explained that costs had been increasing, and in order to build the home at a competitive price, they need the requested variance to allow a 30 foot front yard setback. He spoke to soil test report of April 30, 1973, conducted by Soil Engineering Services. Wedlund asked whether the lot was unbuildable Faucher responded that it was not a matter of being unbuildable, but of being too costly for competitive reasons. He added that the sciL boring was taken at the worst possible point, and that it would be natural to assume that the soil at the NR part would not be as bad to build on. Wedlund inquired as to their plans for the adjoining lots. Faucher answered that they would possibly come in for another variance for lot S, and that lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 are probably not affected by setback. Sorensen asked about date of the plat and when 40% or five houses were built. Meyers responded that three of the houses had been there since 1960, and that the two houses west of the vacant lots would be only about three years old. Sorensen, directing his question to Faucher, asked whether it was his position that the soil report should be definitive to this Board as to our action. Faucher res- ponded that it was not his intention. Zoning Board of Appeals and Adjustments -2- February 17, 1977 Jim Connors, builder, explained that compaction was not recommended, and that pilings would have to be used. He added that in order to avoid ru niting into com- paction work, the house will have to be closer to the street. Sorensen felt that the Board could not take action based on the limited information contained in the soil report, and that, referring to less expense with shorter set- back, the Ordinance states that cost is not a factor, as such, in granting a variance. Mr. James McMahon, 15907 So. Lund Rd., objected to the granting of a variance based on cost only, and commented that he had to pay for the setback, and that it would have been easier for him to request a variance in order to save on the expense. Cardinal responded to McMahon's objection, stating that the Board was not saying that a variance will be granted, based on cost factor alone, and that the Ordinance specifically forbids this. (Sec. 17.1 e) Mr. Glen Gehrke, 15801 So. Lund Dr., explained how he had five truck loads of dirt brought in to form a bank, rather than requesting a setback, and he also objected to an uneven appearance of houses on their block. Mr. Ken Schmitz, 15800 So. Lund Dr., commented that if you offset line of houses at this time, you will have to deviate again if another owner requests a variance. Cardinal asked how deep it had been drilled before and whether he could assume there will be bad soil there also. Faucher responded they had drilled 16 feet, • and agreed there could be bad soil Alsewhere but did not know exactly where. Alternatives were discussed by Board members, and questions were answered by Connors regarding the use of fill or putting in pilings. Cardinal commented, that in looking at the lot, he felt that asthetically, the:house would be too far forward. He added that he feels variances should be in a modest degree, and not in big "chunks". Meyers commented, after questioning Connor as to the need for fill even with a setback, that the uncertainty of the soil concerns her,; and that the reduction in house slige for the purpose of moving the house to the east,might be enough to mice 4 difference in avoiding the bad soil. She did not feel the variances was justified. MOTION: Sorensen moved that this Board deny the application for a variance from average existing front yard setback of 43r feet to allow a 30 foot front yard setback on lot 9, block 3, Edenview 2nd Addition based on the following findings: 1. That the average setback in the area on the block in which this property is located is /+2.6, and that more than 40% is developed. 2. Ordinance 135 states that where 40% or more of a block is developed, the required setback shall be equal to the average existing setback. 3. The applicant has not provided this Board with sufficient in- formation to justify or verify the soil condition. J+. That the sole basis for the application is cost, which is directly contrary to Section 17.1 c of Ordinance 135. 5. There is insufficient evidence that strict interpretation of the Ordinance will give hardship. 6. Granting of variance in this case would constitute a "special privilege". 7. Granting of variance in this case would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the public or private properties or improvements in the vicinity. 8. The variance request is not in conformity with Zoning Bd. of Appeals and Adjustments -3- February 17, 1977 the Ordinance of this City. He added that consideration should also be given to the sideyard setback variance that may be needed here;&elevation and soils used ✓ for fill. Cardinal seconded, motion carried unanimously. Chairman Wedlund informed Faucher that he could appeal the case to the City Council or to a court of Law. II. Request for a 10 foot variance in front ,Yard setback to allow a 20 foot setback, Re guest deb Ec and & Swedlu P 0 Bo 8 Excelsior Mn on Lot 3, Block4. Hillcrest Courts rd additioa. 16020 Alpine W Mr. Bruce Bren , representing Ecklund & Swedlund, spoke to the requested variance. He said the reasons for request.''were both economical and environmental. He added that the house will be built regardless of whether the variance is granted. Sorensen suggested moving house so the garage would be equal to the back house line., therefore requiring less fill. Brenn responded that moving it to that corner Would put it about 6 feet above present ground level. Sorensen spoke to the topo problem involved here, and questioned why Alpine Way hadn't been moved over to eliminate some of these problems. He requested the Staff to report back to the Board as to what steps are needed as to manpower or techniques for investigation of plats to avold future problems such as these. Mrs. Mary Sethre, 16150 No. Hillcrest Ct., was concerned with what would happen to the lot, as they were told the lot WOU16 .not be buildt, upon. She added that she was gladY • they were building a house there. Marilyn Jensen, 16040 Alpine Way, submitted a-letter to the Board, which was read by the recording secretary, stating opposition to the request for variance: by Mr. & Mrs. Douglas N. Robinson. She added that she was also in opposition to this request, asking"why mess up the neighborhood?" Brea responded to the objections, and said he feels it will make less of a"mess" ecologically and economically. Chris Eager, City Landscape Architect, spoke to the ecology of the lot, a4d his con- cern about the amount of fill needed and the trees lost."He suggested-an alternative of rues , the Council to review it under Land Alteration Ordinance 226. Meyers commented that she felt the Council would review it upon recommendation of ` the Staff or request of petitioners. She added she questions the value of the trees V 'involved, because mo st of them were elms. ; Bren responded that the diseased elms have been out down and removed, and the remainder have been tested and are disease-free. The use of other house plans was discussed, including plans more apthetically designed that tat.be prchbita ve:in do st of c onstru ddon, Eager added that the Staff will make certain y ! recommenaations, but cannot be as invo]v®d with the site as the engineer or developer, and it is never looked at as when people finally build on it. Cardinal commented that when you have requests for variance that are not minor, the Board is inclined to ask how it looks, what do people think etc., and suggested smaller variance. Zoning Bd. of Appeals and Adjustments -4- February 17, 1977 Mr. Don Sethre, 16150 No. Hillcrest Ct., was concerned with unbuildable lots, because they are used for collecting trash etc.. He suggested that the people on both sides of the lot take care of it. Meyers asked whether these lots were assessed for sewer and water. Bren answered that the City put it in and assessed each lot. Cardinal, responding to Sethre, commented that such a lot can be determined a pub- lic nuisance. Meyers added that there are certain responsibilities that property owners have, and that the City can issue orders on the property as a public nuisance, and it has to be complied with. Wedlund suggested the possibility of a park or playground,_ , and referred to the - situation at Sterling Field, where a playground was made from such a lot. Sethre explained that he has written to the City for three years offering to do this, but did not receive an answer. Bren commented that they were considering dedicating it for this purpose. Sorensen expressed concern with the loss of trees, and felt it was a valid point for a variance, but that we cannot say that the exact loss of trees would give us a criterea. He added that he felt more information would help the Board make a decision, and requested that the City, if resources and time were available, do at least a cursory check of the trees and their value to determine what can be done and to receive more facts than what we have. Enger requested#fill section, tudies & use of ,retaining walls etc. from Bren, since the dis- euss!"m was in relative terms regarding trees. Bren said he would provide the fill sections for twenty and thirty feet. MOTION: Sorensen moved to continue this matter to the next regularly scheduled meeting, March 17. Meyers seconded, motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Sorensen moved to direct Staff to examine and report on what can be done to avoid this type of situation in the future. Wedlund seconded, motion carried unanimously. Enger spoke briefly to Memo from Carl Jullie, and requested comments and recommen- dations from Board members to the City Council. Sorensen and Wedlund spoke to list of land divisions that had been requested previous- ly by the Board of Appeals. Enger responded' that he would bring the request to the attention of the City Manager. MOTION: Sorensen moved to continue the matteruntil the next meeting. Cardinal seconded, motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Cardinal moved to adjourn at 9:30 PM. Wedlund seconded, emotion carried unanimously, Submitted by, Donna Stanley Recording Secretary