Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 08/09/1984 APPROVED MINUTES • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, AUGUST 9, 1984 7:30 PM, ADMINISTRATION BLDG. , SCHOOL BD. RM. BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Richard Lynch, Roger Sandvick, James Dickey and Hanley Anderson City Research Planner, Steve Durham F` BOARD STAFF: and Recording Secretary, Lynda Diede s ROLL CALL: All members were present. I. MINUTES A. Minutes of July 12, 1984. MOTION: Dickey moved, seconded by Sandvick, to approve the minutes of July 12, 1984. Motion carried unanimously. II. VARIANCES A. Request #84 40, submitted by Harley E. & Elizabeth L. Bergren for property located at 11650 Martin Da ve, legally described as Lot 3, Block 1 , Edenvale Industrial Park 4th Addition. The request is for a variance from Ci: Code, Cha ter 11 , Sect}on 11 03, Subd. 2, to oermit construction of an addition for a total buildin area of .34 floor area ratio. Code maximum is .30 Harley E. Bergren, proponent, presented the proposal to the Board. The request is made to provide the tenant, Power Systems, with sufficient warehouse space to cover their expansion for 10 to 15 years. Gary Bergren-, president of Power Systems and John Hustad, architect, were introduced. Krueger noted that they are asking for a 34% variance- instead of 30%. Krueger inquired how long the lease was. Harley Bergren replied that it is renewable every 3 years. Gary Bergren stated that the request for 17,600 square feet of build- ing area would enable them to stay in the location significantly longer. Sandvick inquired if there had been any objections at the City Hall . Durham replied that there had been none. Lynch asked if the requirements for the variance would change if the office space was larger. Durham stated that the parking requirements would go up. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - August 9, 1984 Lynch inquired if there was a hardship involved. Harley Bergren stated that it would be related to the growth of the company. MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-40, submitted by Harley E. & Elizabeth L. Bergren. Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. B. Request #84-41 , submitted by James & Ann Rannow for property located at 16316 Lincoln Lane, legally described as Lot 1 , Block 1 , Lincoln- wood Addition The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03., Subd. 2, to permit construction of a garaqe within 10.0 feet from the east property line Code requires 15 feet one side) . James Rannow, 16316 Lincoln Lane, reviewed the request with the Board. p. His intent is to build a 24'x 24' attached garage on the east side of the existing house. Krueger inquired if there was an existing garage. Rannow stated that there was an existing detached building. It has been removed. Dickey asked if there had been discussion with the neighbors. Rannow replied that he had not spoken to the neighors to the immediate east. Durham stated that there had been no response at the City Hall . Sandvick asked how close the neighbor was to the property. Rannow I replied that it was in excess of 30 feet. Sandvick inquired as to the type of garages in the area. Rannow said that there are two detached garages and four attached garages in the block. Dickey inquired how the structure would be finished. Rannow stated that the house has cedar shakes. They have not decided on the siding. Dickey asked if they plan to do the construction themselves. Rannow stated that he plans .to do the block work and have someone else do the framing. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-419 { submitted by James& Ann Rannow with the following finding: 1) There is no opposition to the variance request. Dickey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. C. Request :#84-42, submitted by Aram & Ruth Charchian for proper ocated at 10960 Northmark Drive, legally described as Lot 5, Block 10, Northmark II Addition The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .( Subd. 2, as amended by Northmark II rezoning agreements. To permit construction of an addition over ara a within 10 feet of west property line. kNorthmarK II rezoning agreement requires 15 feet Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - August 9, 1984 Aram Charchian, 10960 Northmark Drive, presented the proposal to • the Board. Plans are to add a second story addition above the existing garage for a master bedroom suite. Lynch inquired why the setbacks change. Durham replied that a two- story home has a larger setback. Dickey inquired as to the structure of the building. Charchian stated that it was cedar. The addition would be of the same material . Mary Beth Buckman, 10990 Northmark Drive, remarked that it would im- prove the neighborhood. In 1975, Northmark Drive was developed grad- ated for that purpose. Each lot is below the next lot. ; Lynch stated that it was not that traumatic an impact. I MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-42, submitted by Aram & Ruth Charchian with the following findings: 1) There is improvement of the property. 2) The neighbors are in favor of the variance. Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unan- imously. D. Re uest #84 43, submitted by Mr & Mrs James Brost for property located at 17431 Evener Wa legally described as Lot 11 , Block 4, Round Lake Estate 2nd Addition. The re uest is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 03, Subd. 2, to permit construction of a dwellin within 23.59 feet from the front and ro ert line Code re uires 30 feet. James Brost, proponent, reviewed the request with the Board. The Evener Way cul-de-sac is offset 10' from center. Subsequently, the lot was reduced by 101 . Landowners were spoken to and signatures collected indicating approval of the variance request. Lynch asked how many homes are developed or built on the block. Brost replied that there is a house which would be on the south/ southwest part of the cul-de-sac. Sandvick inquired why the cul-de� moved. minDurham squarestated footage. it was moved to make all of the lots meet Lynch asked what the square footage was of the house. Brost indicated that it was 2300 square feet, not including the garage. It is a split level house plan. Krueger stated that he felt more comfortable about skimping land in the back yard than in the front. Jim Boerhave, land surveyor, felt I Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - August 9, 1984 that the visual impact would be up for consideration. It would be • hard to tell that there is a 6' encroachment into the setback. It would be better for drainage in the neighborhood to use the setback E in the front. Sandvick commented that there are other plans that could be enter- tained to accommodate the same number of square footage on the lot. There is not a hardship demonstrated. Brost stated that this design was chosen because it has a lot of house for the money. The house has the minimum setback that you could get. Lynch noted that it is actually a small intrusion into the setback. Boerhave stated that it amounts to 47 square feet. Sandvick inquired if there were any trees on the lot that they were trying to save. Brost replied that there were some 15 year old ash that they would try to save. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-43, submitted by Mr. & Mrs. James Brost, with the , following findings: 1 ) It is encroaching a small corner of the home amounting to 47 square feet approximately. 2) It is on a curved arc type of setback. Viewed from the street, it would be hard to determine that it doesn't meet setback requirements. 3) There is just one other home in the area. 4) It would seem unfair to deny the variance re- quest based on the small amount of variance. Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unan- imously. III. OLD BUSINESS Durham commented that the memo sent by Roger Pauly, City Attorney, stated that a definition of a block should be chosen and a recom- mendation should be made to the Council to amend the Code. The Build- ing Department looks on a block from a visual standpoint, whereas the Planning Department and the Board of Appeals and Adjustments looks on it as a legal block. Sandvick commented that if you define a block with the legal and visual you are going to be talking about two different blocks. You ' must go with the visual or the legal . The legal description of a block was good when blocks were square'. `Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - August 9, 1984 Durham stated that at the next meeting, September 13, 1984, a definition of a setback and a block will be recommended. • IV. NEW BUSINESS None V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Lynch, to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 PM. Motion carried unanimously. i i I f i