The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC MINUTES 11151977 Meeting Sheet IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII 106567 Box: 36 Folder: CC MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1977 Document: CC MINUTES 11151977 • CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 15, 1977 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hiebel at 7: 30 P.M. Present for roll call : Bowerman, Rymarchick, Hiebel, Klick and Le- tourneau Absent: Cowan and Marks Also present: Jim Fornell, City Manager Motion by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by Mr. Rymarchick to approve the minutes for the October 18, 1977 Planning Board meeting as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Mr. Rymarchick and seconded by Mr. Letourneau to approve the • minutes of the Special Board meeting held November 1, 1977 as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Letourneau was designated to represent the Board at the next Council meeting. Mr. Marks arrived at 7: 33 P.M. at which time Mr. Hiebel opened the Public Hearing to consider a request from Peter S. Cartwright for a variance to the sideyard requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance for a basement addition to his home at 3423 Maplewood Drive. The Manager confirmed that all requirements pursuant to holding such a hearing had been met including that of notification and there was no one present who indicated a failure to receive such notification nor who objected to the contents of the notice. Mr. Cartwright explained that, after he had gotten a building permit for the 236 square foot addition he proposes to build under the existing sun deck, he became concerned about its proximity to the property line and had the property re-surveyed. This resulted in a finding that the original survey had been in error and rather than the northernmost point of the house (before the sun ,deck was added) being over ten feet from the property line, his sideyard is actually so close to the property line that the proposed addition will bring him within one foot of the • line at that point. The sun deck which he has dismantled for the con- struction was actually encroaching on the adjacent property and when 1 4 • rebuilt the design will be modified so that it will only cover the base- ment addition. A letter from the owners of the adjacent lot, Jeffrey and W. Annette Shelstad, indicated they "had no objections to the building of the Cartwright' s addition to within one foot of our existing lot line" . Mr. Cowan arrived at 7: 37 P.M. The foundation and floor for the new addition was already in before the error in the survey was confirmed, the applicant told the Board and he reiterated =the points of justification in his November 7th addendum to the Petition for Variance saying his claim for hardship was predicated on the size of his family which now includes three teenagers and a necessity for another bedroom and bath as well as a more usable recreation area in the lower level of his existing three bedroom home. He did not feel this could be done if 322 square feet were-eliminated from the 236 square foot addition he was requesting. He said since there will only be three feet of the addition built above ground, the overall aesthetics of his property would not change from that which existed with the pre- vious structure and there will be no diminishing of green spaces with the addition. Neighbors from an adjoining street were present but they said they were only interested in the outcome because they have an almost identical • situation with their own lot. No one else spoke for or against the pro- posal. Chairman Hiebel closed the hearing at 7 :40 P.M. for Board .and staff in- put. Two Board members, Mr. Klick and Mr. Letourneau, were concerned that "a dangerous precedent of allowing one foot sideyards was being set" . Mr. Letourneau was afraid once the footings were in they would result in a future request to enclose the deck area. This could pose a problem for both the homeowner and the City since there would be no room left for a fence. He disagreed with Mr. Cartwright's contention that the 14 feet between the Shelstad existing house plus the one foot to his own pro- perty line fulfilled the 15 foot sideyard requirement of the ordinance saying at least five feet are required on each side of the lot line. He did not feel cutting off four feet from the size requested for the addition would create a great hardship for Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Klick wondered if there should not be a survey required for any property where there is a question but the Manager told him this would be costly for petitioners since such a procedure costs around $250 .00 at present. Mr. Klick later asked a report from the staff on the feasibility of re- quiring surveys whenever there is a question of the original platting or survey. Previous instances where construction had been permitted closer to the • lot line than permitted by the Zoning Ordinance were mentioned by Mr. Marks who made special reference to a swimming pool which had been al- lowed on Rankin Road. He felt there was more justification for allowing (2) • "living space" than for recreational usage. He did not consider this case as comparable to those discussed where the City had denied con- struction but rather saw Mr. Cartwright's proposal as a "continuation of living space" which was grandfathered in with the deck before the new Zoning Ordinance was adopted. Mr. Cowan agreed saying "the addition v7ill make no basic change in the outward appearance of the property" . Mr. Rymarchick saw no problem with the proposal since the closest struc- ture will be a double garage which is 15 feet away and could see no interference with the passage of emergency vehicles between dwellings if the addition were allowed. Mr. Bowerman said he thought the addition should not be denied since the original plat was in error and the building permit had already been issued and footings poured before that error was discovered by the appli- cant who drew it to the attention of the City staff. Motion by Mr. Cowan and seconded by Mr. Marks to recommend to the City Council approval of a Variance to Section 4, Subdivision 5, No. 6 of the City Zoning Ordinance which will permit Peter Cartwright to construct the proposed basement addition to the property known as Plate 63753, Parcel 6525 (3423 Maplewood Drive) , which will leave a sideyard width of one foot with the stipulation that no year-round usage will•;be.:permitted above the basement level except the modified deck proposed by Mr. Cart- wright. Reasons for granting the request are that the available space cannot be adapted to a reasonable usage under the Zoning Ordinance re- quirements; there is adequate space provided between residences, and the layout of the former deck has been permitted for years. Voting on the motion: Aye: Cowan, Marks, Rymarchick, Hiebel and Bowerman Nay: Klick and Letourneau Motion carried. In reply to a question from Mr. Marks as to whether a Certificate of Occupancy was being developed, .,-the Manager said Harry Lekson and another staff member have been working on it and he said he would put the matter on the next Board agenda so preliminary recommendations could be made at that time. Mr. Marks then reported hearing of instances of difficulties residents are experiencing with the City's metes and bounds requirements. He said he would like to have the Council direct the staff to research how other communities handle cases where description-,of properties are of an un- complicated nature so -.that- .some standards could be established for handl- ing simple uncomplicated land conveyance problems. • Mr. Fornell reported that BRW, Inc. , will make the consumer surveys for the Commercial Area Study over the holiday season and anticipates a (3) • meeting with the businessmen around January 10th. Motion by Mr. Klick and seconded by Mr. Cowan to adjourn the meeting at 8: 30 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Helen Crowe Secretary • (4)