Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 03/12/1998 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS THURSDAY MARCH 12, 1998 7:30 P.M. CITY CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 8080 MITCHELL ROAD BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairperson Kathy Nelson,Delavan Dye, Louis Giglio,Matthew Hanson,William Ford,Michael O'Leary STAFF LIAISON: Zoning Administrator,Jean Johnson CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Board member Dunham was absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion: Dye, seconded by O'Leary to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried 6-0. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -February 12. 1998 Motion: Giglio, seconded by Ford, to approve the February 12, 1998, Minutes of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals as submitted. Motion carried 5-0-1(Nelson abstained). III. VARIANCES A. Request No. 98-03 by Gordon and Nancy Justus for 14451 Fairway Drive for approval to construct a 10'x12' deck 18.8 feet from a rear lot line(Code requires a 30 foot setback). Gordon Justus, the applicant, told the Board he would like to replace his current 6'xl2'deck with a larger 10' xl2'deck. The need for a variance for this project was discovered when a plot map was requested of the City. A survey has been made of the subject property. The deck would be built off of the second level of the condominium. The neighbor that owns the unit below this deck has been made aware of the project and, to date, has not made any objection to the deck. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS March 12, 1998 Page 2 Nelson returned the floor to the Board for questions and comments. Hansen asked Mr. Justus to give more detail about the problems that exist with the current deck. Mr. Justus told the Board there is a water problem that was created when the original contractor did not install the deck flashing properly. He said this problem would be fixed at the time the new deck is constructed. Ford asked Mr. Justus if he had talked to the neighbor in the unit below and if so what does the unit owner think of the two new posts that would be if front of their property. Mr. Justus told the Board the lower unit owner is aware of the structural members. They have not made any objections to these structures. The lower unit owner has said they are looking forward to the shade that would be created by the deck overhanging on their lower unit windows. Ford asked Justus if there had been any opposing points of view from any of the condominium association members. Mr. Justus said that the deck expansion was within reason. No neighbors showed up at the association meetings to voice opposition to the project. O'Leary asked, of the existing units,how many would have the same setback problem if other owners wanted to add decks, etc. Mr. Justus stated thought the surveying process his building and one other building have the setback problem. Giglio asked for and received clarification on the deck dimensions. Nelson asked if there was anything in writing from the lower unit that states one way or the other her opinion on the deck project. Mr. Justus told the Board there is no written document that the lower unit owner has issued giving her opinion about the new deck. The owner has not sent any correspondence to the City. Nelson asked Administrator Johnson for her report. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS March 12, 1998 Page 3 Johnson gave the Board a brei background on the property stating: Back in the 80s when the Fairway Condominiums were approved the development project was approved off of a site plan. The site plan depicted buildings with various rear yard setbacks. There are some properties with 20' setbacks and some with as much set back as 100'. Setbacks at that time were done on an average thus the condition that exists with Mr. Justus'property. The applicant has submitted a letter from the condominium association stating their approval of the project. The applicant has stated his hardship as the current deck is not large enough to allow his enjoyment of the outdoor space provided by the deck. Nelson asked for questions or comments from the Board. Hansen asked if the original development was covered by a PUD. Johnson stated the original site was developed under a PUD. Ford asked if there were other decks similar to the one Mr. Justus wants to construct. Johnson said there were two or three other decks that are similar to Mr. Justus'. She added if the builder, at the time of the original construction, would have built these decks they may have been approved by the City. Nelson opened the floor for the public hearing. Robert McCarthy, 14360 Fairway Drive, spoke in favor of the deck project. Nelson closed the floor to the public hearing and asked for comments from the Board members. Ford stated he would be in favor of the variance request. He stated it would be appropriate to get a statement from the lower unit owner giving their permission to proceed with the project. O'Leary said he would be in favor of the proposed project and agreed the size of the current deck does pose a hardship on the owners enjoyment of the outdoor space created by the deck. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS March 12, 1998 Page 4 Hansen expressed his concern with the offset of the building line, but added this concern is not a major concern. Dye had no comments or questions. Giglio had no comments or questions. Nelson expressed her concern with the lack of involvement from the lower unit owner. She again asked Mr. Justus if the lower unit owner had been made aware of the project. Mr. Justus and his neighbor Mr. McCarthy both responded by saying the lower unit owner had been made aware of the project and they, the lower unit owner, chose not to attend meetings or give written statements. Johnson told the Board that all people living within 500'of the project were notified of the public hearing. Motion: Giglio, seconded by O'Leary, to approve Request No. 98-03, granting a variance to construct a 10'xl2'deck 18.8' from a rear lot line (Code requires a 30' setback), with the hardship stated as the original plan did not allow for appropriate lot lines for the building and the Board of Adjustments and Appeals did not have a chance to approve the original development. Motion carried 5-1(Dye abstained). B. Request No. 98-04 by Robert and Mary Remakel for 15476 Boulder Pointe Road for approval to construct a 16'x18"' deck 87' from Red Rock Lake(Code requires a 100' setback). Robert Remakel told the Board when the original house was built he had given the architect and contractor instructions to use as much of the land for as big a house as building codes and permits would allow. He confessed that the problem that he faces now with having to apply for a variance to build a deck was of his own making because of these instructions to his contractor. Remakel accepted this mistake and told the Board he is seeking their advise on how to solve the problem. He reiterated his desire to build a deck on his home and stated he would be happy building a 10'deep deck instead of the requested 16'deep deck. Nelson returned the floor to the Board for questions and comments. Giglio asked Mr. Remakel if he intended to denude the lake. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS March 12, 1998 Page 5 Mr. Remakel said he had no intent to damage the surrounding environment around his property. Hansen asked Johnson where the property setback is measured from Johnson told the Board the setback is measured from the ordinary high water mark which is the line where the ground vegetation changes into water vegetation. Mr. Remakel told the Board there had been a 8'deck designed for the original house. This deck was omitted from the plan because it did not meet the shoreland setback. Nelson asked Mr. Remakel if the deck would have solid walls, slats or what design features would be incorporated into the railings. Mr. Remakel said there would be Y pipe rails. Nelson asked for the Administrator's report. Johnson gave the Board a brei background of the property as follows: The house was constructed in 1995. As stated before there had been an 8'deck designed into the original house that was dropped from the construction because it did not meet the shoreland setback requirements. The owner has stated as a hardship his inability to enjoy the outdoor deck as originally planned for the house. Johnson stated there are a number of homes in the immediate area that do have decks. She added that if the planned deck for the Remakel home is built it is designed to fit well with the existing home. An option could be to build a ground level deck/patio system. Nelson opened the floor for question of Administrator Nelson. Ford asked what the setback ranges were for the older homes in the area. Johnson told the Board that a 75-80 setback was average on the older homes from the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Hansen questioned the original builders responsibility to inform the owner of setback problems. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS March 12, 1998 Page 6 Dye stated that a ground level patio could be built without any permit. He stated he sees no problem with building a deck like the owner is asking for. Giglio asked Johnson if it would be specified as a condition of granting the permit that no privacy fence or rails could be installed on the deck. He also asked when the shoreland setback was changed to reflect the current 100' setback. Johnson said that this condition could be stated as a condition to the variance. She added the setback dimension was changed in 1982. Nelson opened the public hearing. No matters were considered from the public on Request No. 98-04. The floor was returned to the Board for discussion. Hansen eluded back to the fact that the house is to big for the lot size and that design consideration should have been done at the time the house was being built. Ford asked Johnson if there is a statute on the books against clear cutting of home properties. Johnson told the Board there is a statute on the books against clear cutting property. This can include removing dead trees that can be used for wild life habitat. She added the DNR also has similar language pertaining to this issue. Giglio said he would be in favor of a deck smaller than the requested 16'depth with the stipulation that there would be no privacy rail installed. Dye said he too would go along with a reduction in deck depth. Hansen said he is not in favor of the proposal. There is no hardship as stated by the home owner. He also stated it is the builders responsibility to make sure that all codes and requirements are met. O'Leary said he would reluctantly go along with the proposal. He also stated his disappointment that the home's designer/builder let these problems go unresolved. Nelson asked if there plans in the immediate future to sell the property. Mr. Remakel said he hoped to stay in the home for another ten years. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS March 12, 1998 Page 7 Giglio suggested continuing the variance in order to get some response from the surrounding neighbors. Motion: Dye, seconded by Giglio to approve Variance Request No. 98-04 to allow construction of a 10'xl8'deck 93' from Red Rock Lake(Code requires a setback) with the following conditions: 1. No privacy rails to be installed on the deck. 2. The owner shall plant four(4) 2" caliper trees on the deck side of the home and no more trees shall be removed without first getting permission from the City to remove such trees. Motion carried 5-1(Hansen). C. Request No. 98-05 by Moynihan Builders,Inc. for 10220 Homeward Hills Road for approval to move the house located at 9950 Pioneer Trail to 10220 Homeward Hills Road and place the home at a 29' front yard setback to Homeward Hills Road(City Code requires a 30' setback). Kevin Moynihan, 10344 Colony Court, representative for Hustad Companies. Hustad Companies owns the property at 9950 Pioneer trail. The home that currently occupies this property is to be moved to the new location at 10220 Homeward Hills Road. The home needs to be located on the new lot to avoid a pipeline easement. This is the hardship reason for the P variance request. Nelson returned the floor to the Board for questions. Hansen asked of the home's garage would be faced on Homeward Hills Road. Moynihan concurred. Nelson asked for Administrator Johnson's report. Johnson told the Board that the Bluffs West area was platted to minimise driveways onto Homeward Hills Road. The purpuse being to limit obstruction of vehicles backing into traffic on the north/south collector road. The proposed garage location faces Homeward Hills Road and the new driveway will require a "T" turnaround. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS March 12, 1998 Page 8 Johnson also added that there would be new sod, new paint, new blacktop driveway, new furnace and water heater, hook-upto sewer and water, and a new sidewalk. A bond has been posted by the developer as required by the City. The City has also required a letter of credit or an escrow account be established in the amount of$10,000 to cover the cost of all improvements to be made to the proposed site development. All required postings and notices have been instituted by the City. Nelson returned the floor to the Board. Nelson stated her concern that the house and the proposed building site did not mesh. She asked if the staff had considered how successful a project of this sort might be. Ford asked Johnson how the home's design matched the homes in the proposed new location. Johnson stated on the west side of Homeward Hills Road this older home would fit in. On the east side of Homeward Hills there are predominantly newer homes so there might be a mismatch. Mr. Moynihan stated the house that is proposed to be moved was built in 1977. Hansen asked what the original site plan for the proposed lot involves as far a house position and access to the garage. Johnson said that the requested information was not depicted on the original plan for the area and the pipeline easement already existed. She added of the 100 homes in the area only four of these homes front on to Homeward Hills Road. Giglio asked if the City had any grounds to disapprove the moving of the home or the home's condition. Johnson said in the past the City would make judgements as to the projects economic feasibility or if the project fit into the neighborhood. Nelson asked what the proposed selling price for the home would be. Mr. Moynihan stated a guess would be in the $150- 160,000 range. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS March 12, 1998 Page 9 Nelson opened the floor for the Public Hearing. Cindy Bunting, 10227 Englewood Drive, attended the meeting to get feedback on the proposed projects value and how it would affect the value of her home. She also expressed concerns about the possible environmental impact that the project would have on the neighborhood. Johnson stated the trees that are located within the pipeline easement will come down according to the pipeline company. Mr. Moynihan stated there is one tree on the front right hand corner of the lot that will be removed to accommodate moving in the home. Nelson closed the floor to the public hearing and returned the floor to the Board for questions and comments. Hansen expressed his concern with the home fronting on Homeward Hills Road. He also stated his concern that there was really no hardship stated by the property's owner. Johnson told the Board that Moynihan Builders, Inc., will be required to obtain both County and City permits for the actual moving of the home. OLeary stated it seemed like the company was moving an undesirable house on an undesirable lot with access on to a busier street. Nelson expressed her concerns as to whether or not the home is worth moving because of the damage that can result from a move such as this. Johnson asked Moynihan to clarify the construction schedule. Moynihan stated the property owner has loan commitment for the project and the project is ready to proceed with the City and County's permission. Mr. Giglio asked why the property owner was not present at the evening's meeting. Mr. Moynihan had no answer. Considerable discussion followed in regards to the homes condition, appearance and fit within the proposed neighborhood. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS March 12, 1998 Page 10 Motion: Giglio, seconded by Dye to continue Variance Request No.,98-05 to the next meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, on the basis that the owner of the property come before the Board to answer questions and show the Board that the house will not be in substantial variance to the neighborhood that it will be moved in according to sub sect.13, (J) and other items listed in the meeting packet. Motion carried 6-0. Giglio requested that the City send the property owner a letter of explanation for the Boards decision on the request. IV. OLD BUSINESS No old business was considered. V. NEW BUSINESS Board member Dye announced his resignation from the Board of Adjustments and Appeals effective May of 1998. VI. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Nelson, seconded by Ford to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.