Polk County Board of Adjustment August 25, 2017

Transcription

1 Polk County Board of Adjustment August 25, 2017 Call to Order: 9:20 a.m. Members in Attendance: Robert Franks, Mike Powers, Rolland Gagner, Donovan Wright, and Courtney Pulkrabek. Members Absent: None Also Present: Polk County Environmental Services staff: Josh Holte & Jacob Snyder. Roll was taken by Holte. Minutes: A motion was made by Franks to approve the minutes from the July 28, 2017 meeting. Second by Pulkrabek. All in favor. Public Hearing: ATF-VARIANCE Jon & Junelle Hjelmstad Parcel # Powers read the notice, waiving reading the full legal and turned the meeting over to Holte. Holte stated the applicant is requesting an after the fact variance to exceed the maximum accessory structure square footage on a non-riparian parcel on Maple Lake. Holte stated that the Polk County Zoning Ordinance Section States: Accessory structures. The following standards shall apply to accessory structures in the Shoreland Overlay District property: (C) On a non-riparian parcel or located a distance of 300 feet or more from the Ordinary High Water mark on a riparian parcel, a maximum size of 2400 sq.ft. for an accessory structure shall be permitted. The combined total of all accessory structures shall not exceed 3200 sq.ft. on a non-riparian parcel. No more than two accessory structures shall

2 be permitted on any non-riparian parcel. The maximum height of the accessory structure(s) shall be twenty-five (25) feet. (E) No septic systems installed for use in an accessory structure shall be permitted unless first obtaining a C.U.P. (H) All non-riparian lot accessory structures between 800 sq.ft. and 2400 sq.ft. and a maximum height of 25 feet shall be setback 40 feet from the township road right-of-way. Holte stated that the applicants own a riparian and non-riparian lot on Maple Lake. The total backlot size is 22,050 square feet. The applicants riparian lot contains a house and attached garage. There is also a small shed on the riparian lot. The applicants combined two backlots together and there is also an existing 16 x 24 (384 sq. ft) shed on the backlot. The applicants received a permit to build a new 40 x 60 (2400 sq. ft) shed in The shed met all the setbacks and ordinance requirements. The applicants received a CUP to connect the accessory structure to a holding tank, which has been installed. The applicants completed and recorded a no guesthouse waiver as a requirement of the CUP. Holte added that in July, PCPZ became aware of an overhang that was constructed on the 40 x 60 (2,400 sq. ft.) accessory structure. PCPZ staff mailed a letter to the applicant stating that the large overhang had to be removed from the building and that it was not part of the permit application from After discussing the situation with PCPZ staff, the applicant decided to apply for an after the fact variance, in order to try and get approval to keep the overhang/covered porch addition. The overhang addition was 720 sq. ft. (2-9 x 40 overhangs with 11 support posts). That brought the total square footage of the structure up to 3,120 sq. ft. Holte stated the applicants stated practical difficulty is that they were not advised by Polk Co. that an overhang is considered in the total sq. footage. The applicants stated that in their opinion the variance is consistent with PCZO and Comprehensive Plan as the building is a 40 x 60 occupied space. The overhang is not occupied space. (They did not know that an overhang is considered in sq. footage.) They added that Polk Co. did not ask to see any blue prints before starting their project. If they had, they could have advised us at that time about the overhang. We would not have to be asking for the variance. They also added that the proposal puts the property to use in a reasonable manner. The building is designed in a way that adds beauty to that area. After the landscaping, it will have a park like appearance. The applicants stated that the circumstances are unique to the property, not created by the landowner. They do not feel that they are at fault in this situation as there was nothing in their checklist or letters/ s regarding overhangs. Holte added that the applicants stated that the variance will maintain the essential character of the locality as it actually enhances the character of the locality. It sits back on this lot where there will be no issues with rain water run-off. It is on a large lot that fits very comfortably in relationship to neighboring property. The applicants stated that the 2

3 variance involves more than just economic considerations because there was a huge lack of communication. They would have designed the building differently had they known there was an issue with an overhang. The applicants also identified that there is another feasible method to alleviate the need for a variance. They added that there is another building on this lot, that we would hate to tear down, but that would put us under the 3,200 sq. ft. max limit. (As a side note, that would not satisfy the PCZO requirements since this building would still be over the 2,400 sq. ft. maximum.) Holte stated that comments received included a letter from Stephanie Klamm, DNR Area Hydrologist. Klamm stated that the DNR recommends denial of the variance request for allowing the overhangs on the existing structure putting the building size over the allowed square footage allowed on the non-riparian lot. Economic or personal preferences do not constitute a practical difficulty. The Hjelmstad s should investigate other options that could be implemented which would comply with your ordinance. (A complete copy of the letter was read during the hearing.) Holte added that Barb Dokken, neighboring property owner, stated that this request seems very minor to her. She is in favor of letting them keep the overhang. She feels as though it is happening because people have complained, and people need to just let people be. She also feels that it actually improves property values in the area. Holte added that Bonnie Abel, Maple Lake Improvement District clerk, stated via phone conversation that the MLID has no issues with the requested variance. Holte went through pictures of the site/project, the location on Maple Lake, and other pertinent images to the variance request. Holte stated that it is unfortunate that the overhangs were not included in the original permit application for this project. If they would have been, the application would have been denied, or the applicants would have had to resize their building. Unfortunately, all that was listed on the application and paperwork we received from the applicant on the original request, was for a 40 x 60 (2,400 sq. ft.) storage building. Without having it listed on the original application, our staff would have no way of knowing what the applicants were proposing. The overhangs basically constitute a covered porch/patio, and that needs to be factored in to the maximum size of 2,400 sq. ft. It is also important to remember that this was permitted as a storage/accessory building. Its main purpose should be for storage and not as living space. In light of all the evidence presented in this case, staff feels that the applicant failed to meet the criteria necessary to grant this after the fact variance request. Therefore staff recommends denial of the after the fact variance for the 720 sq. ft. overhang addition. Holte read the letter that the applicants wrote with their application for an after-the-fact variance request (complete copy of this letter is on file at PCPZ). 3

4 Powers asked if the applicants had anything else they wanted to add? Jon Hjelmstad stated they wrote the letter to explain how they felt about the situation that occurred with their building project. He stated that he thinks the question is, what is an overhang and what is a porch. Ordinance section sites square footage allowed but does not address overhangs and there are hundreds of overhangs around the lake. He added that he feels that PCPZ staff should require a blue print to be approved as part of the checklist they received for the CUP process to ensure this does not happen again. Schulz asked if there is any concrete under the overhangs? Junelle Hjelmstad stated that was the plan but since they got the letter they have stopped all construction on the building. Diedrich asked if there are plans to have screens or short walls around the building? Junelle Hjelmstad stated the overhangs were actually something that the lumberyard added to the project and they liked the look of the overhangs. She added that nothing was stated that they could not have it so they moved forward with adding them into their plans. Apparently someone didn t like them and complained about them. Powers asked who their contractor was that constructed the building? Jon Hjelmstad stated that Mike Kolden was their contractor and he was not aware of the overhangs factored into the square footage allowed either. He added that the contractor was as shocked as they were. Schulz added Mike Kolden is a local contractor from Erskine. Powers asked if the overhangs were factored into the plan before the permit was issued or when? Jon Hjelmstad answered they were added after the permit was issued, the lumberyard added the overhangs to the plans and they liked it. He added that if there was a checklist with the process that included blueprint approval it would have been corrected prior to construction. The overhangs have been on the structure since May. Vonasek asked if there are any other setback issues with the overhangs? Holte stated that he thinks all other setbacks will be met as it is setback from the roadways back on the lot. Gagner stated that overhangs are like decks on cabins they need to meet the setbacks if they are a certain height. He asked Holte if he received a blueprint on the plans prior to permitting? Holte stated they only received the application stating a 40 x 60 structure and a site sketch. 4

5 Gagner asked if the building is sectioned off as to storage and other rooms? Jon Hjelmstad stated that it s sectioned off to a garage and other rooms, but no bedrooms. Gagner asked if the project had no blueprints during permitting and the overhangs came on after the permit was issued? Junelle Hjelmstad stated that the lumberyard put the overhangs on the project after they received the permit, but no one told them that overhangs are not allowed. Holte stated the difference is that it is not a standard overhang the overhangs have their own support beams. The overhang could be walled off and is a lean-to that must be factored into the allowable square footage. Diedrich added that the standard overhang is inches and this is 9 feet. Jon Hjelmstad stated that they did not intentionally disregard the rule just were never told they couldn t put the overhangs on the building. Pulkrabek stated that the DNR letter referred to the drainage to the lake. Holte stated he does not see the request negatively affecting drainage for the lot. Jon Hjelmstad asked to go back to the pictures of the lot. He added that Duke Street goes directly through his lot and he owns some property on the west side of the street. Holte stated that the lot is still going to meet the 25% or less impervious coverage as Duke Street is gravel and does not affect the impervious surface coverage of the lot. Jon Hjelmstad stated there are no drainage issues on the lot. Diedrich stated that he does not have a vote and is not a member of the BOA but he would hate to see a screen put up or sleeping quarters in the structure. He added that he does have an issue with the change of plans after the permit was issued, but hates to say it does look good. Pulkrabek asked if the MLID is aware of the structure? Schulz stated the MLID does not have an issue with the building or overhangs. Jon Hjelmstad stated they went by the rules for the structure they just were not aware of the overhangs not allowed. Junelle Hjelmstad added that the overhangs were a change in the plans but they were not aware that they were not allowed. 5

6 Snyder added that he has worked at PZ office for 8 years and he has not had this issue come up in that time. We have been recently seeing some overhangs that are added to storage buildings but to keep in mind they are for storage and so we do not think a covered patio is really needed for storage buildings. The request we had today was for a garage with a carport that put it over the square footage allowed without a CUP. The overhang is something we factor into the square footage just as we do for lean-to additions and these overhangs can be easily walled up to enclose the space. We cannot hold peoples hands when we permit structures. We are a very busy office and landowners need to take some responsibility in the project meeting the rules too. Gagner asked if it is a two-story building as he noticed some windows above the overhangs? Junelle Hjelmstad stated it is two-story and they have a large game room in the upstairs. Gagner asked if the building was metal siding? Jon Hjelmstad answered that it is metal siding. Gagner stated that the overhang was then planned when the project started. Pulkrabek stated only one person made a comment on it and that they were for the overhangs staying. Powers stated that he is also on the East Grand Forks Planning Council and they had a similar issue last summer. The individual put up an overhang that did not meet the setbacks and in the end, they needed to tweak it to meet the setbacks. He added ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of the law. Jon Hjelmstad stated that the ordinance does not specify that overhangs are part of the square footage of a building. He added that he discussed it with his lawyer and they could not find anything that says anything about the overhang being factored in to the allowed square footage. Holte added that although it is vague in the ordinance that section 3 defines buildings or things attached to the building in the definition. With the supports that are needed to have the overhang it is not a standard overhang, it is a covered porch and we have always factored them into square footage allowed in the past. Snyder added that if we do not factor the overhangs into the square footage then you could technically enclose the space and we would never know any different. The space could be altered to be a screened porch without needing a permit because you are not adding square footage to the structure. Pulkrabek asked that if the landowners removed the old shed on the property would it meet the square footage criteria. 6

7 Holte stated that it would still not meet the requirements without the old shed. It is stated in the ordinance that the max square footage of any structure on a backlot is 2400 sq ft and the total allowed is 3200 sq. ft. for backlots. Diedrich stated that he agrees the ordinance is vague on the overhang issue but the fact is that the plans changed after the permit was issued. He added that we do not have any neighbors opposing it so he is leaning towards allowing it. Holte stated that he respects Diedrich s opinion but there is a process involved in variance requests and they must find that a practical difficulty exists by going through the variance questions. Jon Hjelmstad stated that he got the letter and they felt a little pressured after talking to Jake in the office about getting the variance application in so they may have been able to answer the questions a bit differently given they had more time to process the situation. He added that the way he feels is that both parties are at fault as there was no checklist for awnings on it and we changed our original plans. Pulkrabek stated the situation could happen to anyone. Holte stated that he had people in the office the other day with plans that included a 40 x 60 building with a covered patio out front and he told them the building needed to be sized down or covered patio removed in order to permit it. Typically, we catch these issues on the plans and correct them before construction begins. Schulz stated you can have a 4-foot overhang and not need support posts with no issues. The posts are needed, as this is 9-feet. Gagner stated he has noticed a few of these pole buildings with overhangs and believes there is one on Maple Lake Drive. Holte noted that that particular structure, the overhang was factored in the allowable square footage for the structure. Powers stated that the East Grand Forks situation he noted earlier was an overhang being to close to the setback without posts. Wright stated that he re-built a covered porch on his lake cabin many years ago and needed to scale it down from 8 feet to 4 feet to comply with setbacks. The old porch needed to be cut down in size to comply and that s just part of the rules you need to follow. Powers asked if there were any other comments? With no other questions from the Board, Holte asked the Board the Variance questions to exceed the maximum square footage for any one structure from 2400 sq. ft. to 3120 sq. ft. 7

8 Question Pulkrabek Wright Franks Gagner Powers 1. Yes Yes Yes No No 2. Yes Yes Yes No No 3. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 4. No No No Yes No 5. Yes Yes Yes No No 6. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Holte stated that with 20 yes s and 10 no s the criteria has been met/satisfied. Holte then asked the After the Fact Variance questions. Question Pulkrabek Wright Franks Gagner Powers 1. Yes Yes Yes No Yes 2. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3. Yes No No Yes No 4. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 6. Yes Yes Yes Yes yes Holte stated that with 26 yes s and 4 no s the criteria has been met to either grant or deny the variance request. Pulkrabek asked what the applicants could do if the variance was denied? Holte stated that if denied the applicants could appeal in district court. Pulkrabek made a motion to approve the variance, second by Wright, All in favor. Motion carries. Meeting adjourned. The next meeting will be held on September 22,