Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 08/09/2001 tt C� APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS THURSDAY,AUGUST 9, 2001 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD: Cliff Dunham, Chairperson; William Ford; Louis Giglio; Ismail Ismail, Michael O'Leary and Greg Olson STAFF: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator Carol Pelzel, Recorder GUESTS: Darcy Hoag, 11995 Sunnybrook Road Patricia Iverson, 6475 Mere Drive Curtis and Melinda Hiepler, 7007 Eagle Ridge CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairperson Giglio called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL—PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Louis Giglio, Ismail Ismail,Michael O'Leary and Greg Olson Absent: Cliff Dunham and William Ford I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion/Second: Ismail/O'Leary, to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried, 4-0. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of July 12,2001 Motion/Second: O'Leary/Olson, to approve the July 12 minutes as presented. Motion carried, 3-0-1 with Ismail abstaining because of absence from that meeting. III: VARIANCES A. Request#2001-09 by William and Darcy Hoag of 11995 Sunnybrook Road for aproval to expand a nonconforming structure as follows: Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals August 9, 2001 • Construct a 28' x 28' garage having a front setback of 35 feet, a 60 foot setback from the creek and a total side yard setback of 108 feet (Code requires setbacks of 50 feet, 100 feet and 150 feet respectively). ■ Construct additions to the southeast side of the house having creek setbacks of 80 feet and 90 feet(Code requires 100 foot setback). Darcy Hoag, 11995 Sunnybrook Road, displayed pictures of the existing property. She explained that they purchased the house in 1990 and have made several improvements since that time. In 1993 variances were granted for a two-bedroom and bath addition as well as repitching the existing roof. Hoag further explained that additional room is needed and they do not have a basement that can be finished off. It is their intention to convert the existing garage into a recreation room and this would result in their not having a garage. They are proposing to add a two-car garage onto the end of the house. Hoag pointed out that the reason the garage will be brought so far forward is to save as many mature trees as possible. With their current proposal, they will only lose about four mature trees. This proposal would also allow them to save the existing windows on the southwest side of the house. Hoag indicated that it is also their intent to add a home office above the new garage space. They have discussed this proposal with their neighbors on both sides and they have indicated that they have no objection to the proposed addition. Hoag explained that the deck in the front of the house will be removed and they will be adding a front foyer that will allow them better access to the house. In response to a question from Ismail, Hoag responded that they will be adding a new front door but will not be replacing the deck. Giglio asked what the total square footage of the house would be with this addition. Hoag stated that the house is currently 2,000 square feet and this addition will add another 1,888, almost doubling the size of the house. Johnson presented the staff report explaining that the property in question is zoned Rural. Surrounding property is zoned R1-13.5 single-family. The request is to construct a 28' x 28' garage resulting in a 35-foot setback to the front property line and a 60-foot setback to the creek. Because of the rural district, the side yard setback requirement is 150 feet. This home was built in 1965 and the Shoreland Ordinance came into effect in 1982. Staff did suggest that the applicant consider constructing a detached garage meeting setbacks or rezone the property to R1-District eliminating the need for Rural District setback variances but still requiring shoreland variances. If the garage were detached, it would have to be placed in the northeast corner of the property and would not be functional unless the floor plan of the house were changed. Johnson further explained that staff is recommending that should the Board approve this request, they add a condition of approval that the property be rezoned from Rural to R1 prior to any future building permit or variance requests. In response to a question from O'Leary, Johnson explained the process for rezoning the property from Rural to Rl. A request would be submitted to the Planning Board for 2 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals August 9, 2001 their review and subsequently to the City Council. The entire process would take approximately three months. Giglio opened the public hearing. Having no one appear, Giglio closed the public hearing. O'Leary pointed out that the lot does appear to be odd shaped and a creek does run through it. O'Leary asked if the house is considered to be in the flood plain. Johnson stated that it is not. Ismail said he did visit the property and he indicated that he has no problem with granting the request because of the existing creek and the way the house is built. His only concern is the demise of the trees. Motion/Second: O'Leary/Olson, to approve Variance Request 2001-09 to grant the variances with the condition that the property be rezoned from Rural to Rl prior to any future building permit or variance requests with the hardship being the odd shape of the lot and the existing topography. Ismail said he is not in favor of tying the change in zoning to this request. He feels that each variance should be looked at individually. O'Leary responded that the condition tells the applicant that no additional variances will be granted for this property. Olson indicated that at some point granting enough variances to a property pretty much undermines the integrity of the property with respect to the zoning ordinance. The applicant should change the status of that property so it is more consistent with code. Johnson stated Staff does recommend that these properties be rezoned. They want to minimize the non-conforming properties and the rezoning will make them more conforming. Giglio asked for a clarification on the condition. He asked that it read that before applying for any future variances the applicant apply for rezoning from Rural to R1. O'Leary and Olson accepted the friendly amendment. Following discussion, vote was called on the motion to approve Variance Request #2001-09 with the condition that before applying for any future variances,the applicant apply for rezoning from Rural to R1. The motion carried, 4-0. B. Request#2001-10 by Donald and Patricia Iverson of 6475 Mere Drive for approval to construct a 19'8"x 15' addition having a side setback of 9'6" (Code requires a 12-foot minimum setback from the side lot line.) Patricia Iverson, 6475 Mere Drive, explained that they are proposing an addition that would not go out quite as far as the garage,however, it would go out five feet beyond where the house is. This would allow for a walkway around to the deck and to the back yard. Iverson explained that the addition would be used for her father who is currently sleeping in their dining room. Iverson said it is their feeling that with the addition the 3 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals August 9, 2001 house will look better than it currently does. The house currently looks like all garage. Iverson explained that the addition would be on the side where the neighboring properties are at an angle and at a lower elevation. The neighboring property is not visible on the side of the addition because of an existing hill. In response to a question from Ismail, Iverson responded that this is the original house and it is their intent to remove a bay window and replace it with French doors. They do have a walkout basement that is currently used for storage. Olson asked if the basic objective of the addition is to provide more space to accommodate her father. Iverson said that was correct and to make the house more attractive from the outside. Olson asked if the applicant has considered making the addition 18' x 17' rather than 19.8' by 15'. If this were done, a variance would not be required. Iverson responded that the 18' x 17' addition would not allow them to have the walkway. She indicated that this is rather important for her father's mobility. Also, the architect felt that the addition would not look as good if it were built even with the garage. It is being set back for aesthetic purposes. O'Leary asked how close the neighbors are to the lot line. Iverson responded that they are approximately 60 feet away. They are down the hill and at an angle. Ismail said he is not concerned about the neighbors, however, he is confused as to what the applicant is proposing. He asked if they have a three-car garage and if the expansion will come out almost to the garage. Ismail also asked if the living room side would have a deck. Iverson explained that there would be a spindle type deck. The proposed addition was designed by the architect so that the house didn't appear"U" shaped. The interior will not be significantly different. Johnson presented the staff report explaining that this property is zoned R1-13.5 in a single-family neighborhood. The homes were built in the 80's and a creek conservation area is located behind the house. The existing house and proposed addition will meet all shoreland requirements. Surrounding neighbors have looked at the plans but have expressed no opposition to the proposal. Giglio asked if staff did discuss an 18' x 17' addition as an alternative. Johnson said they did,but for aesthetic reasons and maneuverability to the walkway the applicant prefers the submitted plan. Giglio opened the public hearing. Having no one appear, Giglio closed the public hearing. Olson said he personally did not feel qualified to determine the aesthetics of this addition. A professional did decide that and he respects his opinion. Ismail said the aesthetics issue is not convincing to him, however,his concern is for the applicant's father and his ability to move freely on the property. Giglio said he feels they need to balance the zoning regulations and needs of the community and the existing environment. If there were existing structures located closer to this property, 4 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals August 9, 2001 Giglio said he would be opposed to this request,however, that is not the case. Olson said he agrees that they need to balance the zoning regulations,however, this Board has to have some responsibility to hold the integrity of the ordinances whenever they can. Olson said he could vote either way. Ismail indicated that this Board must have a reason for deviating from the Code. O'Leary said he is sympathetic to the needs of the applicant's father,however, the applicant should be able to do something that doesn't deviate from the City Code. Ismail said he would like the applicant to go back and investigate alternatives for constructing this addition without a variance. He suggested that the applicant have the architect look at an 18' x 17' addition. O'Leary said he agrees that the architect should take another look at this knowing that the Board could vote either way on this. Motion: O'Leary/Ismail, to continue Variance Request 2001-10. Giglio said he would vote against this motion. He feels they have sufficient information to act on this item at this time. Olson said this motion would require an architect to do additional drawings. Following discussion, O'Leary withdrew his motion and Ismail withdrew his second. Motion: O'Leary/Olson, to approve Variance Request 2001-10 to construct a 19'8"x 15' addition having a side setback of 9'6"with the hardship being the back topography of the land which makes building an addition within City Code very difficult and the unique circumstances being the significant setback of the adjoining properties which does not create the appearance of the houses being too close together. The motion carried, 3-1 with Ismail voting nay. C. Request#2001-11 by Curtis and Melinda Hiepler, 7007 Eagle Ridge, for approval to construct a 13' x 28' third stall garage addition having a side setback of 7.5 feet(Code requires a 10-foot setback). Melinda Hiepler appeared before the Board explaining that the variance request is to allow them to add a third stall to their garage. With two children they have additional needs for storage and they would like to remain in this neighborhood. In order to build this addition, they have had to overcome several obstacles. The house sits on a cul-de- sac and the lot is angled. There is also a fireplace kick-out on the wall where the garage addition would go which could potentially be in the way for some designs. It is also their desire to save some existing mature trees. Melinda pointed out that the variance is only necessary to accommodate the corner of the garage stall and does not include the entire length of the garage. In response to a question from Ismail regarding the work that is taking place on the house, Curtis responded that that construction has nothing to do with this request. They are expanding the kitchen and basement at the same time. He also explained that if the garage were setback any further they would not be able to maneuver the car around the corner. Ismail asked if the petitioner would be doing any landscaping. Curtis explained that they would be replacing all of the landscaping. 5 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals August 9, 2001 Olson pointed out that only one corner of the garage would be affected by this request. He asked how far the petitioner would have to move the garage back so that that corner would be within the required setback. Curtis responded that it would have to be about 12 or 13 feet because of the angle of the lot. They also must deal with the fireplace kick out and it would also require them to angle their car around that corner. Johnson presented the staff report stating that the lot is located on a short cul-de-sac off Maple Leaf Drive. This subdivision is in a R1-13.5 zoning district. There are double and triple car garages existing in the neighborhood. The setback would be 7.5' to the side lot line but only for the extreme corner of the garage. Johnson explained that alternatives were discussed with the applicant and no surrounding neighbors have expressed opposition to the request. Giglio opened the public hearing. Having no one appear, Giglio closed the public hearing. In response to a question from O'Leary, Melinda explained that the properties on each side of theirs have three-car garages. Those neighbors did not require variances. Motion: Olson/Ismail, to approve Variance Request 200-11 to construct a 13' x 28' third stall garage addition having a side setback of 7.5 feet with the hardship being the odd shape of the lot and the placement of the house within that lot with the condition that once the addition is completed landscaping be done in a similar style to the existing landscaping. Motion carried, 4-0. IV. OLD BUSINESS .Johnson reported that they have not yet received applications for building permits for the variances granted for the Bergeland property V. NEW BUSINESS Johnson indicated that at this time there are no items to be considered at next month's meeting. VI. ADJOURNMENT Motion/Second: Olson/O'Leary, to adjourn the meeting at 8.35 p.m. Motion carried, 4-0. 6