Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 07/11/1991 .d,PPSOOID � BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS • THURSDAY, July 11, 1991 7:30 P.M. City Stall Council Chamcers, 7600 Executive Dr., Eden Prairie, ITT 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS Harvey, Freemyer, Wilkus, Akemann, Anderson, Weeks, Arockiasamy STAFF PRESENT: Steve Durham-Planning, Sharon Storholm,Sec'y BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None I. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 P.M. Roll call was taken as noted above. All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. II . MINUTES OF JUNE 13 , 1991 MEETING Harvey noted that on page 8, the idea he meant to put across was that the first recourse should be against the builder. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve the minutes as amended. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously with Weeks abstaining. III VARIANCES Chairman Harvey explained the variance procedure to those present. A. Request #91-017 submitted by Hidden Creek Development Corporation for property located east of County Road #4 at Mere Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11. Section 11 03, Subdivision 2 B. (1) to permit proposed Lot 8. Block 2. Hidden Creek with a lot depth less than 1001. City Code requires a minimum 100' lot depth: (2) City Code, Chapter 12, Section 12.30, Subdivision 12 A. to permit all lots within proposed Hidden Creek without lot frontage on a public street. City Code requires all lots to have frontage on a public street. The applicant requested that this item be continued. MOTION: Anderson moved that Variance request 91-017 be continued until the next meeting. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. B. Request #91-018, submitted by The Robert Larsen Partners for property located south of Singletree Lane, west of Eden Road and east of Prairie Center Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.03 Subdivision 2 B. to permit a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Base Area Ratio (BAR) of.212. City Code maximum BAR and FAR is .20. 2 • The applicant has requested that this variance request be withdrawn. G, Request #91-019, submitted by Gail and John Hildebrant for property located at 6502 and 6506 Manchester Lane, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Subdivision 2 B. to permit a driveway 0' from the side lot line for properties at 6502 and 6506 Manchester Lane, City Code requires a 3' side yard driveway setback in the Rl Zoning District. Gail & John Hildebrant came forward to present their variance request. He explained that they would like a variance request to leave the driveway as it is . The driveway was put in by a contractor. He cited safety reasons involving the possibility of backing off the borders and even finding the exact location in the winter. Hildebrant displayed photos of the area. Durham said that notices had been sent to surrounding property owners and he had received no calls or concerns. If this were to be granted, homeowners would be required to file easement documents . Hildebrant said he had spoken to all property owners involved and there is no problem. They are willing to sign easement documents. He responded to a question from Harvey regarding the percentage of slope by stating that the slope was 70% . Weeks had a question about the standing water in one area. Gail Hildebrant answered that there is a 4" culvert under the driveway and also another larger culvert in lot 3 . The dip would not be altered by this request. Arockiasamy had a question on the 0 ' setback from the side lot line. Durham answered that the lot line will not be changed--an easement will be prepared. The owner of lot 3 said that it had been a error by the builder. These things should be watched more closely. It is difficult for a non- professional to see the whole picture. MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board approve Variance Request 91-019 as submitted with the finding that the variance will improve safety and maneuverability. The hardship in this instance is the topography of the lot and the placement of the home. A condition was added that the applicant prepare easements describing the driveway area to be filled on the property. Akemann seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. It 3 Request #91-021, submitted by Kathlyn M. Nicholson for property located at 16201 D• and 16281 Hilltop Road Eden Prairie Minnesota The request is for a variance • from City Code. Chapter 11 Section 11 03 Subdivision 2 B. (1) to permit a 4'1" side lard setback from the proposed west lot line for the existing home at 16201 Hilltop Road. City Code requires a 15' side yard setback in the Rl 22 Zoning District. (2) to permit proposed Lot A with a lot width of 851. City Code requires a lot width of 90'. (3) to permit proposed Lot A with a lot size of 19,125 square feet City Code requires 22,000 square feet Kathlyn Nicholson came forward to present the variance. She said that she and her husband had built the home in 1951 on a 3 acre lot. The area had been subdivided in the late 1960 ' s into 6 lots. The City Council had approved this subdivision. At that time, they did not realize that the southwest corner of their home was on the next lot. A variance is needed to clear the title on the home. Ten feet of the home is on the other lot. The variance would also cut the size of the other lot down. This situationwas only realized one month ago. There is lots of space in this area and there are two gullies to the west. Durham said that in the late 1960 ' s, the city was not as prompt in getting people to have surveys done. Some mistakes were created. He had sent notices to surrounding property owners . The variance would make new parcel A smaller that code requires . If the area were ever rezoned to smaller lot sizes, new lot A would then meet the require- ments of the smaller zoning district ( 13 .5 district) . Weeks had questions on the width limit of the next lot and also about the large tree on the property. Wilkus asked if a person owned the lot next to the home site or was it park area. Nicholson answered that an individual owned the lot. Anderson asked if there had been a precedent set in the past in instances such as this . Durham answered that the lot line had not actually run through a home, but there have been similar situations . Akemann said he had three concerns : 1.Definition of the hardship, 2 . Variance to run with. existing structure, 3 . Possibility of a deck addition on the existing home. Nicholson said there would be no deck. The porch is on the other side of the home. Durham said that any new portion of the home would have to meet code. Jerry Portner,who lives on the street below the area in question, came forward and said he had sent a letter to the Board. He felt the next lot was not unbuildable and had concerns on frontages. Where will this variance lead in the coming years if it is to be granted? Will this be a special case? 4 • Durham said that variances are kept on record. In this instance, they can go back and show a hardship that the owner did not create. A hardship or good reason needs to be demonstrated. If, in the future, a request was made and the lot was less than required the City would not be in support of the request. Anyone can apply for a variance, but that does not mean it will be granted. This case is to clear the title on the home. Durham a4reed that-many people want to get as many lots as possible from their property, but unique circumstances need to be demonstrated to the City. Portner said that 15 of the 15 neighbors surveyed were against the variance. He cited a problem with a pole barn that had to be moved because of such a problem. He had moved to Eden Prairie for the wide open areas and wants that to continue. Freemyer asked Portner for his solution to the problem. Portner said he did not know the answer, but the gulley is a buildable lot for a rear walk out home. Durham said the minimum lot width had been 901 . It was not necessary to go to the 100 ' widths at that time. Portner said that the lots are not less than 100 ' wide now in Eden Heights . Durham said that this is a corrective situation--the Citywould support it if someone just wanted to create anew lot. not Harvey said that people can subdivide as long as the requirements are met. Otherwise, they must go through the Planning Commission. Scott Mason came forward and said that he lives on Valley Road. He said that there are alternatives . The home is built on two lots and it can be left as it is. The hardship is that Nicholson cannot sell the lot. He would not like to see the lots get smaller. .lust the fact that this is granted ( if it is ) would make it more likely for others to be granted in the future. Freemyer said he had understood that someone else owns the property parcel A . Now, he understands that Nicholson does . He felt that Mason had a good point. Nicholson said she does own both, but the problem is that this was O.K. ' d by the City Council when it was done. She also owns one other lot down 'on Valley Road. Durham said that lots A & B already exist. A parcel C is not being created. Mason asked if zoning was the same when the area was subdivided. Durham said in 1969, the requirement was 901 . 5 • Larry Simonson of 16199 Valley Road came forward and said that he would like to see the property as one lot. Harvey said that this area could have been- subdivided into 90 ' parcels when the subdivision was created. Simonson said he was not being vindictive, but there is not a quick answer. The neighbors take pride in what they own. Akemann asked if an easement was a possibility to clear up the title. Durham said an attorney would need to address this possibility. Dave Rasmussen of 16275 Valley Road came forward and said his neighbors tennis court encroaches on his property. They had drawn up an easement and the title had gone through. The neighbors may agree to that in this case, too. Otherwise, one lot can be made of the two. He said he understood that a variance would only be permitted if a hardship was demonstrated. This hardship was created by the petitioner. Freemyer said the prudent thing to do would have been to have a survey, even it was not required. He felt that this was a self inflicted hardship. Nicholson said they had intended to build on the lot next to this and sell the present home. This did not happen as her husband had passed away. Freemyer felt the solution in this case was the use of an easement. Wilkus reminded the Board that a setback variance would still be needed. Barb Swanson came forward and said that she would like to buy the lot and is ready to build. Only yesterday had Nicholson received the letter that some of the neighbors had a problem with the request. They did go to the neighbors after the letter was received and after explaining the situation to them, most said they had not understood that the home was partially on another lot. She did not think there would be a problem with the easement idea. Mason said that if this could be handled by means of an easement, he felt this may be acceptable with the neighbors. Nicholson said she would rather not see a continuance of the request. The Swansons are ready to build and have sold their home. Durham said this would need to be republished in the newspaper for a request for a O ' lot line setback. Meanwhile, research can be done on the building permit and the acceptability of the easement solution to the mortgage company. As far as realigning the lot lines, a lot line has to be straight in an administrative split. Freemyer said the easement could possibly be releasedin the future i 6 • if this home were ever replaced and the new one placed correctly on the lot. He felt there was strong merit in the easement process. Harvey said that the mortgage company will have to accept the easement solution. Arockiasamy asked if the lot line could be straight from front to back, but not parallel. Durham answered that that was acceptable. Akemann said if this were denied, the option of a pie shaped lot could be explored--but, how will it affect the Swansons building? Anderson felt the lot line should be redrawn or an easement used. Weeks said an easement was a possibility, but he favored the redrawing of the lot line. Arockiasamy felt the lot line should be redrawn to facilitate the process of building. Arockiasamy said that in this way, the number of lots remains the same. He added that the hardship was not intentionally self inflicted. Wilkus said he would approve 411" with less than 22, 000 sq. ft.Freemyer said he would not approve the variance as presented at this time. Akemann said that this looks like lot spot zoning, and alternatives should be explored.Harvey said he would vote for the request. He added that the problem goes back 30 years and if the problem had been realized at that time, the lot lines could have been drawn to be acceptable. Harvey told Nicholson that the request as presented would not be approved this evening and her options were: 1 . Apply to the City Council, 2 . Continue the request and explore the possibility of easement or redrawling the lot lines, 3 . Withdraw the request. Durham added that it will be 2-4 weeks before it can go to the City Council. He said that the home is non-conforming as it stands now. Freemyer said he would vote against redrawing the lot lines . Harvey asked if the Board would be willing to accept the varaince regarding the side yard ( 0 ' lot line) setback? Durham said it would need to be republished. Wilkus said that the neighbors willsee a house 15 ' from the west property line whether Nicholson home is there or not. Durham noted that if the vote was called for and it was turned down, reapplication would mean another fee. Freemyer said that there are time restrictions on Swansons building of a home. Durham said that the mortgage company may not allow the easement possibility. 7 • Harvey told Nicholson that the consensus was that the Board will grant the side lot line variance. Nicholson said that she would choose a continuation if the Swansons were assured that the 0 ' side lot line set back would be approved. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board continue Variance Request 91-021 to the August meeting. Akemann seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. TRAFFIC LIGHTS ON COUNTY ROADS 4 & 5 Durham said that the City has no real say in the traffic light situation at this intersection. The city had reqeusted a cable so the timing can be set. This has since been denied. There have been complaints, but the City is still working on the problem. B. SUMMARY SHEETS Durham said that the summary sheets discussed at the last meeting would need to be a statewide requirement in order to be implemented in MN. At present, this is not a state requirement. It would be best if each owner was required to file the final order. C. BEACH ROAD HOUSE Durham said he would like to request a motion from the Board to direct Roger Pauley, Attorney, to take action to revoke the variance request that had been granted for this home to be moved. He will be meeting with the owner of the home for financial assurance that the home will be moved. The conditions of the variance have not been met. The bond is 75% of the cost of the moving and improvements . If the variance is revoked, the City may have to condemn the home. Akemann felt that the City grants open ended variances as long as a grantee takes some action. Durham said in the future, a time period for completion can be made a condition of the variance. MOTION: Wilkus moved that the Board direct Staff to notify City Attorney, Pauley, that the variance has expired because the applicant did not place the home on a foundation within the time period specified. Arockiasamy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Anderson added that closing time frames were needed on variances. Freemyer suggested that these conditions be put on variances. 8 • Anderson suggested that Durham alert the Board to situations where closure time frames are advisable. V. NEW BUSINESS Durham said that next month a request will be considered from Midwest Asphalt for a front yard set back variance. Also, the Nicholson request will be considered again after the continuance this evening. VI . ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Wilkus moved that the Board adjourn. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9 : 20 P.M.