Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 10/21/1981 - Special BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS APPROVED MINUTES October 21, 1981 City Hall 8:OOam BOARD MEMBERS: James Wedlund, Chairman STAFF: Wayne Sanders James Dickey Building Official Ronald Krueger Betty Shaughnessy Recording Secretary SPECIAL MEETING: CALL TO ORDER: Variance request #81-32 submitted by Norb Yenish, lcoated at 11580 W. 78th Street Requesting a variance from ord. #135; requesting to exceed the max- imum floor ratio on Lots One and Two on Block Two Flying Cloud Center. • Mr. Wedlund asked Sanders if he had any input on Mr. Yenish's request. Sanders replied, that he had misinformed Mr. Yenish about the lot coverage. He stated that the building ordinance states a 40% coverage. Yenish showed Sanders and the board a new set of plans. Sanders asked if he had a different lot line. Yenish replied he did and is now asking for a two story building. Wedlund asked what the percent was on the new plan. Sanders stated that Yenish had moved the lot line, but has the same per- centage. He is asking for a 9% variance. Sanders explained that Yenish was still in the same zoning and does not have to replat, if he does not want to. Carl Jullie, City Manager, asked Yenish if he was proposing to buy additional property. He also stated the Planning Commission may ask questions about the trees. Dickey asked if the new plans met the required parking spaces. Yenish replied they did. Krueger asked what was the impact of keeping the same number of rooms versus reducing rooms. They discussed the cost per unit for building the motel, also what a loss of rooms would mean. Darkenwald explained to the board that the land was owned by one owner. The owner and neighbors did not object to the variance request. He also explained that they had been trying for several years to get that piece of land developed. (2) Cont. variance #81-32 • DISCUSSION: The discussion continued as to the cost of extra footage and the need for a motel. Also what new developments were going to go in to that area. MOTION: Dickey moved to approve variance #81-32 submitted by Norb Yenish. Located at 11580 W. 78th st. . With the stipulations as follows: 1. That it be a variance that would be only five ( 5%) percent on building square footage. 2. That the property line be as detailed as it is shown by the dark pencil line on his sketch. 3. That the tree removal be cleared with the City Council and that any additional approval be cleared with the planning commission if the need so exist. Wedlund seconded: Approved unanimously. Variance request 81-19M submitted by Alfred Schendel, unscheduled meeting Wedlund stated that the reason the Schendels were back basically because the board spoke of the issue at their last board meeting. Wedlund read the minutes from the meeting of July 20,1981, He informed the Schendels they were asked to appear before the board because the board members had been receiving phone calls from neighbors in regards to the fact, they felt the Schendels were not living up to what was expected. Wedlund also stated that in the stipulations from the meeting of July 20, it stated that the shakes were to be bleached. In essence • the letter received from the Schendels when they applied for the variance they stated that they would stain or paint the shakes. Wedlund asked for some re- sponse from the board or Mr. Sanders. Dickey commented that nothing had been done with the shakes. Wedlund stated that the Schendels had 90 days to comply with the stipulations of the variance, which would not be until December 1, 1981. Dickey stated the calls he had from the Schendels neighbors were mainly concerns about the bricks in front of the house not matching and the condition of the shakes. He related to the board several different conversations he had with the neighbors. They had questions as to the elevations of the house. He also stated that he, Sanders and Carl Jullie had gone out to the house prior to the meeting to look into the complaints of the residents of Forest Hills Rd. . They had inspected the house and they asked the builder who was on the property at the time, about who the surveyor was. At that time there was some questions as to the elevations. Krueger stated that the main complaint that he had from neighbors was, their concern about the condition of the shakes. Also that the picture that had been shown to them at the variance meeting that they had approved, on the basis of the artist sketch,did not depict the actual elevation that the house sits at today. He explained that the residents were not opposed to the variance on the basis of the picture, but they had a different opinion of the house the way it sits today. . Wedlund related to the board that the stipulations in the minutes of July 20, applied to the concerns of the neighbors that were being discussed at the meet- ing that morning. He pointed out that the house next door appeared to be lower then the Schendels, but the house two doors down was a three story and it appear- ed to be the same elevation. Wedlund asked Schendel what he planned on doing? (3) Cont. variance 81-19M • Schendel replied, originally the concept they had shown to the board was without;. the cul-d-sac. They had no idea that it would be in. The concept itself was one foot higher then the existing houses. Because the cul-d-sac was temporary they would like to take and block it in with fieldstone to get the normal slope. If they put in a rock wall it would be approximately three feet higher as a retainer. Wedlund stated that the project had not been completed and maybe the neighbors could not contemplate what it would look like finished. Schendel stated that as far as the elevations go they were within inches of the neighboring homes. Jullie explained to the board what the plans were for the cul-d-sac in the future. DISCUSSION: The board asked Jullie if there would be a problem with the run off? Jullie explained the curbing and drainage to the board. Dickey ad- dressed the board as to the fact that the problem was brought up by neighbors and there were not any neighbors present to express their concerns. Schendel explained that the shakes would be stained after the construction was completed. Mis. Schendel explained that the brick front was still wet that is why they appeared not to match the rest of the house. Once they were dried they would match,she ex- plained, that they were all from the same load of bricks. Wedlund expressed the fact that his opinion remained the same as it was at the last meeting. He had no objection to the house and saw no reason • for complaints that were irrelevant, considering that the neighbors did not appear to express their concerns at the public meeting. The discussion continued to include what was to be done about the stain- ing of the shakes, how and when the completion of the house was to take place. The board members decided that the complaints should be settled between the neighbors and the Schendels. The Schendels still had one and a half months to comply with the stipulations in their variance request. DECISION: There were no motions. The Schendels were thanked for appearing in front of the board. variance request #81-30 submitted by Miley Sprinkler Systems, located at 14380 Pioneer Trail Requesting a variance from Ord. #135 Sec. 7. requesting to build a Pole Barn (a wood structure with a metal clad exterior) for storage. Wedlund asked Carl Jullie, city manager, what the decision was from the city council on the pole barn. Jullie replied, the council had discussed the pole barn and their direction was, that the staff procede with preparing some amendments to allow that type of design also insulation that would be compatible. They expressed they had no concern about that type of application, their primary focus would be in a situation *here it's a plain sheet of metal type of building that does not fit into the neighborhood • and would clearly be a maintenance problem. Their direction was ,in Mr. Miley's case that they would rather have a building of that type of construction in opposed to a fence. Sanders asked if this variance was approved on the basis that there would'nt be treatment on the metal except paint. • Cont, variance #81-32 Wedlund replied, yes. MOTION: Wedlund moved to approve variance #81-32 allowing Miley's Sprinkler Systems to install a Pole Barn. The findings are as follows; 1. A pole barn,for the useage in which Miley intends to have it, for storage. 2. A pole barn would have a greater advantage as opposed to a fence, it would have a much greater aesthetic value. 3. Wedlund stated that he believed that the economy :situation today dictates this type of building to be included in various areas of our city. With the guidence that has been received from;.the city council in regards to their expressing a view of looking into this particular matter futher. With all probability of trying to ease the ordinance. It would be advantageous to the city in this part- ticular case. Dickey seconded, Approved unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 9:45 am. • •