Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 05/08/1986 APPROVED MINUTES • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1986 7:30 PM, ADMINISTRATJION BLDG. , SCHOOL BOARD ROOM 8100 SCHOOL ROAD BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Kruger, Richard Lynch, Roger Sandvick, Hanley Anderson, William Arockiasamy, Lyn Dean and Steve Longman Board Staff: Zoning Administrator, Jean Johnson and Recording Secretary, Lynda Diede ROLL CALL: Sandvick was absent. I. INSTALLATION OF BOARD MEMBERS Dean was sworn in as a member of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. II. ELECTION OF OFFICERS MOTION 1 : Motion was made by Lynch to nominate Krueger for the position of Chairman. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. • MOTION 2: Motion was made by Anderson to nominate Lynch for the position of Vice Chairman. Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION 3: Motion was made by Krueger to nominate Anderson for the position of Secretary. Longman seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. III. MINUTES A. Minutes of April 10, 1986. MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Arockiasamy, to approve the minutes of April 10, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. IV. VARIANCES A. Request #86-10, submitted by Kate and Craig Halverson for property located at 10280 County Road The request is for a variance rom City Code, Chapter 11 , Section .03, Su d. 2, B, to permit an accessory structure existinggarage) wit a front yard setback of 25 feet, (Code requires 35 feet) . 2 Chapter 11 , Section 11 .0 Subd. 3, K, to permit wood siding as a primary exterior building material on existing structure and accessory structure, (Code does not permit wood as a primary building material in an Office Zoning District) . 3 Cha ter 11 , Section 11 .03, u , D, to permit a front yard-parking setback of 15 feet. (Code requires a minimum of 35 feet 4 Chapter 11 , ection 11 .03, Subd. , H, 5, c, and Subd. 3, H, 6, b, to permit parking lot improvements without hard surfacing and curb. TCode Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - May 8, 1986 requires hard surfacing and curbing with office development orb • expansion 5 Chapter 11 , Section 11 .20, Subd. 3, B, to permit continuance of existing on-site sanitary sewers stem and water system until public utilities are available to the site, Code requires sanitary sewer services and water for buildings located in an Office Zoning District . Fred Hoisington, land planning consultant, presented the request to the Board. Site plans were displayed. City Council has approved 1st Reading of the Guide Plan Amendment and rezoning of this property to an 'Office Zoning District. Hoisington said that the Halversons intend to maintain a residential looking project. The existing building has been occupied in the upper level as a residence for 35 years. The business level in the basement is 1500-1600 square feet. In the last 2-3 years the Hal- versons had grown beyond the definition of home occupation. Hoisington referred to the 5 variance requests: 1 ) The request refers to the retaining of the existing garage. To move the garage would impair the ability to provide parking. The Staff Report suggested parking in the back of the property. Hoisington said that a single loaded parking lot is expensive. 2) The existing structure has wood siding over masonry. • 3) The use of three parking spaces within 15 feet of the front property line is intended to be a temporary situation to exist only untilpermanent parking improvements are made. Three dead poplars will be replaced with 3 temporary parking spaces. Krueger asked what would happen when the highway takes over the right-of-way. Hoisington said that County Road #18 as it exists today will be the frontage road. The new County Road #18 will be moved to the east. 4) Hoisington stated that the hard surfacing also represents a problem. Once the road is paved it could be torn up by the County or the State if they take the right-of-way. 5) In connection with the sanitary sewer and water,there is a lift station to the north on County Road #1 . There will not be sewer connection to the property until 1987. Halverson would like permission to continue to use present on- site utilities until such time as development occurs on the westerly 3 acres. In concluding, Hoisington stated that because of pre-existing con- ditions, and because of other approvals that appear to be consistent with the request, the variances are warranted. Where existing con- ditions prevail , there is a hardship. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - May 8, 1986 Arockiasamy asked the basis for a residential setting. Hoisington • said that the site was picked because it was an easily accessible site. Ammenties and qualities exist that are not present in the major center area. Arockiasamy questioned if the location had any direct implication on the kind of business. Hoisington said that it was a matter of personal preference. Longman stated his concern for the variance requests: 1 ) The purpose for front yard setbacks is to allow proper berming and landscaping. When County Road #18 is upgraded, the garage would not look attractive close to the road. 2) He is opposed to giving a variance to the exterior building material . 3) He has no problem with the parking in the front. The stalls are well shielded from the road. 4) The parking lot should be hard surfaced as it will be a well used lot. 5) Longman would like to see a sewer connection when it is avail- able to the site. . Hoisington said that the garage is needed for storage and parking of cars. Longman inquired whose cars would be parked in the garage. Hoisington stated that it would be the owners cars. Lynch inquired when the City Council adopted Resolution #86-50, adopting the Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment and the adoption of 1st Reading or Ordinance #1.4-85 for rezoning, if it was done without comment. Johnson said that they reviewed the Planning Commissions concerns and discussed the character of the area in detail . The Council felt that the zoning was more appropriate than the interim use conditions that the Planning Commission brought up. The Council did not comment on the variances to any extent. Hoisington said that the Council stated that they would leave the matter of variances to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Lynch felt that if the site were to be a commercial operation, there should be more attempt made to comply with the ordinance. Krueger asked if a conditional use permit to operate a business for a certain number of years was available. Johnson stated that there is a permit process available in the major center area. It is only with certain legal descriptions that the conditional uses can be granted. The City Council would have to amend that by annexing other legal descriptions. • Lynch said that in 2 years, Halverson could be gone and another office use could be there. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - May 8, 1986 Hoisington noted that the property is specifically zoned for olffice, • so only office can occupy it. The Developer's Agreement will tie down the use there. , Krueger asked what was proposed to be zoned there. Hoisington said that 215'x 175' of land is being rezoned. Longman felt that the Halversons inadvertently got into a situation of improper use of the facilities. They applied to the City, got rezoning and came to the Board for variances for personal preferences. Longman sees no hardship. Arockiasamy commented on the variance requests: 1 ) All of the possibilities for the garage for modifying, removing or relocating have not been looked into. 2) The siding is not a variance of proportion. It is almost a 100% deviation. It is not a house anymore, but an office. 3) County Road #18 is temporarily unsettled. At this time, a permanent variance cannot be granted to put parking there. 4) Now that the site is commercial and rezoned, the site should be paved. • 5) The sewer must be connected when available. Anderson did not have strong opposition to the siding. It could be a case for a hardship. Anderson could not approve the garage and permanent parking. Krueger asked if the proponent would care to come up with a compromise that might work. Krueger felt that a paved parking lot is necessary for commercial use. There were no comments from the audience. Hoisington requested a recess so he and Craig Halverson could discuss the Board's concern. The Board tabled the item and heard Variance Request #86-11 . The Touch of Class request was then resumed. Hoisington reported that the garage could be removed, the 3 parking stalls in setback relocated, the lot hardsurfaced, but they are unsure that a brick exterior is feasible. Craig Halverson felt strongly about the siding. It is in a park like setting. When the building was remodelled 5 years ago, they added cedar siding over the concrete. Halverson stated that they plan to add one small structure to the • building that provides another access to the lower level . Trellising and decking would be added on the front. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - May 8, 1986 Hoisington said that regarding the siding, 75% of the materials • would have to go. Walls would have to be removed and replaced with brick and glass. One could take off part of the siding on each side and replace with another type of material . Lynch inquired about the proposed addition. Hoisington said that it is not an entry way but a stairway within the building. Longman said adding brick veneer to the walls would not be difficult. It is an attractive home, but not an office building. Arockiasamy said that to change just one wall does not serve any purpose. An attempt could be made to break the monotony of 100% siding. In the corners, 2 strips of brick could be placed. Lynch felt that there should be a brick treatment to the building so that it looks more like an office building. Arockiasamy felt that a definite plan must be devised and submitted for the Board's review. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to continue Variance Request #86-10, submitted by Kate & Craig Halverson, to June 12, 1986, to give proponents opportunity to present some alternates to building materials issue. Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. • B. Request #86-11 , submitted by Jim Touve for property located at 17208 & 17216 Peterbor Road. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .50, Subd. 6, B, 1 To permit construction of a home on Lot 8, 47 feet from the Ord- inary High Water Mark. 2 To permit construction of a home on Lot 9, 20 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark on the east side of proposed home and 40 feet from the Ordinar Hi h Water Mark on the north side of the proposed home. 3 City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 03, Subd 3, C, to permit construction of homes on Lots 8 & 9, with a front YYrd setback of 30 feet, Code requires a minimum of 43 feet as per the average setback of the block. This variance request was continued from the April 10, 1986 meeting. Jim Touve, proponent, reviewed his request with the Board. Touve questioned why the Watershed District felt that the basement level had potential ground water problems. Also, the Watershed District stated that the closest home was 53 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark. Touve felt that 53 feet was erroneous as water is closer to the house on Lot 7, which is next door to him. Longman asked if Touve had measured the distance. Touve said no, that he had eyeballed it. Touve said that the lots were platted in the early 1960's and Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - May 8, 1986 the Shoreland Ordinance was adopted in 1982. He was not notified • of this ordinance until he obtained a permit to build on the property. Touve said that sanitary sewer and water have not been installed to Lots 8 and 9. Staff felt that sewer and water may not have been installed because the lots were substandard. Touve said that sewer and water was abated to those lots subject to a later development because there was a possibility that no one had an interest in filling them. Touve had an interest in filling them and the fill was there. The fill wasn't moved before the DNR took jurisdiction over the area. Touve stated that the dry land area is not objectionable to the people that could be involved. There is no problem maintaining the basement for 2' above the 915 feet. There is no fill necessary on the land shown on the survey; it is all high land. The Water- shed District had indicated a possibility to grant a permit to extend the proposed 33 foot setback. Touve added that lakeshore taxation could be a hardship for the taxpayer. Touve said that he had a purchase agreement for a potential owner for Lot 8. The plan comes within the footprint guideline. The house is 26 feet wide. Krueger inquired if Touve was the owner of Lot 10. Touve replied • yes. He is still paying taxes on Lot 10. There were no comments from the audience. Arockiasamy asked what the front yard setback was on the house next door which is Lot 7. Touve said that it was 31 feet from the road. A variance was not needed at the time that the home was built. Krueger asked how long Touve had owned the lots. Touve said that he had the lots since 1963. Arockiasamy asked the size of the house plan. Touve said that the total size of the house was 541x 26' . Touve said that there was a prospective buyer for Lot 9. The variance for the side yard will be requested if needed. MOTION: Longman made a motion to approve Variance Request #86-11 submitted by Jim Touve with the following findings: 1 ) A 33' setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark adjacent to Lot 9 be adhered to. 2) A variance to permit construction of a house 10' from • the west property line on Lot 9 must be requested. Garage side only if necessary. 3) The basement floor elevation be at 917+' . Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 7 - May 8, 1986 4) A detailed grading plan be submitted for each lot along • with building permit issuance. 5) In conjunction with the issuance of a building permit for Lot 9, sanitary sewer and water service be extended I o the. lot. Anderson wondered about the development of Lot 10. Touve said that he could donate it or join it to Lot 9. Lynch seconded the motion. Motion carried--6-0-1 . (Krueger abstained. ) C. Request #86-14, submitted by Dennis R. Marks for property located at 9877 Crestwood Terrace. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2, B, to permit construction of a garage addition 10' from west side lot line Code requires 15' . Mrs. Dennis Marks, 9877 Crestwood Terrace, reviewed the request with the Board. Krueger asked what the existing garage was. Marks replied that they have a double and would like a triple garage. Lynch inquired if the neighbors to the west have been spoken to. Marks said yes. They have no objections. • There were no comments from the audience. Lynch asked what the frontage on the lot was. Krueger replied that it was 110 feet. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request#86-14 with the following findings: 1 ) The new garage addition be of the same architectural style and building material . Color must match existing structure. Longman seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. D. Request #86-15, submitted by Bruce & Deborah Fritz for property located at 16100 Hilltop Road. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 3, C, to permit construction of a new sin le family residence with a front and setback of 30 feet _(City Code requires a minimum setback of 107' as per the average setback of the block).. Bruce and Deborah Fritz, proponents , addressed the request. Deborah Fritz stated that the City's objective is that the setback would not blend in smoothly with the neighborhood. • Photos were displayed. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 8 - May 8, 1986 The neighbors to the east signed a note, stating that they had no • objection to the 30 foot setback. Bruce Fritz noted that the houses across the street are not in- cluded in the average and they feel that they should be taken into consideration. Deborah Fritz said that with trees on either side of the road, the naked eye could not tell if it wasn't exactly lined up. Deborah Fritz said that if the garage is at 30 feet, the house would begin 4 feet behind the other two houses. If the garage were set at 50 feet, the house would be too far back and would look unproportioned. With a 30 foot setback, drainage would be easier to control . MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #86-15, submitted by Bruce and Deborah Fritz with the following findings: 1 ) A frontage setback of 30 feet. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. E. Request #86-16, submitted by Derwood Twigg for property located at 19140 Joseph Curve. The request is for a variance from City • Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2, B, to permit con- struction of a deck 2' from the north propert line Code requires 10' Derwood Twigg, 19140 Joseph Curve, presented his request to the Board. Twigg stated that minimum side yard setbacks are 5 feet on the garage side. There is also a 5 foot utility easement. Twigg said that the builder took 2 feet out of the structure to get it within the setbacks. Twigg discovered the discrepancy on the survey. Twigg was told by the builder that a variance had been applied for. The City had no receipt of a variance application, so Twigg applied for a request after closing on the house. Twigg has a set of sliding doors 7 feet off the ground. Also, a second exit from the house is needed. Lynch asked if it was a drainage or utility easement. Johnson said that it was both. Twigg said that there is no sewer, water or gas; all is stubbed in from the street. No utilities are coming in through that easement. Johnson stated as an easement it may be utilized for utilities in the future. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 9 - May 8, 1986 Lynch said that if the variance is granted over the easement, the condition would be that the deck may have to be given up. Longman asked what the deck would be used for. Twigg said that his main concern is for the exit and the sliding glass door. The deck will be used for relaxation. i Krueger asked if a walkway going to a deck in the back of the house had been considered. Twigg said that it could be an al- ternative. He has not had a chance to research it yet. Lynch noted that the deck would be 7 feet from the neighbor's garage. Twigg said that it was no problem with the neighbor. Twigg anticipates putting in a privacy wall around the deck. Anderson asked if the variance request could be changed down to 5 feet. A smaller deck with a stairway could be made. Later an added deck could be made out the back. MOTION: Anderson made' a motion to approve Variance Request #86-16, submitted by Derwood Twigg with the following find- ings: 1 ) The deck may not be enclosed as a screen or a three season porch, or converted to a room addition. • 2) The deck width be 5' for the purpose of exiting and wrapping around the back of the house. 3) The house was built with sliding doors leading to the side. 4) This deck will provide an alternate exit to the main floor of the house. Arockiasamy seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. V. OLD BUSINESS None VI. NEW BUSINESS Krueger asked if Brad Hoyt had called. Johnson said yes. They discussed the development processes. Hoyt wouldn't have to come this evening and request a special meeting. Hoyt could take out a building permit on the property as long as it is not final platted into two lots creating a setback contrary to Code. VII. ADJOURNMENT • MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Dean to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 PM. Motion carried unanimously.