Alexandria Township
Alexandria, Minnesota 56308
Minutes of the meeting of April 18, 2016
A Board of Adjustment meeting of Alexandria Township was held on the 18th day of April, 2016 at the Alexandria Township Conference Room, 324 Broadway.
Chair Feuling opened the meeting at 6:02 PM.
Zoning Administrator Oleson presented the variance request submitted by Christopher Guarneri to construct a 10’ x 24’ storage building approximately 21 feet from Lake Victoria (minimum 50 feet required) and 20 feet from a road right of way (minimum 32 feet required). Impervious coverage to be reduced from 39.4% to 37.7% (maximum 25% allowed). Proposed shed to replace an existing shed located approximately 6.8 feet from the lake. The property is located at 1720 E. Lake Victoria Road SE. Property ID: 03-1901-000. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing 10’ x 20’ shed with a 10’ x 4’ open deck in front with a 10’ x 20’ shed with a 10’ x 4’ covered porch attached to the front. In replacing the shed, the applicant would be moving it back from the lake so that the lake setback would increase from 2.8 feet to 21 feet (as measured to the deck) and from 6.8 feet to 25 feet (as measured to the main part of the shed). The road setback would be 20 feet to the road right of way (minimum required is 32 feet) after the proposed moving of the shed. The side yard setback would decrease from 6.1 feet to 6 feet (minimum 6 feet required). The height of the shed would also increase, from 80” sidewalls with an overall height of about 98” (7’8”) to either 75” or 92” sidewalls with an overall height of either 136-3/4” (11’3-3/4”) or 154” (12’9”). Oleson stated that the existing shed is 17’ away from the lake.
Mr. Guarneri indicated that there were two options with regard to the height aspect: 1) barn style roof of 12’9” with extended wall height from ground to peak (extended wall height was to allow for a service door on the side facing the cabin) or 2) gabled style roof with the same wall height but with a lower profile on the roof which would bring it to 10’8-1/2” from ground to maximum peak.
Mr. Guarneri addressed the issue of water possibly affecting the neighhbors’ cabins due to close proximity. Brad Nyberg of Nyberg Surveying stated that ways to mitigate the problem are 1) to use a skidloader to remove the concrete from underneath the old boathouse, and 2) to build a 6” swale between the proposed shed and the old boathouse site. Mr. Guarneri also proposed putting gutters on the shed to move the flow of water away from that area.
Chair Feuling opened the meeting to the public for comment.
Supervisor Oberg questioned the slab height in relation to the drainage issue. Mr. Guarneri stated that he did not plan on putting in a concrete slab. The proposed shed would be built on skids. The building inspector had also recommended using a Class 5 base.
Supervisor Dahlheimer stated he is in favor of moving the shed back, but questioned the size of the proposed shed relative to the size of the other structures. He also questioned the verbage; i.e. lofted barn cabin and a cabin with a gabled roof. Mr. Guarneri mentioned that the verbage was misleading (cabin vs. shed) and that these are in fact the same building and provided pictures (brochures) of the different styles of configurations. He reiterated that the purpose is for the structure to be a shed and not a dwelling place.
Chair Feuling clarified that the new shed would have the same footprint but just a bit taller. Mr. Guarneri said in terms of the enclosed space, 10’ x 20’, yes.
Supervisor Eldevik asked if the applicant was comfortable with the gabled roof design or if he preferred the other roof style. Mr. Guarneri stated he would do whatever is required. Eldevik questioned the 13’ height. Mr. Guarneri said he realized the roof height would be higher than the cabin, but wanted to maximize storage capacity.
Oleson stated the height maximum for a dwelling would be 25’ and this is under that. The height maximum for an accessory-type shed is 10’. He stated that the definition of “height” is to take the peak and the eave and go halfway the distance between the two. State law will allow the applicant to replace the shed with the same height, same location and same footprint without a variance.
Chair Feuling asked for any further comments from the public. Hearing none, she closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Chair Feuling restated that the board could approve, deny, or table the request. The public hearing was closed at 6:11 p.m.
Chair Feuling opened the public hearing on the Westbrock variance application at 6:12 p.m.
Zoning Administrator Oleson presented the variance request submitted by Leon Westbrock on behalf of the Leon E. and Patricia M. Westbrock Family Limited Partnership to create a two lot subdivision where the lot width at the public road will be 77 feet for each lot (minimum of 100 feet required). The property is located at 1512 Maple Drive SE. The applicants have an existing 2.9 acre lot that they desire to subdivide into two lots. The minimum width required for new lots on Lake Victoria is 100 feet and the existing road frontage for the current lot is only 153-154 feet. The width at the lake is almost 300 feet, so there is no need for a variance related to lot width at the lake. The proposal is to have two lots that would be about 77 feet wide each at the road. Oleson also stated that there are three existing ALASD stubs; however he was uncertain as to the location for each. In light of this, part of the variance request is to allow the applicant to continue with the platting process with the lesser road widths. Historically, the lot was originally platted in 1950, split via variance into three lots in 1989 and then recombined into one lot via variance in 1995.
Chair Feuling asked when the county originally approved the variance to split the lot into three parcels, was the 100’ width requirement in place at the time. Oleson stated yes.
Mr. Westbrock read from a written statement as follows: He is functioning as an agent for the Leon E. and Patricia M. Westbrock Family Limited Partnership and thus has the authority to apply for the variance and participate in any legal transactions. He stated he and his wife purchased the property in spring of 2003 as they wanted to reside on the chain of lakes. In September of 2006 they purchased property on Lake Carlos and proceeded to build their present home there. They then decided to place the property on Maple Drive for sale. The partnership pleads no financial hardship and are asking for no economic relief from the township. At the time of purchase, they understood that the lot had at one time been split into three parcels. In order to make the lot marketable, they feel it needs to be split. They also understand another option would be to approach a neighbor to see if they would be willing to sell enough land for the applicant to meet appropriate setbacks. To date they have not pursued this option.
Chair Feuling opened the meeting to the public for comment.
Paul and Deb Roberts, 1414 Maple Drive SE, said they recently purchased their property and are concerned about a negative impact to property values for neighboring lots if the Westbrock parcel is allowed to be split. They also stated they wanted to know the applicants’ purpose in splitting the lot.
Bernie and Elizabeth Van Zomeran, 1323 Maple Drive SE, stated they feel the lot needs to remain as one parcel and do not agree with the rationale to split the property. They also contend that the split would alter the character of the area as well as contribute to a spiraling effect on the neighborhood.
Chair Feuling asked for any further comments from the public. Hearing none, she closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Supervisor Dahlheimer asked the Roberts’ if their property at one time was two lots and was later combined into one. They responded yes. He asked if they built their home and they responded no, that it was built in 1991.
Supervisor Eldevik asked why ALASD couldn’t definitively say whether there were three service stubs. Oleson responded that the sewer district said there were three sewer stubs. Oleson did not know the exact location for each. The district said there were three stubs in the driveway; however, there are two existing driveways. Oleson assumed that the north driveway would have two of the three stubs. Eldevik asked if all three assessments were paid to the sewer district. Oleson stated that the original assessment was assigned to one lot and hook up charges would be assessed once the properties were to connect.
Chair Feuling adjourned the Board of Adjustment meeting at 6:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted….
______________________________________
Bonnie Fulghum, Deputy Clerk
Approved this ____ day of ________, 2016
_______________________________________
Jul Feuling, Chair