Loading...
09-24-2002 BA MIN MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 Members Present: Chair Pederson,Commissioners Franz,Jenson,and Ropp. Commissioner Anderson arrived at 6:32 p.m. Members Absent: None Staff Present: Chris Leeseberg, Planner and Debbie Huebner,Recording Secretary 1. Call Meeting To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof,the meeting of the Elk River Board of Adjustments was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Pederson. 2. Consider 9/24/02 Board of Adjustments Agenda COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 24,2002, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AGENDA. COMMISSIONER JENSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 3.1. Request by Tanya and Robert Olson for Front Yard Setback Variance for Deck,Public • Hearing— Case No. V 02-06 Commissioner Anderson arrived at this time (6:32 p.m.) Staff report by Chris Leeseberg. The applicants request a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 18 feet to allow construction of a deck at 18584 Pascal Drive. Mr. Leeseberg explained that the home was constructed with the floor plan reversed from what was shown on the building plans and the location of the patio doors was not noticed. He noted that the applicants stated they chose this particular lot so they could have a deck facing the park across the street. Mr.Leeseberg reviewed the request and discussed an alternative option for the Commission to consider. He suggested that a"catwalk"deck be placed along the north side of the house which could lead to a larger deck on the rear of the home,thereby reducing the amount of encroachment into the setback. Mr.Leeseberg explained that the applicants also suggested moving the stair location which would reduced the amount of encroachment from 17 feet to 14 feet. Mr. Leeseberg reviewed the five findings for granting a variance and why staff feels the request meets this criteria. Staff recommends approval of the variance to reduce the setback from 35 feet to 30 feet, as shown in Option A in the staff report to the Commission. Commissioner Jenson asked why the applicant was allowed to reverse the house plan. Mr. Leeseberg stated that it is not unusual for plans to be submitted by a builder which are stamped"reversed" because a homebuyer prefers that layout for his particular lot. • Board of Adjustments Minutes September 24,2002 Page 2 Commissioner Franz asked why the building inspector did not catch the error. Mr. • Leeseberg stated that the homeowner chose the floor plan and the home met the setbacks for construction. Commissioner Ropp asked if there was a provision in the review process where the location of doors and windows is checked. Mr. Leeseberg stated that the Planning Department reviews the footprint for construction and that the Building Department reviews the actual construction drawings and floor plan. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. Robert Olson, 18584 Pascal Drive,applicant,stated that the floor plan was reversed in order for the patio door to face the park so that they could watch their children.He felt that Option A proposed by staff was not practical. He noted that he also has signatures of support from all of his neighbors within 350 feet of his property which were notified of the public hearing. Corey Zierden, 18585 Pascal Drive,stated that he lives across from the applicant and that he has no problem with the deck as proposed by Mr. Olson. There being no further public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. Chair Pederson stated that he visited the site and feels that the request is reasonable. He did not feel the"catwalk"was the best solution. He noted that there is not a great deal of traffic in this area so visibility is not a significant issue. Given the support of the neighbors and the fact that the applicant was willing to locate the stairs to the side,he had no concerns with granting the variance. Commissioner Franz concurred with Chair Pederson's comments. He felt that the Building Department needs to be more diligent in reviewing plans to ensure that this situation does not occur. Commissioner Anderson stated he also felt the request was reasonable,if the applicant was willing to move the deck stairs,he had no problem with granting the variance. Commissioner Jenson stated he did not feel the City would be held responsible for not noticing that the patio door was on the side of the house at the setback. He felt the situation was a gross error on the part of the builder and that the City should not have to"clean up" after the builder. Chair Pederson felt that the placement of a patio door would indicate to a homebuyer that a future deck was planned for and would assume that the proper setback was taken into consideration. He stated that the Building Department should take a closer look at patio door placement in the future. Commissioner Franz concurred with Chair Pederson and noted that traffic site lines should not be an issue with the deck addition. The Commissioners were in agreement that the two conditions proposed by staff were appropriate. COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY TANYA AND ROBERT OLSON FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Board of Adjustments Minutes September 24,2002 Page 3 TO REDUCE THE SETBACK FROM 35 FEET TO 21 FEET, BASED ON THE • FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP. 2. THE HARDSHIP IS CAUSED BY SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY AND THE STRUCTURE INVOLVED AND WHICH ARE NOT CHARACTERISTIC OF, OR APPLICABLE TO, OTHER LANDS OR STRUCTURE IN THE SAME AREA. 3. THE LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE WOULD DEPRIVE THE PETITIONER OF RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME DISTRICT UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS ORDINANCE. 4. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT A CONSEQUENCE OF THE PETITIONER'S OWN ACTION OR INACTION. 5. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO OR ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HEALTH,SAFETY OR WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AND WILL BE IN KEEPING WITH SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. • AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE VARIANCE SHALL ONLY APPLY TO THE NORTH FRONT PROPERTY LINE. 2. THE PORTION OF THE DECK ENCROACHING INTO THE TYPICAL 35- FOOT SETBACK SHALL NOT BE CONVERTED TO A THREE/FOUR SEASON PORCH OR AN ADDITION TO THE HOME. COMMISSIONER ROPP SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 3.2. Request by Deanna and DeWayne Leseman for Rear Yard Setback Variance,Public Hearing — Case No.V 02-05 Staff report by Chris Leeseberg. The applicants request a variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet in order to allow the construction of two decks. Mr. Leeseberg reviewed request and the five findings necessary for granting a variance. He stated that staff has provided an Option A as an alternative for the Commission to consider which would reduce the rear yard setback to 15 feet rather than 10 feet,as requested by the applicant. Commissioner Jenson stated that it appeared in the photographs that the house next door is also located at the setback. Mr. Leeseberg stated that the photos may be somewhat deceiving but it does appear that the back of the deck follows the setback. S Board of Adjustments Minutes September 24,2002 Page 4 Commissioner Franz asked why the home was not placed closer to the front setback. Mr. • Leeseberg explained that due to the odd shape of the lot,the home could possibly have been placed a couple feet closer to the front and this variance would still have been required. Chair Pederson asked if the home on the north side of this property would also require a variance for a deck. Mr.Leeseberg stated that it appears the home is placed on the setback and would also require a variance if they wished to construct a deck. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. DeAnna Leseman,applicant,13102 Elgin Drive,stated that the neighbor was told by the same builder that his home was on the 20 foot setback and he would be allowed to construct a 10 foot deck. She noted that they had begun landscaping,but stopped when they learned of the setback problem. Commissioner Franz stated that it is his recollection that one of the reasons setbacks are established is to provide space between homes so that a fire would not spread from home to home. He stated that it appears there is adequate spacing between the homes in this location. He stated he would support granting the variance. He stated that the Building Inspections Department needs to take a closer look at permits so that this does not happen in the future. Chair Pederson stated that he also supported the variance since he felt there is ample space between the homes. He stated that he felt the City needs to be accountable in preventing these types of errors from occurring. • Commissioner Jenson stated that he feels the City cannot be held liable for these types of mistakes and that the builders need to be held accountable. He stated he would like more clarification on the building permit review process. There being no further public comment, Chair Pederson closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FRANZ MOVED APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY DEANNA AND DEWAYNE LESEMAN FOR A REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO 10 FEET, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP. 2. THE HARDSHIP IS CAUSED BY SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY AND THE STRUCTURE INVOLVED AND WHICH ARE NOT CHARACTERISTIC OF, OR APPLICABLE TO, OTHER LANDS OR STRUCTURE IN THE SAME AREA. 3. THE LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE WOULD DEPRIVE THE PETITIONER OF RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME DISTRICT UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS ORDINANCE. Board of Adjustments Minutes September 24,2002 Page 5 4. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT A • CONSEQUENCE OF THE PETITIONER'S OWN ACTION OR INACTION. 5. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO OR ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HEALTH,SAFETY OR WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AND WILL BE IN KEEPING WITH SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE; AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. THE PORTION OF THE DECK ENCROACHING INTO THE TYPICAL 20- FOOT SETBACK SHALL NOT BE CONVERTED TO A THREE-FOUR SEASON PORCH OR AN ADDITION TO THE HOME. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 4. Other Business-None 5. Adjournment There being no further business, COMMISSIONER JENSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. • The meeting of the Elk River Board of Adjustments adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,0 tt 9V44.0 i+mac.. Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary •