Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 10/13/1983 APPROVED MINUTES . BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1983 7:30 PM, CITY HALL BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Richard Lynch, James Dickey, Roger Sandvick and Hanley Anderson BOARD STAFF: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator, and Lynda Diede, Recording Secretary ROLL CALL: All Board members were present. I. MINUTES A. Minutes of September 8, 1983. Dickey moved, seconded by Lynch, to approve the minutes of September 8, 1983. Motion carried unanimously. II. VARIANCES A. Request #83-33, submitted by John Liepke, for property located at 15208 Scenic Heights Road. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Sec. 11 .03, Subd. 2, to permit construction of a deck structure within 15 feet of the lot line • instead of the required 50 feet. This variance request is continued from the September 8, 1983 meeting in order to allow proponent to !,cork vii th the neighbors. John Liepke, 15208 Scenic Heights Road, explained to the Board that he had changed his request to permit construction of a deck structure within 15' of the lot line instead of 5' . He plans to move the entire structure back 10' . The deck will remain two stories tall with the length the same. The distance would be 15' from the property line or 20' from the existing road. There is 27' between the side of the house and the road. Krueger inquired what would be done with the roof line. Liepke replied that it will stay two stories. Lynch stated that he had difficulty with the word "deck". It appears to be an addition. Liepke said that it is not an add- ition. There are no block walls; round 48" footings are used. Lynch asked if tt were to be enclosed. Liepke said yes, only with screens. Dickey inquired if Liepke would propose a deck on the other side of the house. Liepke replied, no. • Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - October 13, 1983 Mrs. Bill Wokasch, 15214 Scenic Heights Road, stated that her • husband is concerned with water run-off from the roof. The gravel road is not maintained by the City and they are worried about erosion. They also feel that a two story deck does not fit in with th6 arch- itecture of the neighborhood. Liepke responded that if the neighbors felt uncomfortable, he would sign an affidavit that he would replace the road if something happened. Krueger asked the square footage of the deck. Liepke replied that it was 12' x 20' . Sandvick inquired as to the original dimensions. Liepke stated.that the existing structure is 20' x 201 . Dickey remarked that the only change made was plans to move the structure back 10' . There was no meeting set up with the neighbors by the proponent during the last month. Everything else has remained the same. Dickey asked if Liepke would build a single level deck. Liepke replied, no. Sandvick noted that the house didn't conform to the ordinance from the onset. The house is 27' from the lot. line which would be a 55% variance. • Krueger inquired if the deck were under construction. Liepke replied that it was half done. Krueger wondered how he got this far with the building. Liepke stated that the building inspector was out two times to inspect the struct- ural soundness and the footings. A question was raised regarding property lines and Liepke was told to stop construction. Johnson stated that Liepke never received a building permit. He only had a receipt for the permit and the building department had requested additional information prior to permit review. Sandvick noted that Liepke started work on the footings illegally, before the permit was granted, but there was miscommunication bet- ween the Building Department and Liepke. Footings may have been started on the premise that Liepke had approval . This was reinforced by the Building Department doing an inspection. Lynch referred to the minutes of the September 8, 1983 meeting. Gilk had stated that a setback of 15' would be more logical . V single floor deck, with no enclosure or roof is more compatible. Rannow had stated that 5' is too close to the traffic. Lynch had said that a 21 ' wide deck is an unusually large deck. Something should be achieved that isn't so disturbing to the character of the area. Johnson showed a photo of the deck showing the status of construct- ion when Liepke was directed to stop construction. (July 28, 1983) Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - October 13, 1983 Dickey cited that there were six points raised at the initial hearing: 1 ) The neighbor's concern; 2) The percentage factor • asked for; 3) Request to meet with the neighbors; 4) Possibility of change; 4) Proximity to road; and, 6) The fact that thedeck is under construction. Only one item was changed, the percerhtage factor. Dickey was concerned that the deck look attractive and not detract from the character of the home. Liepke stated that he is a contractor and has built many townhouses and decks and would never build to detract from the building. Lynch stated that the Board prefers a proponent to explain his variance to the surrounding neighbors. The Board suggested Mr. Liepke meet with the neighbors, show them the plans for deck con- struction and return hopefully with a compromise. Mrs. Gilk 'remarked that they waited one month for a call from Liepke which never came. They were definitely willing to meet with him. Sandvick and Krueger agreed to come in for a special meeting if Liepke desired more time to meet with neighbors and explain his plans. Liepke stated that he did not desire another continuation and if the Board does not act favorably he will proceed to the City Council . MOTION: Lynch made a motion to deny Variance Request #83-33 with the following findings: 1 ) It is a large departure from the ordinance requirements and undue hardship has not been demonstrated. 2) It is uncharacteristic with the neighborhood development. 3) No attempt was made to call the surrounding neighbors, who were waiting for a call . Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unan- imously. This variance request may be appealed to the City Council . B. Request #83-36, submitted by Richard Miller Homes, Inc. for property located at the northwest corner of Co. Rd. 4 & Timber Lake Drive, described as outlot A, Timber Lakes. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, for minimum lot size, minimum lot width & depth, and setbacks for the construction of multiple residential units:_ Jim Carver and Mel Ford were present, representing Richard Miller Homes, Inc. Carver outlined their request to the Board. Townhouses in the form of quads are being built on Timber Lake Drive. The nature of the variance involves sideyards, rearyards, and minimum Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - October 13, 1983 lot size. One requirement of the Veteran's Administration and • FHA in insuring mortages for condominums is that before any unit can be closed there must be signed Purchase Agreements for 70% of the units in the project. This is called the 70% presale require- ment, which can later be dropped to 50%. The project can be platted into smaller parcels with a single building per parcel . The parcels will remain under the ownership of a single condo- minium association. Lynch inquired as to the Board's position in the approval process since Planning Commission and Council have already approved item. Johnson commented that the requirement to handle variances through Planning Unit Development is subject to a 15 acre minimum. When a project does not meet the requirements it goes to the Board of Appeals. Lynch asked if they expected to build and sell the townhouses in the next 12 month time period. Carver stated that of the 32 units, 12-14 have been sold already. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Krueger made a motion to approve Variance Request #83-36, submitted by Richard Miller Homes, Inc. with the following findings: 1 ) This variance is not inconsistent with townhouse • development and is in keeping with the intent of code provisions. 2) Landscaping plan addresses proper screening of the units. Dickey seconded the motion. Motion carried unan- imously. They have one year to exercise the petition. C. Request #83-37, submitted by Philip W. Legler, for property located at 8267 Cypress Lane, legally described as Lot 4, Block 3, Hipps Mitchell Heights Fourth Addition The request is for a variance_ from City Code, Chapter 11 , Sec 11 .03, to construct a 10' x 12' room within 12 feet of the rear lot line instead of the required 20 feet. Philip Legler, 8267 Cypress Lane, presented his request to the Board. He proposes to build a small dining room, 10' x 12' . He has had no objections from the neighbors. Lynch inquired if he is building over the existing deck. Legler replied yes, the deck is 12' x 8" and he will build out 10' . Dickey asked if it were a full season addition. Legler said yes, it will be completely insulated with a wood surface underneath. . There were no comments from the audience. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - October 13, 1983 MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request • #83-37, submitted by Philip Legler with the follow- ing findings: 1 ) Plans subject to approval of building plans. 2) It is not inconsistent with neighborhood character. Lynch seconded the motion with the comment that there was a mailing of 125 with no opposition from the neighbors. Motion carried unanimously. They have one year to exercise the petition. D. Request #83-38, submitted by Harc Crevier, for nro. erty located at - 0965 Fieldcrest Road, legally described as Lot 1 Block 4, North- mark Second Addition. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Sec. 11 .03; Subd. 2; to permit construction of an accesory structure 10' x 10' on the lot line. Marc Crevier, 10965 Fieldcrest Road, explained his request to the Board. He was informed by the Building Department that a permit was not needed for a 10' x 10' accessory building, only that it be 10' from the property line and be in the backyard. The Preserve told him that the shed must be in the same style as the house. His lot is a corner lot and he believed Center Way to be a side lot area. He did not know that formal approval was needed by the Preserve • Association Review Committee. Lynch inquired if there was a slab underneath the building. Crevier replied yes, it is not easily moveable. Krueger asked if the area would be screened or landscaped. Crevier said, yes. Johnson stated that plant material is not recommended in the City right-of-way. Johnson questioned if the slab could be moved with a forklift or other equipment. Crevier did not think it could be. Dickey asked what alternative the City would like to see done. Johnson replied Crevier should meet with the Preserve Review Committee and receive written approval . Dickey suggested that Crevier put his plan on hold, meet with the Preserve for approval and return either for a special meetinb or November 10, 1983. Lynch inquired if there might be a snow problem in the area. Crevier replied that there has not been a problem in the past. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Krueger made a motion to continue Variance Request • #83-38 until a special meeting or November 10, 1983. Dickey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - October 13, 1983 III. OLD BUSINESS None IV. NEW BUSINESS None V. ADJOURNMENT Krueger moved, seconded by Anderson to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 PM. Motion carried unanimously.