HomeMy Public PortalAbout09-18-2000PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 18, 2000
PRESENT: LENNY LEUER, BRUCE WORKMAN, JIM LANE AND TOM SUPEL.
ALSO PRESENT PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR LOREN
KOHNEN AND PLANNING AND ZONING ASSISTANT SANDIE
LARSON.
ABSENT: SUSIE MACKAY, ELIZABETH WEIR AND JERRY BROST
Chairperson Lenny Leuer called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
1. Harvey Andersen - 3121 Lakeshore Ave - Side Yard and Lake Set -Back
Variance Request for Deck Replacement
Loren Kohnen read the memo to the planning commission and also read from the
resolution granting this variance a little over one year ago.
Harvey Andersen said there were no changes in the plans.
Jim Lane asked why this was not completed last year.
H. Andersen said that he got tied up in a closing for a business and they just ran out of
time.
J. Lane asked if it could be done in 30-60 days.
H. Andersen said the contractor was ready to go as soon as approved.
J. Lane asked how long a building permit was valid.
L. Kohnen said that there must be an inspection every 6 months or it expires.
H. Andersen said it would be only weeks once they get started.
L. Kohnen said they will ask the council for approval to start construction before the
resolution was signed.
Lenny Leuer said he remembered this from last year and the stairs were an issue. They
were closer to the lake than the current deck and also were right on an embankment.
H. Andersen said the stairs have been moved to the side of the house and are no
longer on the lake side. The plans that were submitted with this application were the
same ones as last year so they did show the stairs on the lake side. He said he would
get newer plans before the council meeting.
1
L. Kohnen said there was no problem with the stairs on the side of the house.
The public hearing was closed.
Tom Supel asked for some background on these sort of variances - he wanted to know
if the deck had been in compliance at some time.
L. Leuer said yes, probably at the time the house was built.
T. Supel asked if there were things that are grandfathered in. He said this seems to
happen all the time, grandfathering an existing use. If it was destroyed, etc, it could not
be rebuilt - correct?
L. Kohnen said it is reasonable to let someone rebuild with variances because it is only
the setbacks that are non -conforming, not the use.
T. Supel asked if someone was doing exactly what is there, why do they need a
variance.
L. Kohnen said because it does not meet the current setbacks.
T. Supel said this should be granted because it is like general maintenance like re-
roofing or re -siding.
Bruce Workman said it is reasonable because it is here - we've done a lot of variances
because of the size of lots.
T. Supel wanted to know if anyone has brought up the idea of documenting the
variances and he was told they are all kept in one book, plus in the address files.
B. Workman said that practically every deck that has been replaced has needed a
variance, especially in the Lake Independence area.
H. Andersen said there is also the safety issue because of rotting boards, etc.
J. Lane said there is no good hardship here - it is a permitted use and is only a setback
issue, the setbacks are not conforming, but are consistent with others in the area.
L. Kohnen explained hardships.
There was discussion of hardships. A sheet will be made up, that both applicants and
planning commission will get with each variance application.
J. Lane said safety is not a hardship for granting a variance - it may be a hardship for
the homeowner.
2
H. Andersen said the denying a variance would deny me the use that I have had.
There was continued discussion of hardships.
L. Leuer said that variances have been granted in this area for new homes also
because of the odd shaped lots, small, etc.
J. lane said he worries about the inconsistency of setbacks. He said there is premier
lakeshore to protect. Mr. Andersen has a case for a variance, but he said he does
worry about the 75' lake setback being disregarded.
H. Andersen said that the deck does not encroach on the lake because the lot is not flat
to the lake.
B. Workman said we do not allow the non -conforming setbacks to get any less, but
replacing what is there - he said a precedent had been set many years before this.
L. Leuer said Jim was correct, this is more than a 50% variance. He said when he
examined the lot he could see where the existing deck had been.
MOVED BY BRUCE WORKMAN AND SECONDED BY TOM SUPEL TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES, 38' VARIANCE TO
THE LAKE SETBACK AND A 3.6' VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH
THE ONE STIPULATION THAT THE PLANS SHOW THE STAIRS MOVED TO THE
SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
MOTION PASSED.
2. Eric and Judith Strommen - 2235 County Road 24 - Set -Back Variance for
Deck/Porch Replacement
Loren Kohnen read the memo to the planning commission. He said that the porch and
deck were in such poor condition , they have to be rebuilt.
Bruce Workman asked why it could not be built with 5' less.
Harold, Har-Lyn Construction, said if they did that it would be a 1' deck. He showed
them on the pictures, the sizes, etc. He said the new one would be less than the
existing with a cement patio. He showed Lenny where the new steps would be.
Ross Thorfinson, 2165 Cottonwood Trail, said he never got notified when the existing
was built.
There was discussion of where the deck would be built - it would require a 6' variance.
3
R. Thorfinson said the Strommen's are not doing anything they are concerned about -
they will be a good neighbor.
Tom Supel said is there a problem with a realtor not telling a buyer that the deck/porch
was not conforming to current setbacks.
Harold said that once they got the property surveyed they saw that the house was built
at an angle.
Jim Lane said that a standard residential purchase agreement generally provides that a
buyer takes title to property subject to building and zoning laws, ordinances, and other
applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
The public hearing was closed.
MOVED BY BRUCE WORKMAN AND SECONDED BY JIM LANE TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF A 6' VARIANCE TO REPLACE THE EXISTING DECK/PORCH AT
2235 COUNTY ROAD 24 WITH THE FOLLOWING HARDSHIPS:
Placement of existing house
Need to replace unsafe conditions
Tom Supel wanted to know what the hardship was.
B. Workman said the placement of the existing house.
Lenny Leuer read from the ordinance that talks about hardships and one of them is
something that the homeowner has no control over - the placement of the house.
B. Workman said because some of the hardship criteria is a gray area, we have to help
interpret.
R. Thorfinson said we are the only adjoining landowner and we are not opposed to it.
L. Kohnen said this is a minimal request.
B. Workman said rights to enjoy your property ought to be a standard.
There was discussion of setbacks and variances - new vs existing.
R. Thorfinson said that they had never been advised that the former owner was not in
compliance - this gentleman is going to be a good neighbor.
There was discussion of older homes.
T. Supel said that you treat people fairly when you go by the rules.
4
B. Workman said that we have asked and confirmed that they are doing the same size,
etc, that exists now.
L. Kohnen said that the attorney would not draft a resolution without a hardship.
B. Workman said that the city council has overruled the planning commission before.
MOTION PASSED.
3. Cy Ducharme - 2182 Pinto Drive - Variance to Soil Requirements and
Subdivision - Continued from June 2000 Meeting
Loren Kohnen explained what is happening, that we were waiting for further information
concerning easements on the property - Mr. Ducharme has stated that he would build a
road completely on his property if this was not worked out.
The questions was what the hardship to a variance for the soil requirement would be
and Loren said the city was requesting the easement that would make the soils less
than required making the lots non -conforming in size. Mr. Ducharme is not causing this.
Tom Supelsaid he would have a problem granting a variance on this hardship. If it is
between the integrity of the ordinance and paying fair market value for some property
there is no question - -
There was discussion of taking easements.
This will come back to the planning commission when the information requested is
received.
4. General lnformation
Loren Kohnen gave some information concerning the Bendickson property north of
Highway 55 on County Road 101 - he said that part of the property was zoned MR and
that Charles Cudd was looking at it.
5. Minutes
6-28-00
page 3 - 3/4 way down - in Lenny's comment - change `hr' to the and change `closer' to
close.
MOVED BY JIM LANE AND SECONDED BY TOM SUPEL TO ACCEPT THE
MINUTES AS CORRECTED.
MOTION PASSED.
5
7-10-00
Page 3, Lenny's comment at end of page, change `it' to fs; page 7, toward top of page
in J. Ferris comment, change `of to if.
MOVED BY BRUCE WORKMAN AND SECONDED BY TOM SUPEL TO ACCEPT THE
MINUTES AS CORRECTED.
MOTION PASSED.
8-17-00
Page 4, bottom of page in D. Newman's comment, change `going up 101' to side.; page
6, toward end of page in Tom Olson's comment, correct the word open.
MOVED BY TOM SUPEL AND SECONDED BY BRUCE WORKMAN TO ACCEPT THE
MINUTES AS CORRECTED.
MOTION PASSED.
9-7-00
Page 1 about % way down in L. Leuer comment, delete the 1st and; page 6 in B.
Workman's 1st comment change `way' to say and in Carolyn Smith's comment change
`that' to what; page 7 about 2/3 of the way down in J. Lane's comment delete not in the
1st sentence.
MOVED BY JIM LANE AND SECONDED BY BRUCE WORKMAN TO ACCEPT THE
MINUTES AS CORRECTED.
MOTION PASSED.
MOVED BY JIM LANE AND SECONDED BY TOM SUPEL TO ADJOURN.
MOTION PASSED.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Planning and Zoning Assistant Date
6