Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 12/14/2000 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS THURSDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2000 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD: Cliff Dunham, Chairperson; William Ford; Louis Giglio; Ismail Ismail and Michael O'Leary STAFF: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator Carol Pelzel,Recorder GUESTS: Sean and Diana Casey, 6292 Chasewood Drive; Susan and Keith Fahnhorst, 12216 Chasewood Drive CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Dunham called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. ROLL CALL—PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Cliff Dunham, William Ford, Ismail Ismail and Michael O'Leary Absent: Louis Giglio I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion/Second: Ismail/Ford, to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried, 4-0. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of November 9,2000 Motion/Second: Ismail/O'Leary, to approve the November 9 minutes as presented. Motion carried 3-0-1 with Dunham abstaining because of absence from that meeting. III: VARIANCES A. Request#2000-11 by Sean and Diana Casey for 6292 Chasewood Drive for approval to construct an accessory structure (gazebo) one-foot from the west side lot line; City Code requires a ten-foot minimum setback. Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals December 14, 2000 Dunham explained that this item had been continued from the November 9 meeting. Diana Casey, 6292 Chasewood Drive, explained that they are now proposing to place the gazebo two-feet from the property line rather than one-foot as originally proposed. They would like not to have to remove any trees and the one-foot setback would allow them to retain all of the trees. Mrs. Casey stated that when the architect designed the gazebo for them he designed it according to the standards of ten-feet from the property line. But because of changes made to the plan by the architect and incorrect measurements, the incorrect sized gazebo was ordered. When the manufacturer of the gazebo came to install it, they were informed that a variance would be required. Also, the placement of the gazebo allows them to view their children in the playground area from their deck. The only way they would still be able to see their children and to retain all of their trees is to place the gazebo two feet from the lot line. The only other place they could place the gazebo would also require removing two mature trees and would obstruct the stairs to their deck. This would also place the gazebo too close to a permanent fire pit. Ford asked what would happen if the applicant placed the gazebo three-feet from the lot line. Mrs. Casey responded that if they moved the gazebo back three-feet the door would be up against the trees. Ford asked what the foundation is for this structure and how easily can it be removed once it is in place. Sean Casey explained that there are concrete footings below the ground and the gazebo is bolted to those footings and the gazebo could easily be disassembled. Mr. Casey pointed out that this is a custom made gazebo and it cannot be returned. They have done extensive landscaping and are left with few options for placement of the gazebo. Even if they were required to remove two trees and place the gazebo 10 feet back they would still not be able to see the children in the playground area from the house. Part of the design was to allow them to see the children in the back yard. Dunham questioned why the gazebo could not be placed where the current fire pit exists. He said it seemed strange to have a fire pit located in a heavily wooded area. Mr. Casey explained that the trees are single trunk trees with a high canopy and, therefore, there is little concern about the proximity of the trees or branches to the fire pit. Mr. Casey said they would move the fire pit if they could,however, a huge crane brought in the boulders that surround the fire pit. Dunham asked if the swing set could be moved and the gazebo placed there. Mr. Casey explained that a variance would still be required because of the pie shaped lot. Dunham also asked if the playhouse is set on the easement and Mr. Casey responded that it may be. Mr. Casey explained that they were not aware that a variance was required. With regard to the need for utilities, this is a developed neighborhood and it does not seem like the utility easement will be needed. If necessary, the play set could be moved. O'Leary explained that if the variance were granted for the gazebo and since it would be located in the utility easement, the petitioner should be responsible for the cost of removing the gazebo should the easement be needed. Dunham pointed out that would 2 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals December 14, 2000 be fine as long as the petitioner continued to live there. Dunham asked Mr. Casey to explain why he is opposed to removing two trees. Mr. Casey explained that originally this hillside was very wooded. They had to remove three or four trees for other landscape work and they would prefer to preserve the remaining trees. Even if they were to remove the two trees, that location would still not be acceptable to them because they would not be able to view their children in the play area from the deck. In response to a question from Dunham, Mr. Casey explained how the gazebo is customized. Dunham opened the public hearing. Susan and Keith Fahnhorst, 12216 Chasewood Drive, appeared before the Board supporting the variance request. Mrs. Fahnhorst explained that the Casey's have done a great job with the landscaping of their property and everything they have done fits into the natural environment. Mr. Fahnhorst said they have no problem with the gazebo coming closer to their property. Ford said he has some concerns should the Fahnhorst's sell their property and new people move in and they are opposed to the location of the gazebo. Mrs. Fahnhorst pointed out that because of the woods, the visibility of the gazebo is very limited. As long as the trees remain, they are unable to see the gazebo. It is more noticeable during the winter. O'Leary asked if the variance was granted and new people moved in next door and were opposed to the gazebo,what could be done to satisfy those people. Mr. Casey explained that the gazebo is removable. Also, once their children are older the play set would probably be removed which would give them more flexibility for the placement of the gazebo should it have to be moved. Dunham closed the public hearing. Johnson presented the staff report and stated that the issue with future owners of this property being aware of the variance may be resolved by placing a condition on the approval that the Casey's be required to file the variance with Hennepin County. Mr. Casey again pointed out that this is a portable structure and if they move they can take it with them. Ismail asked if the petitioner would be okay with filing the variance. Mr. Casey stated it would be acceptable to them. Ford said he feels it would be simpler if they made it a temporary variance. Ford explained that assuming the Casey's wanted to keep the gazebo in the same location, they would have to come back in five years for renewal of the variance. He indicated that his concern is that if they are looking at an eight-foot variance it makes more sense to require that the variance be temporary. Johnson suggested that the Board also place a condition on the approval that the Casey's bear the cost for removal of the gazebo should utility work need to be done at this location. 3 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals December 14, 2000 Ford said he would support a five-year variance. O'Leary said he also agrees with the five-year variance. Ismail said he did not see the point of a five-year variance and he does not feel that it makes sense. He does feel that the petitioner should file the variance with the deed at Hennepin County. Ismail said that if that were included in the motion for a five-year variance he would vote in favor of it. Dunham pointed out that the trees that the petitioner does not want to cut are not quality trees and to lose those trees would not be significant. Dunham said he would be in favor of granting a variance for five feet and not for something less. Ford said he could support an eight-foot variance for a five-year period and he is not concerned about it being filed with the County. Ford said he does not feel that filing the variance with the deed would tell the purchaser anything other than that the new property owner has a five-year variance. Motion/Second: Ford/O'Leary, to grant Variance Request 2000-11 for an eight-foot variance (two-feet from the property line) for a temporary period of five years. The hardship for this variance is the lot's pie shape, the sloping topography of the lot, and to save trees. A condition of approval would be that the petitioner is required to file a copy of the variance with the County recorder. All members present voted aye except Dunham who voted nay. The motion carried, 3-1. Mr. Casey asked if the five-year time limit on the variance runs from date of approval or from when the building permit is pulled. Johnson responded that it normally runs from the date of approval. Motion/Second: Ford/O'Leary, to amend the original motion to include that the five- year time limit begins from the time the building permit is issued. All members present voted aye on the amended motion except Dunham who voted nay. The amended motion carried, 3-1. IV. OLD BUSINESS Discussion of 7:00 versus 7:30 meeting time. Johnson explained that some Board members asked that the Board consider changing the starting time for the Board of Adjustments and Appeals from 7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Johnson reported 7:00 p.m. is the starting time for all Board and Commissions. City policy is for all groups to start at 7:00 p.m. If a member is a few minutes late, it may not affect a quorum and start of a meeting. V. NEW BUSINESS Johnson reported that there is one item to be considered at the January 11 meeting. 4 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals December 14, 2000 VI. ADJOURNMENT Motion/Second: Ismail/Ford, to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Motion carried, 4-0. 5