HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 01/20/1977 UNAPPROVED
MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
Thursday, January 20, 1977 7:30 PM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman James Wedlund, Donald Sorenson,
James Cardinal, and Joan Meyers
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Wayne Sanders, Chief Building Inspector
OTHER PRESENT: Mark Lewis, Roger Sandvick
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16, 1976 MEETING
Pg. 2, para. 6, sent. 1, delete "for the sake of discussion".
" 11
It
if 5, " "yark" before "setback", add "yard" before setback.
of
" '� " if IF
" "yark" after "side", add "yard" after "side".
it 3, S, of 3, "node", add "knoll"
it 11 7, " VI "failed", add "carried".
Cardinal moved to approve the Minutes of the December 16, 1976 meeting as corrected.
Wedlund seconded, motion carried,with Meyers and Sorenson abstaining.
Request for variance from required front yard setback at Lot 2,Block 3, Kings
Forest addition to Stevens Heights. (14202 Stratford)
Mr. Lewis spoke to Council action of December 14, 1976 where a 20 foot setback
was denied and at which meeting they could not act on anything except the 20 foot
setback, because they would be legislating action rather than reacting.
Wedlund spoke to SECTION 19. Amendments, subdivision 19.5 Reapplication, and this
was discussed by the Board members.
Bldg. Inspector Sanders said that he had discussed this with City Attorney Perbix,
and it was agreed that it did not apply to variance applications.
Meyers added that the Council has always interpreted it as applying to strictly
zoning petitions.
Sorenson referred to first Motion made by Cardinal and its withdrawal during Nov 18,
1976 meeting, because it was contrary to Mr. Lewis"s request, and added that the
Board had tried to offer every option that they could regarding Mr. Lewis's wishes.
Lewis responded that he did not pick up this spirit, and asked what the Board could
offer other than the 35 ft. setback.
Sorenson explained that the sense of this body was 35 feet at that time, but nothing
less than that. He said they were considering the other lots and the overall plan that
would be in keeping with the Ordinance/.
Zoning Board of Appeals and Adjustments -2- January 20, 1977
Mr. Roger Sanvick, 14280 Stratford Road, commented that the setback was coming
from 44 feet on his house to 35 ft on the proposed house.
Sorenson added that the existing setback is 41.3 on Stratford Road and felt we
should look to our prior action and what it was based on.
Meyers spoke to what the effects of granting a 30 foot setback would do to
existing average setback.
Wedlund asked Sandvick how he felt about a 30 foot setback for Lewis.
Sandvick responded that he felt it would set a precedent and opposes a 30 foot
setback. He said he believes that a tapering of houses is the only fair way to
go and that fill could be brought in at a 35 foot setback.
Sanders commented that the general area has greater setbacks, with most of the
homes in the 40's for setback, with the corner lot as the exception.
Cardinal commented tha if Lewis were granted a 30 foot setback, the other houses
would have to have 38 foot setbacks, creating a "zigzag" effect. Sorenson added
that the purpose of the Ordinance was that all houses would be built with the
intent that they would not block the view of others, and that at the time we
granted the variance on Lot 1, we requested that the owner angle the house so ther
there would be less of this kind of situation.
Meyers, referring to Minutes of the November 18, 1976 meeting, asked about a quote
on required amount of fill needed for a 30 foot setback, which was 900 cubic yards,
;and-asked whether he knew how much would be needed for a 35 foot setback. Lewis
responded that he wasn't sure but thought about double that amount would be needed,
plus some trees would have to be removed.
Lewis asked permission to give a slide presentation of his land from various angles.
Board members asked various questions such as: distance of lot line markers - 60 feet;
type of trees that would be affected - oaks and maples; presence of water during a
normal spring - Sandvick commented that the trees in question would be in water.
MOTION: Cardinal moved to deny the petition with the following findings: Variance
does not comply with variance requirements; would cause drastic variance on setbacks
on the block, whether the houses are far apart or not; there would be a visual lack
of continuity; the variance is not justified by the topographical changes in the lot;
it is further not justified on an engineering basis; that further along there are
financial considerations; those considerations as applied to a lesser degree of
variance are not significantly substantial; that the granting of said variance would
constitute a divergence from the intent of the Ordinance of such a degree as to
violate the spirit of the Ordinance and past interpretation thereof; the granting of
such a variance would deprive adjoining property owners of the benefits of the Ordi-
nance; 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.
Sorenson added additional findings: that the average existing setback on this parti-
cular block is for 42.4 feet, and that under the Ordinance that is the point at which
the house should be built, that this body is concerned wuth total overall long range
impact of variance granting and we are not solely considering this particular lot but
remaining undeveloped lots on that road
Zoning Board of Appeals and Adjustments -3- January 20, 1977
and the effects of granting a variance would nave undeveloped lots. Wedlund
seconded, motion carried, with Sorenson abstaining, stating that his personal
feelings are that he feels the decision was the right one for the reasons given.
Cardinal commented that there has been nothing presented tonight to change his
mind about denying the variance and he feels strongly that if he were in Mr.
Sandvick's position and someone wanted to build in his area with that kind of
proposal, he would be very unapproving of that kind of petition.
Sorenson added his comments, that referring to Memo of November 17, item 6, re-
ceived from Sanders, from which a pattern for undeveloped lots was considered,
he would like their meeting to reveal, if it is consensus of this body, that a
long term pattern be adopted for this area for future reference by existing and
future landowners. He spoke to his concern with continuity in development process
and future Zoning Boards of Appeal and Councils.
Wedlund commented that he was sympathetic with Lewis and what he was trying to do,
and in his own mind, he would nave nothing against the proposal of a 30 foot set-
back, but in allowing such a setback we would entrap Sandvick and also we cannot
dictate what will happen in the future.
Wedlund asked whether they could ask the Planning Commission to take this block?
Sorenson responded that it has already been zoned and the setbacks are there, 'and
that the Planning Commission does not consider property already zoned.
Sanders added two general points: In the building business generally you draw a
• straight line between two homes, and the new home should not exceed setback of that
line; and also when builders look at well established lot, it is priced accordingly,
figuring that they can add fill if necessary.
Meyers left at 9:10 PM.
There was general discussion on proposed Ordinance relating to Board of Adjustments
and Appeals and Amending Ordinance No. 135.
Wedlund moved to adjourn at 9:30 PM. Cardinal seconded, motion carried unanimously.
Submitted by,
Donna Stanley
Recording Secretary