Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 01/10/2002 Approved Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 2002 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD: Cliff Dunham, Chairperson; Louis Giglio, Ismail Ismail, Michael O'Le ary, Greg Olson STAFF: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator Carol Pelzel, Recorder GUESTS: Eugene Becker, 14637 Village Woods Drive Nathan Bergeland, 7012 Willow Creek Road Rich Boumeester, 21120 Parkfield Ave, Jordan, MN Stuart Nolan, 7020 Willow Creek Road CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Dunham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL -PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Cliff Dunham, Louis Giglio, Ismail Ismail and Greg Olson Absent: Michael O'Leary I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion/Second: Ismail/Olson, to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried, 4-0. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of December 13, 2001 Motion/Second: Ismail/Olson, to approve the December 13 minutes as published. Motion carried, 4-0. Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals January 10, 2002 III: VARIANCES A. Request #2002-01, by Becker of 14637 Village Woods Drive for approval to construct a 16' x 16' porch eight feet from the south lot line and a 14' x 18' deck ten feet from the same side lot line (Code requires a 15-foot setback). Eugene Becker, 14637 Village Woods Drive, explained that they are proposing an addition to the side of their house that does not meet the City Code's setback requirements. He stated that the property is pie shaped which makes it difficult to build the addition. Becker indicated that the distance between their home and the neighbor directly affected by the addition is approximately 95 feet. There is a 20-foot easement between their properties for water run off. Becker presented a letter from the affected neighbor in support of this proposal. Becker displayed pictures of the existing property indicating where the addition would go on the house and how it would affect the adjoining property. He explained that the proposed addition would be the same size as the deck that was on the home. They have since removed that deck. They are proposing to replace the deck with a four-season porch. Becker reviewed with the Board the various options they've looked at for constructing this addition. Building off the back of the house does not give them a high enough peak given the house structure and would effectively result in them building a family room off an existing family room. Moving the addition back further would result in it coming off a bedroom instead of the kitchen and would not look as aesthetically pleasing because of the layout of the split- level home. In response to a question from Giglio, Becker explained that the addition would not infringe on the drainage area between the two properties. Giglio asked why the deck had to be built so close to the property line. Becker responded that they are proposing that the deck be the same size as the proposed porch. He explained that the deck could be changed and that he is most concerned about the porch. Dunham asked the applicant to define what their hardship is and why they need a 16 foot four-season porch. Becker responded that with Minnesota summers there are few days that a deck can be used after 8:15 p.m. The deck had to be replaced and they felt that by building the addition, they would be able to use this space year round. Dunham asked if the applicant would be agreeable to something smaller. Becker explained that the cost for something smaller would be basically the same as what they are proposing. To build something much smaller does not really make much sense. Drawings would have to be redone which would also result in additional costs. Dunham pointed out that this Board does not consider financial hardships. Johnson presented the staff report explaining that a 20-foot City outlot does exist between the two properties as a drainage swale for storm water. The residential home to the south is set a considerable distance away from the Becker home. City staff did 2 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals January 10, 2002 discuss various options with the applicant and notices were mailed to the neighbors. Staff did not receive any calls or comments other than the letter of support presented this evening. Olson asked if a variance was required when the deck was originally built. Johnson said the only information they found on the previous deck was a permit for a seven-foot by ten-foot deck. Giglio said he feels that this is a unique situation when taking into consideration the 20-foot outlot between the two properties. Dunham opened the public hearing. Having no one appear, Dunham closed the public hearing. Ismail asked if the applicant would consider reducing his request by two feet, from 16 feet to 14 feet. Becker said he would consider it. Ismail said he could support a request for a porch and deck 14 feet versus the 16 feet. The outlot is secondary and he does not see that a hardship exists. Giglio said he sees no reason to reduce the request when looking at the 20-foot outlot between the two properties. He saw no benefit in reducing the variance if nothing would change. The request is aesthetically pleasing and does not impact the neighbors. Giglio said he feels the 16-foot porch is okay because of the 20- foot outlot. The hardship is the odd shaped lot which makes it difficult to build on. This is a unique situation. Giglio said he could support the request for the porch, however, he would like the deck to be redesigned so it does not require a variance. Olson said he agrees with Giglio. The difference between the 16-foot porch and a 14-foot porch would not be that significant because of the 20-foot outlot. However, the deck is more of an issue. He asked that the deck be redesigned so that it is built within City Code. Motion/Second: Giglio/Olson, to approve Request #2002-01 to construct a 16' x 16' porch 8 feet from the south side lot line with the deck addition meeting the 15 foot side yard setback requirement with the hardship being the shape of the property and the 20- foot outlot which is a unique circumstance. The motion carried, 3-1, with Ismail voting nay. B. Request#2002-02 by Nathan Bergeland of 7012 Willow Creek Road to: 1. Approve a 25-foot variance from a 100-foot setback requirement for construction of a garage 75-feet from Bryant Lake's Ordinary High Water Level. 2. Approve a 63-foot variance from a 100-foot setback requirement for construction of a new house 37-feet from Bryant Lake's Ordinary High Water Level. Bergeland presented to the Board an illustration of the house design and explained that the proposed house is in keeping with the neighborhood. He explained that he would 3 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals January 10, 2002 prefer to tear down the house and build on the current footprint. Although the footprint of the proposed home is larger, the square footage of the proposed house is similar to the existing house since the third floor of the house has been eliminated creating a lower roofline. He is proposing to have the current setback 37 feet from Bryant Lake' s Ordinary High Water level to minimize the impact on the hill and trees behind the house. Bergeland pointed out that this is an odd shaped lot with a huge hill and they are trying to figure out how to make this proposal work. He explained that if he built off the existing foundation the entry area and a portion of the garage would not be within the 100-foot setback. Bergeland indicated that his goal is to preserve as much of the property as possible. They have reviewed various alternatives and have developed two that would be acceptable. The first is to tear down the house and build on the current footprint and the second is to remodel the existing structure on the current footprint with a proposed 75-foot setback to accommodate the entry area and a portion of the garage. Olson inquired about the hill. Johnson responded topography and tree protection are provided for in City Code. Bergeland pointed out that if they had to build into the hill, additional trees would have to be removed. Giglio asked if the applicant would be required to do anything permanent for erosion control. Rich Boumeester, contractor for the project, explained that they would probably construct a retaining wall on the north side of the property. If the house is pushed back they would have to try to maintain the hill. Erosion control will be installed to protect the lake. Ismail asked if the applicant has discussed the shifting of the house back with the neighbors. Bergeland responded that he has. He did have a meeting with four or five of the neighbors. He explained that there is a lot of animosity regarding this property that existed even before he purchased it. There are certain things the neighbors want to have happen with this property or with other properties in the area. Bergeland explained that if he were to move the house back 100 feet they would be faced with problems with the hill. Dunham explained in response to a comment made in Bergeland's letter to the Board, that his comments made at a previous meeting are only his comments and not Board action. Bergeland explained that an option is for him to remodel the existing structure on the current footprint with a proposed 75' setback for additional garage space . However, he would prefer not to do that because of the unkown and what they could run into when remodeling. Dunham asked if the applicant would be willing to tear down and rebuild. Bergeland said that is his preference. Giglio asked what the impact would be on the property should the applicant rebuild. Bergeland said they are aware of road restrictions from March through May and they would not be able to start construction prior to May. Giglio asked if any additional trees would have to be removed if the existing 4 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals January 10, 2002 house were torn down. Boumeester said that would depend on what proposal they went with. Once the driveway is completed, there would be minimal tree removal depending on which plan they went with. If they push the house back, more trees would have to be removed. Ismail asked how large the proposed garage would be. Bergeland said they are proposing a 3 1/2 ar garage. If necessary, they could eliminate the half stall. Johnson presented the staff report explaining that the Board could choose one of the two alternatives presented. The first alternative is to rebuild and remodel the existing house and garage addition with a 75-foot setback. The other alternative presented is for new construction on the property with a proposed 37-foot setback from Bryant Lake. Johnson indicated options exist for this property. The first option would be to reduce the size of the house and the second would be to shift the house to the west for a minimum side setback of 15-feet instead of the proposed 24-foot side setback. The applicant could also change the garage to a double deep garage and build an additional detached garage. This would eliminate having to build into the hill and additional trees. Staff also suggested eliminating the deck at the southeast corner and to redesign the corner of the house to increase the lake setback. Johnson said another option would be to design a house for the lot meeting, or more closely meeting the 100-foot required shoreland setback and minimizing cuts into the north hill and tree removal. The house could be designed to meet the 75-foot setback, similar to the plan approved in 1999. Johnson explained that should the Board recommend approval of any alternative presented, conditions outlined in the staff report be attached to that approval. If the Board should choose to deny the variance, staff recommends findings. The Board may also want staff to look at other alternatives including a new house design. Dunham opened the public hearing. Dick Seidenstricker, 7221 Willow Creek Road, expressed concern about maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood and the Board setting a precedent. Seidenstricker said he is concerned with the actions that have been taken again and again with regard to this property. He explained that the subdivision was approved based on the fact that the house would be moved back. It was also indicated that all three lots would be developed at the same time including the removal of the house on Lots 1 and 2. Seidenstricker said they are now talking about protecting the hill and infringing on the lakeshore. An agreement was made with the City when the lots were divided with specific requirements as to what their expectations were. Seidenstricker asked that the City enforce the agreement for a 75-foot setback before construction is started. Seidenstricker asked that they go back to the original agreement when the subdivision occurred which insists on a 75-foot setback to the lake to protect it. Stuart Nolan, 7020 Willow Creek Road, explained that he is the adjoining property owner to the north. He explained that he is in favor of remodeling the house or a new home 75 feet from the lake. If a new house were built on this lot, it would be 75-feet 5 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals January 10, 2002 from the lake while the other homes would be 100-feet from the lake. Nolan said he feels it would be a detriment to the lake to allow a house to be built inside 100-feet. He feels that building closer to the lake would be more detrimental than building into the hill or removing trees. Dunham closed the public hearing. Giglio asked if the applicant would be in favor of continuing this item for one month to allow him time to redesign the proposed house. He said he feels they should approve something that better protects the lake. Giglio said an approximate 75-foot setback would be reasonable and he would like to see a design with a 75-foot setback prior to approving something they have not seen. Bergeland said they would be incurring additional costs to redesign this proposal without knowing whether or not the redesign would be acceptable. Giglio noted that the applicant does have approval from this Board to remodel this house with a 37-foot setback, however, he wants to build a new house. Ismail said he thinks it would be a good idea to develop some scenarios using the an approximate 75- foot setback. Giglio asked what the hardship would be other than the odd shaped lot. Johnson explained the previous 75-foot setback on this lot was due to the shape of the lot and the hill. A previous plan approved by the City for a 75-foot setback did have the house at the base of the hill. Giglio said he would like to see the applicant come back with alternatives for constructing a house with an approximate 75-foot setback. Motion/Second: Giglio/Ismail, to continue this item to February 6, at which time the applicant will come back with some alternative plans with a setback of approximately 75 feet. The motion carried, 4-0. IV: OLD BUSINESS The Board agreed to meet on February 6, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. to consider Variance Request #2002-02. The special meeting date was agreeable to board members and the applicant. V: NEW BUSINESS VI: ADJOURNMENT Motion/Second: Ismail/Olson, to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Motion carried, 4-0. 6