Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 03/14/2002 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS &APPEALS THURSDAY,MARCH 14,2002 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD: Cliff Dunham, Chairperson; Louis Giglio, Ismail Ismail, Michael O'Leary and Greg Olson STAFF: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator Carol Pelzel, Recorder GUESTS: Kate and Rick Olson, 6630-West 1751h Avenue CALL TO--ORDER Chairperson Dunham called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL—PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Cliff Dunham, Ismail Ismail and Michael O'Leary. Absent: Louis Giglio and Greg Olson I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion/Second: Ismail/O'Leary, to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried, 3-0. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of February 6, 2002 Motion/Second: Ismail/O'Leary, to approve the February 6 minutes as published. Motion carried, 3-0. III: VARIANCES A. Request#2002-03 by Kate and Rick Olson of 6630-West 1751h Avenue for approval for a five-foot variance from a 15-foot setback requirement for construction of a garage ten- feet from the south side lot line. Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals March 21, 2002 Kate Olson, 6630 West 175th Avenue, explained that they are asking for a variance to the south for the construction of a double garage ten-feet from the lot line. She explained that they have lived in the house for about 12 years and have outgrown the home. They are proposing to add living space to the back in addition to a garage. The garage will be pushed out 5 feet over the setback line in order to provide access from the front door back to the family room. The proposed garage will be next to the neighbor's garage to the south. Olson explained that they do have a 29-foot setback on the other side of the house for a total setback of 39 feet. Olson indicated that they anticipate a significant investment in the entire project and are interested in having their needs met and to add to the value of their property. She explained that the neighborhood is fairly consistent with the house type. One-half to 75 percent of the homes have double car garages. It is also their intent to preserve as many trees as possible. Ismail asked if the applicant has discussed the proposal with surrounding neighbors. Olson responded that they have shown them the floor plan and have described the project to them. Rick Olson explained that the neighbors are supportive of the proposal and asked that they be kept informed of what was happening with the project. R. Olson explained that they will potentially lose a couple pine trees at the front corner,however, they do anticipate replanting any trees they may lose as a result of the construction. Dunham expressed concern with drainage. He pointed out that the neighbor to the south has a higher driveway and the applicant appears to be building closer to the lot line, which could impact any drainage. Dunham asked if there is a drainage channel. R. Olson responded that the natural flow of water is a down slope away from the house. This would continue to be the case with the addition and the water would continue to flow to the rear of the lot. Dunham indicated that the site plan shows an existing shed and he asked if that would remain. R. Olson said they plan to relocate it somewhere in the back of the property. In response to a question from Dunham, Johnson explained that the shed is a detached accessory building and a ten-foot setback from the side or back property line must be maintained. Dunham asked if there is any requirement for replacing trees that are removed. Johnson stated that there is not with this situation. Olson said it is their intent to replace any trees that are removed. Dunham asked if the applicant would be able to live with a smaller,garage. Olson responded that they have spent a lot of time in configuring the garage and addition and feel the proposed plan best meets their needs. She explained that an inside staircase leading to the downstairs must also be taken into consideration. Johnson presented the staff report explaining that this property is in a R1-22 zoning district with 15 foot setback requirements on both sides. Most of the homes in this area were built in the 1960's and initially started out with single-car garages. Johnson outlined the options presented to the applicant and contained in the staff report. 2 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals March 21, 2002 Ismail asked if the applicant would be in favor of Option 1, constructing a garage 26- feet wide versus the 28 foot wide proposed resulting in a 12 foot versus ten-foot setback. Olson explained that this would not allow them the necessary space for their vehicles, storage, and stairway. Dunham opened the public hearing. Having no one appear,Dunham closed the public hearing. Dunham said he does have some concerns regarding the drainage but that is a matter that City staff will have to follow up on. Dunham said he also has some concern with the two pine trees that will have to be removed. He suggested that should the variance be approved they place the condition that the trees removed be replaced. Motion/Second: O'Leary/Ismail, to approve variance request#2002-03 for a five-foot variance from a 15-foot setback requirement for construction of a garage ten-feet from the south side lot line with the condition that trees removed along the side of the garage and the back corner on the south side be replaced. Motion carried, 3-0. IV: OLD BUSINESS Johnson reported that the City Council did elect to review variance request#2002-02 by Nathan Bergeland. V: NEW BUSINESS Johnson reported that she has received one new item for next month. She also reported that there have been two new Board members appointed to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. VI: ADJOURNMENT Motion/Second: Ismail/O'Leary, to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Motion carried, 3-0. 3 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS &APPEALS THURSDAY,APRIL 11, 2002 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD: Cliff Dunham, Chairperson; Louis Giglio, Ismail Ismail, Michael O'Leary, Greg Olson, Anthony Ramunno and Randy Stroot STAFF: Jean Johnson,Zoning Administrator Peggy Rasmussen,Recorder GUESTS: Lisa Kollander and Larry Olson, 16717 Cambome Place CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Dunham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL—PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Cliff Dunham, Ismail Ismail, Michael O'Leary, Greg Olson, Anthony Ramunno and Randy Stroot. Louis Giglio arrived at 7:05 p.m. SWEARING IN OF NEW MEMBERS Two new members, Anthony Ramunno and Randy Stroot,were sworn in. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion/Second: O'Leary/Ismail, to approve agenda as published. Motion carried 7-0. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion/Second: Ismail/O'Leary, to approve the March 14, 2002, minutes as published. Motion carried 6-0-1,with Giglio abstaining due to his absence from the meeting. III. VARIANCES A. Request #2002-04 by Lisa Kollander and Larry Olson at 16717 Camborne Place for approval for a 16-foot variance from a 30-foot setback requirement for construction of a garage and house addition 14 feet from the front property line (Whittington Walk). L. Olson explained that they wish to build a mother-in-law suite into the existing house. They believe the best way to do this is to build a third stall garage onto the existing double-car garage, and utilize the space above all three stalls for an apartment. A standard-size garage stall (12-feet wide) would not allow space for a 4- foot wide stairway to the apartment. That is the reason they need a 16-foot stall. Board of Adjustments &Appeals Minutes April 11, 2002 Page 2 G. Olson asked if all three rooms in the apartment would be new. L. Olson replied that is correct. Ismail asked how the neighbors feel about this addition. Kollander replied they talked to most of their neighbors about it at a holiday party in December. They didn't receive much feedback from them. However, Kollander said she didn't have a layout to show the neighbors how it would look. L. Olson said there is no neighbor on the side where the addition would be. There is one neighbor in a house on a hill above theirs who would be able to see it. Olson said he believed the addition would raise the value of their house. Kollander said there is brick on the front of the house and garage, but they did not propose having any brickwork on the addition, which they have been told would be difficult to match. Dunham asked if they had thought about the fact that many elderly people do not like steps. Kollander replied her mother is quite agile and gets around well. They believe it is a positive thing to keep her active. Giglio asked if they were having an architect draw up the plans. Kollander replied that they were. Giglio said the City has a building code regarding stairs, and asked if they were sure they had enough space for the stairs to meet the code. Kollander said the existing garage has two-and-a-half stalls, so with a 16-foot addition, there would be enough room for the stairs. Giglio said if the Board approved this variance, he would not want them to come back in a month needing another variance. Kollander said they have had architects come out and give them information, but the architects wanted the variance approved before going too far with the plans. Ramunno asked if there would be access to the existing house from the apartment. L. Olson replied they are planning to make a hallway with a door from.the apartment into the rest of the house. Kollander added that they would be able to check in on her mother that way. They have thought about how those rooms could be used in the future if her mother passes away, or if they sold the house, and thought they could be used for the master bedroom and an exercise room. Ismail asked if the third stall is going to be set back from the other two. L. Olson said their architect advised them to set the garage addition back a bit because it would be difficult to match the brick on the front of the existing garage. Dunham said the mother-in-law's bedroom appeared to be larger than the master bedroom. Kollander said it would be 11 feet by 12 feet, which is larger. After her mother is finished using the apartment, they might use it as the master bedroom. Dunham asked if the stairway from the garage to the apartment could go in the existing garage, since it is two-and-a-half stalls. L. Olson replied he thought it would be physically possible,but would remove all the storage capabilities from it. Board of pp Adjustments &Appeals Minutes J April 11, 2002 Page 3 Giglio asked if any trees would be affected. L. Olson said trees are on the north and east sides, so none would be affected. Kollander said it would not affect the river birch; they would not get too close to the landscaping around it. Giglio asked how much back yard space they have. Kollander replied their property is one-third of an acre. It is flat where the additional garage would be built. The back yard has a slope coming down toward the house, leaving a narrow space to walk around the back of the house. Johnson presented the staff report. The property in question is a corner lot, and the City requires that a house, structure, and/or garage be set back 30 feet from the property lines. The applicant's request is for a setback of 14 feet from the property line. Johnson outlined the options presented to the applicant and contained in the staff report. 1. Construct a 9- or 10-foot garage addition onto the existing garage and expand the house to the north or west. 2. Expand the garage and house 12 feet out from the existing. 3. Modify floor plan of basement/1" floor/2nd floor to accommodate family member apartment space. This option could also include additions meeting code. Johnson said a phone call was received from people who live at the end of the cul de sac, and they expressed concerns about the size of the addition and how it would affect the neighborhood. Ismail said he was concerned about the size of the addition and impact on the neighborhood character. Giglio asked what the City's policy is with respect to notifying neighbors of a variance request. Johnson said notices are sent to all neighbors within 500 feet. Dunham opened the public hearing. Having no one appear, Dunham closed the public hearing. G. Olson said he drove by the site and looked at it from the south. The house is well placed and balanced now with respect to the lot, and his overall concern is that if the addition is just 14 feet from the road on the south side, it would appear to be right on top of the road. If he were a neighbor he would be concerned with what would be an imposing edifice. He would feel better if he knew that the neighbors had seen these drawings and plans and said this fits into the neighborhood and they would support it. Otherwise, he would like the applicants to take another look at options 1 and 2 in the staff report. Ismail said he drove by the house and thought the new design is a little big. He asked if the applicants had looked at the three options offered by staff. L. Olson said they did talk about all options with contractors. He admitted the first time he looked at the profile of the house and addition in the drawing he thought it looked large, but that is deceptive. When you look at the plat rather than the profile, it doesn't look as big. Board of Adjustments &Appeals Minutes April 11, 2002 Page 4 Kollander added that when people drive by they wouldn't be able to see the garage addition because of the privacy fence. Kollander said if they built out to the north, as suggested in option 1, they would have to take out trees. Then they would not really have any space for her mother, because the existing living room and family room don't have ceilings with the same height. If they extend to the west they would have to take out a 50-foot pine tree and the driveway would curve around the house. Also, drainage would run toward the addition. The only possibility would be to ask the contractor if he could put the stairway within the two-stall garage. Olson's office is in the basement, so if they gave the mother-in-law space down there, she would have to share her space with him and wouldn't have a private area. O'Leary said he just could not see approving this variance request for a number of reasons. When a person looks at the front of the structure the way it is now, it is very attractive. The applicants would be changing the appearance of this house into a very imposing townhouse appearance. If he were a neighbor he would not want that type of thing to happen. If it were built within code and with no variances that would be a different matter, but he was opposed to changing the structure to this extent and granting a 16-foot variance. It would be creating something that he did not think would be good for this neighborhood. Ramunno said he was concerned about having a structure close to the utilities in the street, which are 10 feet from the edge of the street. O'Leary said it probably would not create a problem for the right-of-way, but the City doesn't ordinarily want anything that close to utilities. Stroot asked how many square feet the apartment would have. Kollander replied about 800 square feet. Stroot asked if they had looked into putting one of the rooms in the apartment on the lower level by going outside the first level of the house, so one room planned for upstairs would go downstairs. That would make the apartment smaller on the upper level, and the third stall of the garage smaller. Kollander said the only problem is she would have to give up her office in order to do that. Dunham said the applicants have a very lovely home now, with a brick front. He was disappointed they were not planning to match the brick as he didn't think that would look good. L. Olson said he had been told brick is really hard to match. Kollander added she didn't want to harm the value the house, but rather to enhance it. The neighbor across the street won't see much of the addition, because the fence will cover six feet of it and the big tree will cover part of it also. Dunham said this is really the only flat spot available on the lot to build the addition because of the slope of the yard in back. He thought it would be detrimental to build an addition on the small amount of flat space that is on the lot. Ismail said he was not against the variance but he wanted to know whether this proposed change would affect the neighborhood and how the neighbors would feel about it. He said the request for a variance could be continued to another meeting in Board of Adjustments &Appeals Minutes April 11, 2002 Page 5 order to allow the neighbors an opportunity to view the plans and tell the Board what they think. Giglio asked O'Leary if he was totally against approving the variance. O'Leary said he was. He might agree if the applicants could put more of the addition on the ground level,behind the garage. Giglio suggested they cut the addition back to 12 feet. Dunham said the Board could grant a continuance, but if most of the members are not going to like the changes anyway,they don't want to waste the applicants' time. . Giglio said that in the future somebody else could rent this apartment. O'Leary said he was not inclined to accept that. Giglio said he understood the notice did not contain the information about the size of the addition. Johnson stated the notice of a garage and house addition, along with a location map was mailed to residents. Motion/Second: O'Leary/Olson, to deny variance request#2002-04 because of a lack of hardship and potential changes to the complexion of the other homes and the character of the neighborhood. Discussion: Ismail suggested a continuance to see if the applicants could come up with another plan to see if it might be acceptable and then get input from the neighbors. O'Leary said he didn't know if he would approve a separate apartment that would need a variance, even if it were four feet less. O'Leary said this house is extremely attractive and he didn't support such a large addition. Kollander said as far as they know there is nothing else they can do. Dunham responded that they could appeal the Board's denial to the whole City Council if they do it within 15 days. Johnson said they can apply for a different variance. Giglio said the applicants would have to look at another solution. Ismail said although the vote was not close, perhaps the applicants could come back with another plan and the full support of their neighbors. L. Olson said if the outlook for them is poor, they could be wasting their time. O'Leary replied the Board does approve most variance requests, but this one did not have a hardship factor. Giglio said what concerns the Board is that the addition changes the character of the house. It is on a corner lot, and because of the setback it would not work on that site. One thing the Board has to do is protect the character of the neighborhood. Kollander asked if they take this back to the architect and he comes up with a variance of 10- or 12 feet, is there any chance the Board would consider it? Dunham replied that many times the Board will agree to a variance of 12-feet rather than 16 feet. Kollander asked what the decision would be if they didn't build on top of the Board of Adjustments &Appeals Minutes April 11, 2002 Page 6 third stall, but built only on top of the other two. Giglio replied they would still need a variance,but it would make the apartment smaller. O'Leary asked Johnson, if the Board approves a variance for a third stall, could the applicants build on top of it six months from now? Johnson said no, they could not do that. Giglio asked if they reconsider their motion and move to continue, could they ask that the neighbors be sent more detailed information. Johnson said they could send the detail to the neighbors as soon as they receive it from the applicants. Giglio told the applicants he would suggest they talk to their neighbors and ask them to come to the meeting. Kollander said she would be more than happy to show them the plans. G. Olson said if the applicants come back and have a plan for building over the two existing garage stalls, and if they build a 9- or 10-foot garage addition, as stated in option one,he would consider their request. Motion/Second: O'Leary/Olson, to rescind the earlier motion denying variance request#2002-04. Motion carried 7-0. Motion/Second: Giglio/Stroot, to continue variance request #2002-04 to May 9, 2002, with the intention that applicants will come back with a different plan, with guidelines of less variance and a less imposing structure; to request that the City re- notify all the neighbors in the cul-de-sac, and that the notification contains more information and asks the neighbors to comment on the plans. Motion carried 7-0. IV. OLD BUSINESS Johnson reported that the City Council reviewed variance request #2002-02 by Nathan Bergeland. Council action was to modify the Board's approval. Instead of 55 feet, the setback has to be 75 feet. V. NEW BUSINESS Johnson said there is a request for relocation of a historic log house, which was moved from Pioneer Trail to a temporary location in Riley Lake Park, to a permanent location in the park. Johnson said the next meeting is on May 9, 2002. VI. ADJOURNMENT Motion/Second: Giglio/Olson, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. Chairperson Dunham adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m.