Loading...
1985 08 05BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1985 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Hamilton called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Thomas Hamilton, Carol Watson and Dale Geving. STAFF PRESENT Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner Variance Request to the 75 foot Shoreland Setback to Construct a Deck, 7300 Laredo Drive, Alan Fox Olsen that the applicant is proposing to build a 32' x 20' deck on the rear of his home, facing Lotus Lake. She stated that there currently is a 4 foot wide walkway on the rear of the home. She noted that the applicant will remove this existing deck and construct the proposed deck in its place. She stated that the Shoreland Management Ordinance prohibits structures within 75 feet of a Recreational Development Lake's ordinary high water mark. She stated that the applicant's home is only 70 feet from the ordinary high water mark and is therefore non-conforming. She explained that the Zoning Ordinance states that no non- conforming use shall occupy a greater area than occupied at the date of the ordinance. She stated that the proposed deck will be increasing the non-conformity by 20 feet. She also stated that the Department of Natural Resources reviews cases where struc- tures are proposed within the shoreland setback. She stated that the DNR has reviewed this case and has stated that they would not recommend approval. She explained that the 75 foot setback was initiated because the shoreland is environmentally sensitive and it is important to not disturb this area. She stated that the applicant is enjoying the use of his property and is therefore not experiencing a hardship. Mr. Fox stated the following reasons why he felt they were not in violation of the spirit and intent of the ordinance. 1. That the deck will not cause adverse affects to the shoreland and it will not physically impair the surrounding properties. 2. It will promote wise lake utilization by passive use rather than active use. Hamilton stated that eight months ago this would have been no problem. Geving asked if the applicant had a dock. Mr. Fox stated that he did not. Board Of Adjustments and Appeals Minutes August 5, 1985 Page 2 Watson stated that she had no problems with the deck. Geving moved, seconded by Watson to approve the variance to construct a deck. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Front Yard Variance Request to construct a deck, 801 Pontiac Lane, Paul Naab Olsen stated that the applicant owns the eastern half of a twin home at 801 Pontiac Lane. The lot is a corner lot with Kerber Boulevard to the east. Since this is a corner lot, both yards that front on a street are considered front yards and have a 30 foot setback. Olsen stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a 10' x 16' deck, off of the second floor, in the front yard facing Kerber Boulevard. She noted that the home is setback 36 feet from Kerber, meeting the 30 foot setback and that the applicant has six feet for expansion of his structure. Olsen noted that the Chaparral Development Contract specifically states that the developer acknowledges the setback and that no variances will be necessary. She explained that in the past, this contract has been upheld and no variances have been granted. She state that there is adequate area in the rear for the size of deck proposed. Olsen stated that the applicant has an existing sliding door on the east side of the home. She stated that the applicant's neighbor on the west half of twin home built a walkway from their sliding door on the side to the rear of the home where the deck was built. She stated that by doing this, all setbacks were met. Planning staff is proposing that the applicant can do the same. She noted that it is common in twin home developments to have both decks at the rear and to be separated by a solid wall. Naab stated that he purchased the corner lot for the purpose of having the deck oriented towards the east and that he already purchased the lumber for the deck. He stated that the Chaparral homeowners association approved his deck variance. He stated that he did not want his deck on the rear of his home. Watson stated that Chaparral did not allow for variances and no variances have been granted as of yet. Geving asked if the applicant understood that he would be facing a very busy street. Naab stated that he understood that. Geving moved, seconded by Hamilton, to approve the variance to construct a deck. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Minutes August 5, 1985 Page 3 Lot Area and Side Yard Setback Variance for a Single Famil~ Home, 1565 Bluff Creek Drive, Alb~ert~ D_orwe~le~ -' Olsen stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a single family residence in place of the existing home on .97 acres in the R-la District. She noted that both the home and lot existed prior to the Zoning Ordinance. She stated that the R-la District requires a minimum of 2.5 acres for a single family residence to be constructed. She stated the applicant's lot of .97 acres is therefore non-conforming. She stated that the R-la District also requires a 50 foot front and rear setback and a 100 foot/10 foot side yard setback. She noted that the current home is within the side yard setback which again makes it a non- conforming structure. She stated that the proposed home will meet the 50 foot front and rear setbacks and will be farther from the side yard lot line than the existing residence. She stated that the proposed home will be approximately 60 feet from the rear lot line and 43 feet from the south side lot line. She stated the home will be 12 feet from the existing garage. She stated that since the lot existed prior to the Zoning Ordinance as a separate parcel of record, the owner has the right to reasonable use of the property. She stated that the current home is old and in need of repair and the applicant is proposing to build a new residence which will be a better asset to the area and which will conform more to the regulations than the existing structure. Dorweiler stated that when he purchased the lot he was not required to have 2.5 acres. Hamilton stated that the proposed home will be an improvement. Watson questioned when construction on the house would begin and the existing house removed. Dorweiler stated that construction would begin next spring. Hamilton asked if the garage would remain. Dorweiler stated yes. Geving stated that the existing building should be removed within one year after occupancy of the new home. Geving moved, seconded by Watson, to approve the variance to construct a single family residence with the following condition: 1. That the existing home be removed within one year after the occupancy of the new home. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Minutes August 5, 1985 Page 4 Variance to Construct an Addition to a Non-Conforming S~pgle Family Residence, 2821 Tanagers Lane, Gary Olsen and Kath¥ Hawley Olsen stated that the applicants are proposing to build an addi- tion onto their single family residence. She stated that the property is located in the R-1 District and requires 10 foot side yard setbacks. She explained that the single family residence is located approximately 4 feet within the required 10 foot side yard setback. She stated that this makes the residence non- conforming. She stated that the Zoning Ordinance states that no non-conforming use can be enlarged and therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance to allow them to enlarge the home. She stated that the applicants are proposing to construct a 38' x 24' addition to the rear of the home. She noted that this addition will be within all required setbacks and will not be increasing the non-conformity. She stated that the property has a row of trees which will screen the new addition from the neighbor's view. She also noted that the neighbor to the east has its rear yard adjacent to the property, maintaining a large separation. Gary Olsen stated that they needed the addition for their five children. He also stated that they had first wanted to put the addition in the front of the home, but found they could not meet the front yard setback. Watson stated that it looked good. Geving moved, seconded by Watson, to approve the variance for the addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Watson moved, seconded by Geving to approve the July 15 minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Hamilton abstained. Geving moved, seconded by Watson to adjourn the meeting at 7:20 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried.