Loading...
1991 02 25BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 1991 The meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Workman, Carol Watson and Willard Johnson. STAFF PRESENT: Variance to the Rear Yard Setback for Construction of a Deck, Kerling/Klinger, 310 Sinnen Circle and 8180 Marsh Drive Staff provided the background on the variance requests. Staff stated that in June of 1989, the applicants first requested variances for the construction of the decks which was denied by the Board of Adjustments. The applicants did not pursue an appeal in front of the City Council but went ahead and built the decks in violation of the Board of Adjustments action. The applicants are requesting review of the application for the variance again by the Board of Adjustments. Staff stated that the facts of the case remain the same, that no hardship exists and that staff is recommending denial of the variance request. Watson went through the new list provided by the applicants with their reasons for hardship and stated that a PUD does not disregard all of the other ordinance requirements and that the applicant can request that the fees for the building permit application be returned. She stated that small lots are restrictive but people are still buying them and that they should know their limitations. She also stated that a deck and patio at ground level could be built as an option to the variance and that when they were in front of the Board of Adjustments in 1989, it was made clear to the applicants that they could appeal the decision to the City Council but that they chose not to. She further stated that nothing has changed and that she is still recommending denial. Mr. Klinger stated that he understands the problems now with the PUD and small lots. His back yard, due to drainage, cannot support a patio and he needs the deck so that he can enjoy his back yard. He also stated that Mr. Chmiel has visited the site and where the water sits on the lot and has gotten his shoes wet. He stated that the hardship is characteristic to his lot because of the drainage and that should constitute a hardship. He stated that he wants a nice place for his family and feels that he should be permitted the deck. Workman asked the applicant why drainage would be justification for the deck. Mr. Klinger stated that the developer, Rottlund, has graded once but there is still a water problem in the back yard and that a patio would not work because of the shifting ground. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Minutes of February 25, 1991 Page 2 Watson stated that the drainage problem is throughout the city, not necessarily with just his property, that everyone has drainage problems due to the clay soils. Krauss stated that the Board must look at the house plan and where it is located on the site, that Mr. Klinger's house plan was pushed back to the setback line due to the location of the garage and that grading of those individual sites is up to the builder and owner. Johnson stated that he still sees this as the same situation and that the applicant could build a patio, not directly on the ground, which would not be affected by the shifting of ground during the seasons. Workman stated that the variance is difficult to review, that if the Board of Adjustments approves this variance, then he 'knows twelve other people will come in requesting the same thing and that nobody likes to say no. He stated that in light of the decision one year ago, he cannot see how the Board of Adjustments can change their mind now. He also feels that this may have gotten too far out of hands for the Board of Adjustments and the City Council and it may have to be resolved through the court system. Watson moved, seconded by Johnson, to deny the variance request. Mr. Kerling stated that he would like to have a chance to speak. He stated that he also came from another community with small lots and had no problems.~ He is concerned that the city now checks for patio doors and that if that had happened when he purchased his home he would not be in this situation. He stated that he relied on the building inspector, an ex-employee, and now he is being told that he cannot have their deck. He stated that for him to not be allowed to have a deck when all others can have one is a hardship. He wants equality. He stated that he was lead to believe that there would be no problem in building the deck and that granting the variance would not be injurious to surrounding areas. Workman stated that there is no ordinance requiring the city to review patio doors. Roger Knutson, City Attorney, stated that you cannot deny a building permit because the house has a patio door. Workman questioned what was the difference between this variance and the blanket variance granted for Sierra Court. Staff stated that the difference was that those lots would not have been buildable for even a home if a variance had not been granted. In this case, the sites are getting reasonable use with the home that accessory structure being requested. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Minutes of February 25, 1991 Page 3 The Board of Adjustments moved on the motion made by Watson, and seconded by Johnson, and all voted in favor of denying the variance. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.