Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 10/03/2002 Approved Minutes Board of Adiustments & Appeals THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 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 Carol Pelzel,Recorder GUESTS: Brian Duggan, 9928 Lawson Lane Sever Peterson, 15900 Flying Cloud Drive Mark and Sarah Halvorson, 11818 Thornhill 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, Michael O'Leary(arrived at 7:08' p.m.) and Anthony Ramunno Absent: Greg Olson, and Randy Stroot I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion/Second: Ismail/Giglio, to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried 4-0. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of September 19, 2002 Giglio asked that the minutes reflect that he was absent from that meeting and that he did not arrive at 7:08 p.m. Also,his name should be deleted from Page 4 of the minutes. Motion/Second: Ismail/Ramunno, to approve the September 19, 2002, minutes as corrected. Motion carried 3-0-1 with Giglio abstaining because of absence from that meeting. Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals October 3, 2002 III: VARIANCES A. Request#2002-08 by Maud and Brian Duggan of 9928 Lawson Lane for approval of an 8 foot variance from a 20 foot rear lot line setback requirement for a house addition 12 feet from the rear lot line. (The variance for the deck 14 feet from the rear lot line was approved at the September 19, 2002 meeting). Brian Duggan presented a brief summary of the September 19 last meeting and at that time they were requesting a variance for a deck as well as for an addition. The Board did approve the request for the deck but continued the variance for the addition at that meeting. Duggan explained that they have now modified their request by reducing the width of the addition by 5 feet and the depth by 1 foot. This would result in the addition being 2.5 feet away from the property line. Duggan said he did present the new proposal to Harold Johnson, the adjoining property owner. Johnson did prefer this proposal because the removal of one tree is preferable to removing a grove of trees. Duggan said they have also modified the inside of the house to reduce the overall space of the mudroom. Ismail asked what the effect of this request would be on the neighbor whose property adjoins this parcel. Duggan explained that they did stake out the original request and two other options. Of the three options presented, the adjoining neighbor liked the proposal presented this evening the best. He is concerned about the preservation of the trees and felt that this was the best option. Johnson reported that she has no additional information to add to her staff report. Staff has received no other calls on this proposal. Dunham opened the public hearing. Having no one appear, Dunham closed the public hearing. Ismail said he is comfortable with the solution presented this evening since it does reduce the size of the request. O'Leary asked the applicant to explain exactly what he is requesting this evening. Duggan stated that they took 5 feet off of the width and 1 foot from the depth resulting in an addition 14.5 feet from the rear lot line rather than 12 feet as originally requested. This is a request for a 5.5-foot variance from a 20-foot rear lot line setback requirement. In response to a question from Ramunno, Duggan displayed a plan showing the configuration of the addition. The adjustments resulted in an addition going from 22 feet wide to 17 feet and from 10 feet long to 9 feet. Dunham said he feels the plan is certainly better than originally submitted, however, he still has reservations about the need to add another bedroom and the need to go closer to the rear lot line in that fairly crowded area when there are other areas the house could be expanded. Duggan responded that they only had one neighbor who objected to the size of the addition. In talking with the other neighbors, they didn't 2 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals October 3, 2002 necessarily have a problem with the addition but did indicate they would object to the addition if it were built to the south because of the necessity of removing trees. Duggan said that under City guidelines they would be allowed to build within the trees to the south,however,the neighbors are opposed to this. Duggan said they want to preserve the beauty of the neighborhood and would like to stay in this area. The addition allows them to have their au pair on the same level as their children. Any other option would disturb the natural habitat of the neighborhood. O'Leary pointed out that it doesn't necessarily matter what the current neighbors say, however,they do take that into consideration when considering the request. O'Leary said his primary concern is with the neighbor that is directly affected by this addition and the applicant has indicated that he is okay with the revised plan. It appears that the hardship would be the odd shape of the lot and the preservation of the trees. Motion/Second: O'Leary/Ismail, to approve Request#2002-08 for approval of a 5.5 foot variance from a 20 foot rear lot line setback requirement for a house addition 14.5 feet from the rear lot line with the hardship being the odd shape of the lot which includes trees. The motion carried, 4-1 with Dunham voting nay. Request#2002-09 for the Sever Peterson Family for 18700 Flying Cloud Drive for a building moving from 18700 Flying Cloud Drive to 15190 Riverview Road. Peterson explained that he is asking permission to move a house from Anderson Park to his property. He explained that the house would be completely functional as a home for their farm manager and his family. One of the issues they were faced with was that the location where they were moving the house to was just under two acres. They did combine this parcel with other adjacent property to make it a ten- acre parcel, which is the minimum lot size required. The City has also asked that there be land dedicated for a road on the south side. Peterson said they would certainly be willing to do whatever necessary to dedicate the necessary land for the road. Peterson indicated that another issue brought to his attention is a row of trees immediately to the northwest that are 35 feet tall and do provide some shielding. It is his intention to plant additional trees between the house and the highway. They would plant fast growing and longer lasting trees to the east and south of the property. Ismail questioned the orientation of the house. Peterson said it is their intent to orient the house exactly as it currently sits. The sun porch on the south side would be oriented toward the river valley. Ismail asked if the petitioner has reviewed the conditions of approval prepared by staff and if he is in agreement with them. Peterson said he has reviewed them. It is their intent to move this house as soon as possible. With regard to condition"c",they have combined the 2-acre parcel with adjacent properties to make it 10 acres and he is asking that condition"c"be removed. Peterson stated that the billboards referred to in condition"e" are not on the reconfigured property where the house is being moved, therefore, this condition 3 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals October 3, 2002 is no longer relevant. Giglio asked if the asbestos has been removed from this building. Peterson explained that they have completed an asbestos survey of the house and have arranged to have it removed. Dunham questioned if there was any lead paint in the house. Peterson responded that it is his understanding that lead paint is not an issue. Ismail asked if the City Engineer needs to inspect this property. Johnson explained that electrical permits and inspections will be done by the State and City once the house is moved. With regard to the conditions, Dunham asked if the applicant will be able to move the house by October 25 and if they would be able to obtain an occupancy permit by the end of the year. Peterson said he was not sure how long it will take since he has never moved a house. They have talked to all of the people involved to coordinate the move and are very eager to get started. Johnson presented the staff report explaining that the proposed location for the house is Rural, a 10 acre minimum lot size required. The house location meets all of the setbacks for the Rural District and the septic system plan has been submitted to the City and will have to meet all State and local requirements. Staff has received no calls in opposition for the moving of the house. The billboards will have to be addressed when a proposal comes before the City for that property or when the Fish and Wildlife acquires it. In response to a question from O'Leary, Johnson explained that the dates in the conditions are necessary to provide deadlines for the removal of the house. Dunham said he agrees that there should be deadline dates,however,he questioned if two months is sufficient. Johnson said the October 25 date is the same date that is in the agreement between Peterson and the City to have the house moved off of the City property. Dunham opened the public hearing. Having no one appear,Dunham closed the public hearing. Motion/Second: Giglio/O'Leary, to approve the moving of a building from 18700 Flying Cloud Drive to 15190 Riverview Road with the following conditions: a. The building move to the new location be completed by October 25, 2002. b. That all necessary permits and inspections be completed and an occupancy permit be obtained by January 31, 2003. C. That the 2-acre remnant be retained with the parcel on the north side of US 212 (Parcel 331162222001). d. Road dedication, as deemed necessary by the City Engineering Department,be provided by November 25, 2002. e. If any of the conditions are not met, the applicant must return to the Board for review of a requested extension or possible removal of the building. End of Motion. f. The applicant will discuss with City staff the planting of trees to shield the house. 4 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals October 3, 2002 The motion carried, 5-0. B. Request#2002-010 for Mark and Sarah Halvorson for 11818 Thornhill Road for approval for a two-foot variance from the 30 feet required front lot line setback, for a garage addition, to a 28 feet front lot line setback. Sarah Halvorson explained that they have outgrown their garage and they would like to stay in the neighborhood and house. They would like to expand the garage as well as the mudroom. Halvorson stated that they have not yet finalized the mudroom configuration. Their family has grown from two to five people. With three young children they need more space in both the garage and mudroom/entryway. The purpose of the addition is twofold. They need additional space in their garage and with the area they use to get into their house 90 percent of the time. The existing mudroom and entryway is extremely small. Halvorson said they had initially thought about expanding their garage westward. An addition to the west would further decrease the space between their house and the neighbor's house. Halvorson pointed out that the west side is also the only access to their back yard and they would rather not lose the space that they currently have. Halvorson explained that they did talk to their neighbors and explained what they are proposing. None of the neighbors had any objections to the proposal. The neighbor to the west preferred this proposal rather than expansion towards his property. Ismail asked if the applicant intends to add a third car stall. Halvorson responded that they are not intending to add a third stall. They are looking for more storage space in their garage. Ramunno said he is trying to determine what the impact of the addition will have on the home. Giglio asked if this only a one-story addition. Halvorson said it is. Giglio said he feels the house will look nicer because of the grade and will eliminate the box like effect. Dunham pointed out that the house is on the curve and does start to stick out to the view line around the corner. He asked if the applicant has given any thought to adding just five feet and not requiring a variance. The inside of the garage would be 21.5 feet with a six-foot mudroom. Dunham said he feels this would be adequate and he questioned what the additional two-feet would be needed for. Halvorson responded that they have five bikes, garbage cans and all of the other things that come with three children. They do have a shed to alleviate some of the storage in the garage on a seasonal basis,however,they still do not have adequate storage. They do keep one car in the garage. Dunham said the additional two-feet would not alleviate that much storage and they could leave their car out. Halvorson said they do not like to leave a car parked outside. Johnson presented her staff report stating that the zoning on this property is Rl- 13.5 and is a planned unit development. Variances were granted when this area was developed permitting a setback of ten-feet from the side property lines. The applicant's garage presently sits back 35 feet from the front and the requirement is 5 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals October 3, 2002 30 feet. Johnson reviewed the applicant's options. Staff received no calls or letters in opposition to this request. Dunham opened the public hearing. Having no one appear,he closed the public hearing. O'Leary said he feels that what the applicant is asking is reasonable. Giglio said since the applicant is not proposing to build up,the addition will look nicer than what currently exists. He does understand concerns for the house getting closer to the street,however,this should not be a problem as long as the applicant builds to the plans presented this evening. Ramunno said he is struggling with the hardship. O'Leary pointed out that part of the problem is the way the homes were set out when this area was developed. They could have been set back further to create more space between the houses. Motion/Second: O'Leary/Giglio,to approve variance request#2002-10 for a two- foot variance from the 30-feet required front lot line setback, for a garage addition, and that the addition be no more than one story with the hardship being the setback of the original development. The motion carried 4-1,with Dunham voting nay. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS Johnson reported that there are no items scheduled at this time for next month's meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. 6