Loading...
1985 04 15BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MINUTES APRIL 15, 1985 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Willard Johnson, Dale Geving and Carol Watson. STAFF PRESENT Barbara Dacy, City Planner, Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner and Roger Knutson, City Attorney. FRONT YARD VARIANCE AND ACCESSORY BUILDING VARIANCE REQUEST #85-4, 20 HILL STREET, WESLEY ARSETH, APPLICANT Public Present Mr. & Mrs. Wesley Arseth Olsen gave a brief overview of the variance request. She stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a 20' x 12' garage on the southwest corner of his lot. She stated that the appli- cant currently has an existing one car garage on the east side of the home. She explained that the existing garage is built into the slope with a steep driveway heading into it and the applicant has stated that the steepness of the driveway prevents it from being used during the winter months. Therefore, the applicant is requesting permission to construct another one car garage that can be used year-round. She explained that the property has limited area where the proposed garage could be placed and that there are essentially three options. 1. The first would be at the location shown on the applicant's site plan with the garage being moved back two feet so that it is no longer in the right-of-way. A garage in this loca- tion would require the following variances: a. A 30 foot variance to the required 30 foot front yard setback. b. A 2 foot variance to the required 10 foot separation of principle and accessory structures. 2. A second location would have the back of the garage adjacent to the southwest corner of the home. This would require the following variances: a. A 24 foot variance to the required 30 foot front yard setback. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Minutes April 15, 1985 Page 2 b. A 5 foot variance to the required 10 foot separation of principle and accessory structures. c. A 9 foot variance to the required 10 foot side yard set- back. 3. The third option would locate the garage next to the home meeting the 30 foot front yard setback requirement. This option would require two variances. a. A 5 foot variance to the required 10 feet between the principle and accessory structures. b. A 9 foot variance to the required 10 foot side yard set- back variance. Olsen stated that staff preferred to have as much front yard set- back as possible and recommended option #3. Chairman Johnson opened the meeting to the public. Mr. Arseth stated he preferred Option #2 and that he would also like to request 2 feet added to the garage to equal 22' x 12'. Johnson asked if the applicant would agree to adding the extra 2 feet to the back of the garage to keep the 6 foot setback in the front. Mr. Arseth stated there was an electric meter on the side of the home but that they would put the garage as far back as possible. Geving agreed with staff that Option #1 was unacceptable but that Option #3 would require fill on the slope. He felt Option #2 would be preferrable as long as the garage was separated from the home and that the garage roof line does not extend into the approved setbacks. Watson agreed Option #2 was the best and would approve the addi- tional 2 feet to the garage if it were added to the rear of the garage. Geving moved, seconded by Watson to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Geving moved, seconded by Watson to approve the following variances: 1. 24 foot variance to the required 3 foot front yard setback 2. 5 foot variance to the required 10 foot building separation Board of Adjustments and Appeals Minutes April 15, 1985 Page 3 3. 9 foot variance to the required 10 foot side yard setback and with the conditions that: 1. The garage must be 22' x 12'. 2. The garage must have gutters along the east and west roof line. DALE GUNDERSON, 815 CREEKWOOD DRIVE - Appeal Decision to Deny Building Permit Public Present Rod Kras s Anne Vogel Claire Vogel Dale Gunderson Bill Lippka Shakopee 815 Creekwood 815 Creekwood 20 Janice Drive Edina Olsen gave a brief overview of the case. She stated that on January 9, 1985, the Planning staff met with Bill Lippka (realtor) to discuss the possibility of selling 3.56 acres of the Vogel's property for a future single family residence. Staff stated that this would result in the formation of a one acre par- cel with a single family residence. According to Zoning Ordinance 47-AJ, this unsewered one acre parcel would be noncon- forming. Also, the Subdivision Ordinance requires all lots to front on a publicly dedicated street. The 3.56 acre parcel would front on a 33 foot wide private easement. Staff stated that variances to Zoning Ordinance 47-AJ and Section 6.5 (1) of the Subdivision Ordinance would be needed before a building permit could be issued to the 3.56 acre parcel. Olsen stated that later that week, Mr. Lippka and Mr. Gunderson (applicant) met with Planning staff and again staff explained that variances would be required before a building permit could be issued. Soon after this meeting, Mr. Wernimont (realtor) met with staff to confirm what had been told to Mr. Lippka and Mr. Gunderson. Mr. Wernimont questioned the validity of this decision and staff suggested he contact Roger Knutson (City Attorney). She noted on January 17, 1985, in a letter to Mr. Wernimont, the city attorney reconfirmed staff's decision to reqUire the two variances prior to issuing a building permit. She stated that on March 6, 1985 staff received a building permit application from Mr. Gunderson for a single family residence to be located on the 3.56 acres of the Vogel's property. There had been no application for the required variances. Staff denied the building permit application because it would result in a noncon- forming 1 acre lot and because the property did not abut a publicly dedicated street. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Minutes April 15, 1985 Page 4 Watson stated that she felt staff interpreted the ordinances correctly, in that the lot would not abut a publicly dedicated street and would result in a substandard one acre lot. Geving agreed with the interpretation of staff and felt that the attorney was correct. The Board of Adjustments had to understand the intent of the 2½ acre (47-AJ) ordinance. It was for the safety of the ground in unstable areas (non-sewered). He stated that to split a conforming lot into two pieces resulting in a nonconforming lot is against the intent of Ordinance 47-AJ. He stated that they do not want to destroy the integrity of the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that they have always tried to make homes front on publicly dedicated streets and does not want to intentionally create a lot without one. He stated that the Board must look at the hardships involved. He noted that they must keep in mind the following, as stated in the Zoning Ordinance: The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the Council shall not grant, a variance unless they find the following fact: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land, building or use referred to in the application for variance. 2. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preser- vation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. 3. That the granting of the application will not be materially deterimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the area adjacent to the property for which the variance is sought. 4. That the granting of the variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this ordinance. Mr. Gunderson stated that the ordinance is fair to some and unfair to others. The Vogels purchased property (3.56 acres) for future sale and put an easement on it to allow access. Now they want to sell it and cannot. They applied for a building permit for improvements to their home last fall (1984) and expected to finance the addition through the sale of the land. Watson asked if the Vogels mentioned the selling of the lot at the time they received their building permit? The Vogels stated they did not. They stated that the property is two separate pieces, not one. They pay two tax statements and therefore felt it was two parcels. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Minutes April 15, 1985 Page 5 Geving stated that it is up to the public to be aware of the ordinances through public notices, etc. He stated that the city does not have to contact each property owner within the city. Gunderson asked "Isn't it unfair that the Vogels purchased this property years ago and now you are telling them they can't sell it?" Geving stated no, and said that the Vogels currently have a con- forming lot. Watson stated that there was alot of thought put into Ordinance 47-AJ. She stated that it protects land from inadequate septic systems. Gunderson stated that Paul Waldrip found no problem with a septic system on the site. He said that the soils are some of the best in the city. Gunderson stated that he would only be using one acre of land, and the rest will always be vacant because of the steep slope. He stated that this lot is different and Ordinance 47 AJ is unfair. Reasonable use is being denied. He stated that he has a special house and heis seeing his dream home going down the drain. Watson stated that the substandard lot is the problem. Geving stated that Mr. Gunderson was told three times by staff and the city attorney the variances required before a building permit could be issued. Gunderson stated that the Board was not being fair to the Vogels. Geving stated that they have been more than fair. Watson moved, seconded by Geving, to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Geving moved, seconded by Watson to deny the Appeal citing: 1. Ordinance 47-AJ. 2. Subdivision Ordinance 6.5 (1). 3. That the staff made the correct interpretation of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Minutes April 15, 1985 Page 6 DALE GUNDERSON AND ANNE & CLAIRE VOGEL - 815 CREEKWOOD DRIVE, Variance Request #85-3 for Subdivision Ordinance 6.5 (1) and Zoning Ordinance 47-AJ Public Present Rod Kras s Anne Vogel Claire Vogel Dale Gunderson Bill Lippka Shakopee 815 Creekwood 815 Creekwood 20 Janice Drive Edina Olsen gave a brief overview of the request. She stated that the applicant is proposing to buy 3.56 acres of a 4.56 acre parcel for a single family residence. She noted that there currently is a single family residence on the southeast corner of this property where the owners of the property reside. She stated that the Vogel's will retain one acre of their property for their single family residence. She explained that the Zoning Ordinance 47-AJ requires nonsewered lots to have a minimum of 2½ acres for a single family residence and the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 6.5 (1) requires that all lots must abut for their full required minimum frontage (180 feet), a publicly dedicated street. Olsen summarized that before the Vogel's can transfer their 3.56 parcel to the applicant they must receive the following variance: 1. A variance to the Zoning Ordinance No. 47 AJ to allow the creation of a substandard nonsewered lot size of one acre. She stated that should the Board approve the variance, the appli- cant (Gunderson) must still receive the following variance prior to the issuance of a building permit: 1. A variance to the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 6.5 (1) to allow the creation of a lot without frontage on a publicly dedicated street. Geving moved, seconded by Watson to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Geving moved, seconded by Johnson to deny the variance request based on: 1. The contents of the Staff Report #85-3 dated April 15, 1985. 2. Ordinance 47-AJ. 3. Subdivision Ordinance 6.5 (1). 4. That the applicant did not meet the criteria for granting variances. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. Geving moved, seconded by Johnson to adjourn the meeting at 7:20 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried.