Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 02/06/2002 - Special Approved Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2002 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER Heritage Room III 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD: Cliff Dunham, Chairperson; Louis Giglio, Ismail Ismail, Michael O'Lear y and Greg Olson STAFF: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator Rick Rosow, City Attorney Carol Pelzel, Recorder GUESTS: Nathan Bergeland, 7012 Willow Creek Road Rich Boumeester, 21120 Parkfield Ave, Jordan, MN Stuart Nolan, 7020 Willow Creek Road Dick Seidenstricker, 7221 Willow Creek Road Dave Crowther, 7011 Willow Creek Road CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Dunham called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL -PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Cliff Dunham, Louis Giglio, Ismail Ismail, Greg Olson and Michael O' Leary (arrived at 7:10 p.m.) Absent: No one. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion/Second: Ismail/Giglio, to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried, 4-0. H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of January 10, 2002 Giglio asked that on Page 4, fourth line of the first paragraph, the "s" be moved up behind the word Lake and on Page 5, fifth line of the first paragraph the word "ar" be corrected to read car. Motion/Second: O'Leary/Ismail, to approve the January 10 minutes as corrected. Motion carried, 5-0. III: VARIANCES (Continued from January 10, 2002) Request #2002-02 by Nathan Bergeland of 7012 Willow Creek Road to: Approve a 25-foot variance from a 100-foot setback requirement for construction of a garage 75-feet from Bryant Lake's Ordinary High Wat er Level. Approve a 63-foot variance from a 100-foot setback requirement for construction of a new house 37-feet from Bryant Lake's Ordinary Hig h Water Level. Dunham explained that this item had been continued to this meeting to allow the applicant time to look at other alternatives to reduce the variance request. Bergeland pointed out that he currently has the option to remodel the existing house which is 37 feet from the high water mark. They have looked at ways to construct a smaller house on this site but the contour of the property does not allow them to build a house that would be consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood. Bergeland explained that they did look at other options to make this project work. He did approach the neighbors, the Perkins, regarding acquiring a 50-foot strip of land adjacent to the northern edge of his property or the entire parcel of land. The Perkins did not wish to sell any surrounding property. Acquiring additional property would have given them adequate space to move the house over and be set back 100 feet from the lake. Bergeland said he also asked the Perkins if they would allow him to build within the 15 feet bordering the setback on the north side of his property. They indicated that they would be willing to work with him on this matter. Bergeland said he has since learned that to build closer to the side lot line on the north is an issue that must be addressed by the City and he would be willing to work with the City on that. Bergeland explained that they did look at reducing the size of the house and essentially cut off the den area. They reduced the width of the house by approximately 16 feet and the depth of the house was reduced by another two feet. This resulted in reducing the entire size of the house by approximately 900 square feet. This could be constructed with a 7-foot setback allowance. If the house were moved back 100 feet it would be built 20 feet into the hill. This would result in destroying the hill and its surroundings. They are closer to the lake but only in one corner. Bergeland said they would prefer to not have to deal with the hill. In response to a question from Dunham, Bergeland explained that the larger house was 82 feet wide while the new plan is 68 feet wide. Dunham explained that this Board would not be able to address a request for a 7-foot side yard setback at this time since that request has not been advertised. Johnson pointed out that the required side yard setback is 15 feet. The applicant would have to apply for the requested 7-foot setback and a public hearing would have to be advertised for such a request. Johnson presented the staff report explaining at the meeting in January Bergeland also had a request for construction of a garage to the existing house. The new garage would be 75 feet from the lake. The second request and preferred was the construction of a new house 37 feet from the lake at the closest point. Different options were discussed at the January meeting and it was felt that revisions to the plan should be done. It was felt that a plan could be done that would set the house further from the lake than 37 feet, which was a past approved plan. Johnson pointed out that the 7-foot side yard setback shown on the plan cannot be acted on tonight and the house must be shifted to meet the 15-foot setback requirement. The footprint shown would be approximately 50 feet from the lake at the closest point. Johnson explained that the staff report from the previous meeting does have recommended conditions. Staff is recommending that should the request be approved, the septic plan meet all State and local requirements and that the previous Final Order No. 2001-07 be voided. Johnson indicated that the hardship issues are the shape of the lot, the topography on the north one-half of the lot, the wooded hill and the two shorelines. Dunham presented a schematic sketch of the home at a 100-foot setback from one shoreline and approximately 50 feet from the other. He noted that he used the footprint of the earlier house with the three-car garage with a 15-foot side yard setback. Dunham explained that this plan does result in the house being approximately 50 feet from the lakeshore on the south and east. Dunham opened the public hearing. Stu Nolan, 7020 Willow Creek Road, asked that this Board allow the 75-foot setback for this lot that was approved in 1999 stand. He reminded the Board that a variance already exists for this property. There was much discussion that took place at that time and it was decided that the setback should be 75 feet for this lot. Nolan believed that the driveways for Lots 1 and 2 and a septic system for those lots will grade into the hill. Nolan said he does not feel a hardship exists. The applicant was aware of the 75-foot setback and he has talked about preserving a hill that will not be preserved after all construction is completed. Nolan stated that the neighbors feel the setback from the lake is much more important than preserving the hill. He indicated that they are also concerned about setting a precedent allowing homes to be built closer to the lake. Nolan said he feels building closer than 100 feet to the lake is not consistent with the neighborhood. O'Leary asked what the status is of Lots 1 and 3. Johnson responded that Lot 3 is vacant and Lot 1 has a small cottage on it. Dick Seidenstricker, 7221 Willow Creek Road, explained that he realizes the applicant has modified the size of his house and the placement of it on the lot. However, it still comes back to preserving the integrity of the neighborhood. Previous discussions involved whether or not they preserve the lakeshore or the contour of the lot. The key issue at that point and time was that the shoreline is much more important to maintain than the contour of the home or land. Seidenstricker pointed out that with the development of Lot 1 and the septic system, the hill and contour will be impacted. Dave Crowther, 7011 Willow Creek Road, said he shared the sentiments of the people that have spoke this evening. He explained that he is just moving into the neighborhood and is concerned about the lakeshore. Dunham closed the public hearing. Olson asked if what the neighbors stated regarding the destruction of the hill is correct. Johnson responded that the plan as approved does depict driveways that are along the north & east sides of the hill. The proposed homes would be placed at the base of the hill. The proposed drain field will result in the removal of trees. If the proposed Bergeland house is set 100 feet back from the 2 shorelines, there would be an approximate 20 foot cut into the hill. The City has reviewed the grading and tree removal over these 3 lots. Rich Boumeester, contractor for the project, explained that they need enough room to construct the septic system. Once the hill is cut back it will be necessary to build tiered retaining walls. The height of retaining walls is also restricted by City ordinance. The retaining walls would result in additional costs. Again, there is the issue of the distance from the septic system. Bergeland explained that from an aesthetics point of view, he would prefer not to build the back of the house into the hill. Giglio asked if a Developer's Agreement exists. Johnson responded that it does on Lots 1 and 3. Ismail said he is trying to reach a comfortable variance request for everyone. He asked if a 70- foot variance would be helpful. Bergeland responded the Court action a year ago allows him to remodel the existing home that is 37 feet from the shoreline. He is proposing to move the house back even further and can not understand why the neighbors would not be in favor of this rather than leave the house 37 feet from the lake. O'Leary said that Bergeland has a very v alid point. He is proposing to move the house back further from the lake than the Court approved location which would improve the integrity of the lakeshore setback. The applicant does not have to do this, he can remodel the existing house. Giglio pointed out that if the Board should approve something new, the lake would be improved because the house would be moved back. Dunham pointed out that this lot has several unique characteristics to it and maintaining most of the hill is one of them. The lakeshore is on two sides of the property, which makes this lot similar to the hardship that some corner lots possess. Dunham informed the audience that just because one neighbor is granted a variance for a setback does not mean the next applicant applying for a variance will be granted one. Each request is dealt with separately and the unique circumstances are reviewed. The neighborhood should not be concerned that a particular Board action is precedent setting. O'Leary said he believes the plan for a new house further back from the lake than the 37 foot existing home allowed to be remodeled by the Court, is a better plan and a greater lakeshore setback. Motion/Second: Giglio/Ismail, to approve variance request#2002-02 for a 45 foot variance from a 100-foot setback requirement on the southeast borderline for construction of a new house 55 feet from Bryant Lake's Ordinary High Water Level with the house conforming to the 100-foot setback on the southwest borderline with the following conditions: a. No building permits for the construction of the house be issued until the City and State approve a septic system for the property. b. Void Final Order 2001-07, Item 1, pertaining to the previous request to enlarge the non-conforming existing house. The hardship includes the shape of the lot, topography and two lakefronts. Motion carried, 5-0. IV: OLD BUSINESS Johnson noted that as the Board recalls, reorganization of various Boards and Commissions has been taking place in the City. A possibility exists to combine the Board of Adjustments and Appeals with the Planning Board. No final decision has been made and she would update the Board as needed. Johnson asked if the Board would consider drafting a letter to the City Council expressing their feelings on the possible merger. The Board asked that a letter be drafted to the City Council indicating that the Board has no objection to the possible merger of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and the Planning Board. Some members expressed desire to serve on the Planning Board. V: NEW BUSINESS Johnson reported that she has received no new items for next month. VI: ADJOURNMENT Motion/Second: Giglio/O'Leary, to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Motion carried, 5-0.