Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-26-71 Board of Appeals and Adjustments G'. Minutes Board of Adjustment and Appeals June 26, 1971 A. CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals was called to order at 11:45 A.M. June 26, 1971. (B) ROLL CALL Lester G. Axdahl Absent John C. Greavu Present Harald L. Haugan Present Patricia L. Olson Present Donald J. Wiegert Present (C) PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. A variance request from section 905. of the zoning code and section 311. of the building code of the Municipal Code of Maplewood, Minnesota for the property legally described as Lot 7, Block 6, Hillside Homesites and more commonly referred to as 1806 North Myrtle, being request- ed by RQy Gosselin, owner of such property. The application for variance, from Mr. Gosselin, read as follows: June 24, 1971 Roy Gosselin, hereby requests of the Board of Appeal from the village of Maplewood a variance of twenty feet for the purpose of building a swimming pool. on the South or Ripley side of his property together with permission to place a cyclone fence around the pool to comply with State Law requirements also to place fence within 10 feet of property line. All other factors to comply with build- - ing permit. Roy Gosselin A. Staff Recommendations Staff recommended denial of the variance on the follow- ing grounds: 1) Inadequate time to prepare staff recommendations and conditions 2) The variance requested would be a major deviation from the set-back requirements of the zoning ordinance. This ordinance was adopted for a specific reason and these reasons should be reviewed and the reasonableness of the ordinance determined instead of establishing a possible precident by granting a variance to the zoning ordinance where in our opinion, a hardship did not exist. 3) The legality of holding a public hearing and conducting business without typical receipting, variance denial by staff, and public notices being sent was questioned and denial recommended till these processes could be completed. 4) Public Safety Factors Despite conditions imposed by the board concern- ing the type of fencing to be placed around the pool, it is reasonable to assume screening of the pool from the street is liable to occur. Such. screening will cause sight vision problems for motorists. Also, the type of usage connect- ed with a swimming pool could be very dangerous when placed next to an improved street. B. Applicants reasons for requesting the variance. 1) The other location for the pool, as recommended by the building official, would cause safety problems. (From this location the pool could - not be seen from the house). 2)' The+proposed site of the pool had been reviewed by the previous building official and informally granted. Also, the permit had been issued by the present building official, before being denied, raising questions in the applicants mind as to the method of interpreting ordinances in this Village. 3) In the applicants opinion there would be no sight distance. or public safety problems associated with the proposed sight and he would conform to whatever conditions wished by the board concern- ing the type of fencing. C. Official Action by the Board of Adjustment-and Appeals After discussion of the issues presented, the following motion was made by John Greavu, and seconded by Patricia Olson: A variance from Sec. 311 of the building code and Sec. 905. of the zoning code of the Municipal Code of the Village of Maplewood for the property commonly described as 1806 North Myrtle, is hereby granted. The specific nature of these variances are as follows: 1) A ten (10) foot variance from the setback distance of Sec. 905 of zoning ordinance is hereby granted. The set-back distance, thereby calculated (twenty feet), shall be measured from the edge of the pro- posed pool to the South right-of-way line of Ripley Street. 2) A fourteen (14) foot variance from the set-back distance of Sec. 311 of building code (as revised) is hereby granted. The set-back distance, thereby -2- calculated (sixteen feet) shall be measured from such fence to the South right-of-way line of Ripley Street. All of the above is granted upon the condition that the fence to be constructed around the pro- posed swimming pool shall be a cyclone type fence. The right of the applicant to 51at or in any other way dminish'_', the visibility characteristics of this type of fence shall be dependent upon the discretion of the public safety director, who may allow slating or alterations in the visibility characteristics of the fence, if in his opinion, such slating or alterations do not cause a public safety problem or hazard. All other factors of the proposed structure and associated improvements shall be as stated in the building permit. D. Finding of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals The topography of the lot would not allow another safe location for the proposed structure and such topographical characteristics were not caused by the applicant. It was further found that the variance in question was on a side yard which due to the character- istics of the neighborhood would not cause a hardship or interfer with the frontages on Ripley. E. Adjournment: 12:15 P.M. June 26, 1971. ~~yz~ ~ ~ ~a~ ~ ~c«P~_~ City -3- MEMO • T0: Village Manager Michael Miller FROM: Chief of Police R. W: Schaller SUBJECT: Tabulation of Bids to Remodel Municipal Building Bid Remodel 1-71. Attached you will find the results of the bids `recetyed at . 2:00 P.M., March 17, 1971. You will note the low lump sum base bid is Gutterman Construction Company at $15,683:00. However,.. in discussing his bid with Mr. Gutterman today he advises he read the specifications addendem No. 1 and he felt that Alternate No. 2 was deleted rather than the price for deleting the movable parts= tions, Accordingly, he advises he cannot perform the i:~ork specified for his base bid amount. The next low bidder is Gilbert Construction Company at $16,386.00, Me lists Alternate f11 deduct at $2,100.00, Alternate N2 deduct at $1,140.00, and Alternate N3 at $413.D0. I would recommend that you consider recommending the apparent low qualified bid of Gilbert Construction Company of $16,396,D0, and to eliminate Alternates ffl - Public Safety Section intercom system, and ~'3 - paneling in court room and counts -chambers for a net bid of $13,8$3.00, with them purchasing the buil-ding permit plus the per unit price for electric and telephone receptacles on the first floor. Further, l recommend we do this with as much dispatch as possible. 1 am attaching all the bid papers herewith for your rev ew and advice. Sin~ly, R W. Schaller