Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 06/11/1992 UNAPPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1992 7:30 P.M. CITY HALL Council Chambers, 7600 Executive Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Harvey (Chairman) , Argue, Freemyer, Wilkus, Weeks, Anderson, Akemann STAFF PRESENT: Jean Johnson, Planning Sharon Storholm, Secretary BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Akemann, Argue I. CALL TO ORDER--ROLL CALL--PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7: 32 P.M. . Roll call was taken as noted above. II. MINUTES OF MAY 14, 1992 MEETING MOTION: Wilkus moved that the Board accept the minutes of the May 14, 1992 meeting as presented. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. III. MINUTES OF MAY 20, 1992 MEETING Weeks noted that under item II, the next regularly scheduled meeting will be on June 11, not June 20. Also, the roster of members in the heading should be corrected. On page 2, last paragraph, Mr Duffy has said he had not contacted the insurance company, but did not see a problem. MOTION: Wilkus moved that the Board approve the minutes of the May 20, 1992 meeting as amended. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously with Harvey abstaining. IV. VARIANCES Chairman Harvey explained the order of the appeal process for the benefit of those in the audience. A. Request #92 011 by J.M.S. Development of 6625 Eden Prairie Road for platting of a single family lot 82 feet wide. City Code requires 100 foot width. Section 11.03, Subdivision 3. , A. Sherwood said he would like to remain in the residence while construction is underway. He will probably build a tuck under garage. Wilkus asked if the deck would extend 8' additional into the front yard. Sherwood said that the property has been undesirable property up to this time. The deck would be brought closer to a large tree. Freemyer said he had noticed construction and destruction on this property for a number of months. Sherwood answered that he had begun tearing down the garage last fall. When the gazebo is done it will be used for storage. If the project is started in mid-August, the roof, windows and siding should be done within 90 days. The present driveway will be partially removed and the remainder will be part of a circular driveway. Freemyer asked if the new tuck under garage would be off of Kurtz Circle. Sherwood answered yes, it would be completed according to code. Freemyer noted that the shed appears to be unattached to the ground. Are there objections to moving it? Sherwood said he had no objections, but would like three months so he has time to move it. Freemyer asked if a gazebo required a building permit. Johnson answered that if it were over 120 sq. ft, it would. However, this is not over that size. Weeks asked Johnson what the objections were of the people who signed the petitions. Johnson said she had only spoken with one. Sherwood noted that the neighbor on the north is behind him 100%. Weeks asked what the hardship was in this instance. Sherwood answered that 22' is way too small and he would like to make the addition 281 . He had looked at other alternatives. Two feet can be taken off the deck and the deck can be cut down if necessary. • Anderson asked Johnson if the neighbors were concerned with one specific variance request or all the requests. • Johnson said the concern seemed to be the proximity to the front yard and also the time frame. Sherwood noted that the gazebo is as close to the maple tree as possible. Johnson said it would need to be moved 5' to meet code. Sherwood noted that if the gazebo were moved 51 , the tree would eventually grow into the gazebo. He answered an inquiry from Anderson by stating that the shed would be removed. Anderson summarized the variance to this point as: * Deck could be adjusted to require a smaller variance request * Variance for gazebo * Understanding that shed will be removed * Tuck under garage plans Sherwood responded to question from Harvey regarding the gazebo by stating that it has glass windows, it is hexagon shaped, and the largest dimension is 101 . The gazebo is on footings that are 1' deep (not frost footings) . He added that he had started to remove material from sides of garage . last fall. Harvey asked Sherwood when he had done this type of project in the past. Sherwood answered in Bloomington he had acted as a remodeling contractor as a hobby. This home will be extremely energy efficient. Harvey asked about the conduit from the house to the garage. Sherwood answered that it will come down and the lines will go under the street. Wilkus said he had doubts on the driveway/garage grade. Sherwood said now the driveway slopes down. The proposed level is 904.71. He will have to re-examine the drainage. The levels will be 904.7 to 902 (street level) . Freemyer said that there are many variables here and the house could become bi-level. Wilkus said that he had a problem on how fast this would be • done. The site is in disarray. Sherwood said he plans to apply for a building permit in mid-August for the addition and start construction right • away. Now he can remove existing garage and prepare the existing structure. Within 90 days, the exterior should be completed (mid-November) . The next 90 days would be spent on the rough in phase. He would hold off until the following fall for the garage. Freemyer had concerns on the area to be the garage floor. He wondered what specification there were for parking floors. If this were to be passed and the others were in agreement, he would want a condition that the existing driveway come out completely. Sherwood said he had already made arrangements for most of it to be removed. The new structure will be 10' further• away from the right of way than the existing structure. Johnson noted that code requires that both sides of this home be treated as front yards (30' minimum for both) . Freemyer felt that taking out the existing one car garage and building the addition would make an improvement to the neighborhood. Harvey noted that the length of the house would be reduced by 2' to meet the set back. . Freemyer said he would ask that the point on the deck be removed. Harvey asked how difficult it would be to move the gazebo. Sherwood answered that it could be done. Harvey summarized that Sherwood would now remove the shed, move the gazebo and cut the deck down in size Anderson asked where the tuck under garage would be put. Sherwood answered that it would be on the west side where the walk out will be (it will be temporary) . Harvey asked for any comments from the audience. Carol Lambrecht of 6552 Kurtz Lane came forward and said that she had gone around with the petition. Four of the petitioners have direct view to this home. At first, they had thought improvements were coming. Things moved very slowly--a window, take apart a breeze way, take apart a garage. The gazebo was started last July and one year later it is still not completed. She said that she lives across from the property and cannot imagine what this will look • like. Mr. Sherwood had given another neighbor a 5 year time frame--that is a far cry from 90 days. She is concerned about this large task---it will not be completed in a short time. He started to dismantle the fence last fall, and did some more this spring. Brian Rosengren, of Kurtz Circle, came forward and said that he believes these improvements will benefit the neighborhood in the long run. The home has been in disarray for a long time. He is concerned about the time frame. Sherwood said he did not know where the five year figure came from, but it was not this plan. Freemyer said he will not vote for a tuck under garage off of Kurtz Circle. With Johnson's help, he would like to see a condition that would guarantee a time frame. Would a bond or guarantee of some sort be the answer? Johnson said a bond could be used or a condition that every week that the deadline is not met there will be a $100. Freemyer said it is important to get the exterior finished, but would not be permissible to store things outside. MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board approve variance request 92-012 for the building addition to Kurtz Circle only. The deck addition shall not be closer to Kurtz than the front of the house and the addition shall not encroach on to Kurtz Lane • in any manner. Conditions shall include: 1. Existing home will be converted to a garage 2. New driveway will be moved into alignment 3. All of existing driveway will be removed 4. Gazebo will be moved into compliance with the setback on Kurtz Circle. 5. The shed is to be removed or moved to setback requirement. 6. One year is allowed to complete the exterior including paint, stain and landscaping. 7. Each week after one year that the exterior is not completed, there will be a $100 fine. The hardship is that this property has a double setback and the addition is not practical without a variance. Removal of the one car garage would make the structure farther from Kurtz Circle than existing structure. Harvey summarized the motion as follows: 1. All exterior to be completed within one year A. 180 days allowed to complete the exterior • B. 180 additional days allowed to convert existing house to garage. C. Shed and gazebo to be brought into compliance D. $100 per day penalty after these time periods until • No one present in the audience to present the variance request. Item reconsidered later in the agenda. B. Request #92-012 by Dennis Sherwood of 6524 Kurtz Lane for a front yard setback of 28.5 feet to Kurtz Lane for an addition, front yard setback of 16• to Kurtz Circle for a deck and existing garage and 25' setback for an existing gazebo and prouosed addition, and a 31 setback for an existing shed to a side lot line. Dennis Sherwood came forward to present the variance request. He said that one and one half years ago he had purchased the property. It is the oldest property in the neighborhood and needs much updating. The fence needs to be moved and a shed has been removed. He is asking for a 28' by 48' single story addition with a walk out basement. This will cause no serious consequences. He will remove the existing garage, and the new addition will have less setback than the garage had. Construction to start in mid- August. He is also constructing a gazebo--this could be moved, but it would closer to either the home or a large maple tree. Regarding the shed on the property, he does not need a permanent variance as he will have no need for it later and plans to sell it and move it off the property after the contents can be removed and stored elsewhere. The • set back to Kurtz Lane (east) can be modified. The addition could be 46' instead of 481--then there will be no deviation from code. Harvey asked if this was a corner lot with 2 front yards. Johnson answered that it was a lot with two front yards and added that the Board should note the memo in the packet dated June 8 from Sherwood. The home was constructed in the early 19501s. There was no zoning until 1958. A survey showed the shed and gazebo as not meeting set back requirements. Johnson had received a short list of people who were opposed to the variance request and presented pictures for the Board's review. She said that she would recommend a condition be placed on any variance to be granted outlining construction deadlines. Code is not clear in this area. Harvey asked if the 10 persons who signed this petition live in the area and also asked which way the house actually fronts. Sherwood answered that the home fronts on Kurtz Lane. The home is on a slab and the driveway will be partially removed. Wilkus asked how Sherwood plans to deal with the garage requirement. • approval by the Building Department. Weeks suggested an amendment to include the recommendations and guidelines in the staff report. Freemyer accepted the amendment. Freemyer noted that the time frame should start the day the building permit is issued. He would like the construction done in a timely manner. Weeks suggested that the 180 day time frame be allowed for each phase. Wilkus seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Anderson suggested an amendment to state that all construction materials should be removed from the yard. She asked about a bond instead of the fine. Johnson noted that it is a difficult situation to work on private property and that the fine approach would be preferable. . Wilkus seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. C. Request #92-013 by Mark and Joan Omlie of 6661 Beach Road to permit a deck to be constructed 85 feet from Bryant Lakei,s Ordinary High Water Level. Code requires 100 feet. Section 11.50. Subdivision 6. . B. Mark Omlie appeared to present the variance request. He said he and his wife have lived here since May of 1981. They tore down the existing home last October and built a new one. The property has a 25' sanitary sewer easement. He is asking for an additional 10-12' variance from code. A precedence already set in the area is the Shaver residence for a tennis court and the Holmen residence for a boat house. Lake Minnetonka set back is 751 . He does not understand why Bryant Lake has a 100' setback. He requests the acceptance of the variance as presented in the packet. Johnson noted that she had received a letter from the DNR today. They do not object. The deck would not be within the 50' shore impact zone of Bryant Lake. She referred the Board to the letter for further information. The hardship could be that there is a well in front of the home and that there is a wide sanitary sewer easement. She had received one letter in support of the request and no objections. Weeks choose to abstain. Wilkus and Anderson had no questions. • Freemyer asked if the house location was determined by the location of the well. Omlie answered yes, that they had no city water and he would like to leave room for a pool, considering the mil foil situation on the lake. He had realized he needed a variance this spring when they did the landscaping plans. The house had been positioned to save the well. Freemyer noted that lakes go sour because of stress. He asked if Omlie would feel comfortable reducing the variance. Omlie noted that he was not building the pool now--just the deck. The size is not exhorbatent and there are other precedents on the lake already. They would be back further than they were before with the old structure. The old home was 8-10 feet closer to the lake than the new one. Harvey suggested that the deck go further south, the point be removed and square footage be added to the side. Omlie said that there were pine trees in that area. Johnson said that the square footage of the proposed deck was approximately 16 by 20 feet. • Harvey had questions regarding a four season porch. Omlie said he was not sure about that at this time. Harvey said the contractor must have known what the setback was. He felt that the landscaper had designed the variance. He asked if there was any way to get the square footage on the deck and still and stay within the setback. Omlie said that there probably is, but he would like the request approved at it is. He is limited by the sewer easement. Harvey noted that this is not a condition that exists today. The use of the property is not being harmed. This is a functional house. There are alternatives. Omlie said that precedents have already been set and neither the neighbors nor the DNR have objections. Freemyer said that this is a self inflicted problem. Dianna Waterbury came forward and said that she is a neighbor that lives to the south. She said that she can see Omlie's problem with the view from the deck. If it were to be put on the south where Harvey suggested, they would view a huge pine tree and her house. She has no problem with the request and would recommend that it be granted. MOTION: Anderson moved that Variance Request 92-013 be granted for a deck that goes beyond code requirement of 1001 . The placement is limited by sewer and well locations which restrict the options. She noted that the proponent was respectful of code when he built the home and that it is in compliance. The property has been improved. Wilkus seconded the motion. Freemyer noted that he did not feel that is was the sewer easement that caused the problem and that this is a self inflicted wound. Vote: In favor of variance: Anderson, Wilkus Against variance: Freemyer, Harvey Abstaining: Weeks Harvey noted that in tie situations, the variance is denied. He informed Omlie that the request was denied and that he had the right to appeal to the Council. D. Request #92-014 by John Hansen of 16200 Hilltop Road for a lot size variance for a 20,250 square foot lot, and a setback variance of 14.4 feet for the existing home to the Proposed lot line. Code requires 22,000 square feet and 15 • feet respectively. Mr. John Hanson came forward to present the variance request. He noted that he lived in the Eden Heights area. His home is one of the first ones built there. The lots are 100-300' frontage lots and 4501 deep. His lot has 300' frontage. The home is in the center of the lot. He had constructed a double garage on the lot several years ago. Now he would like to divide off part of the lot as there is a lot of upkeep. The problem is that when the larger garage was built, it was closer to the lot line. A variance on one side is needed in order to sell off the lot. The lot would then be 90, wide by 225' deep. He had met with Johnson and one option is to lengthen the lot to acquire the footage needed. If that were done, and a road should be put through the back of the lot in the future, it would cause a problem. He would not suggest that option. Johnson noted that Eden Heights is an older subdivision that has lots of 1/2 acre to 3 acres in size. There are divisions made every year in the area. In the future, sewer and water will be there. She did get a letter that day from a neighbor who is in opposition to the request. Anderson suggested that the proponent be shown the letter. • Hanson read the letter and explained the concern of the letter writer. Johnson explained that if the lot line at the rear of the property was moved, it would be a disadvantage in the future. Weeks suggested selling off of the west side of the property instead. Hanson answered that the area on the west was their garden, whereas the east side is mostly lawn. Weeks asked what the hardship was. Hanson answered that his garage is too close to the lot line for the proposed lot. Weeks said that the west side could be sold and meet the set back requirements. Hanson said that would mean he would need to get rid of his garden, strawberries and compost site. The other side has too many trees to make a good garden. He would still have to maintain all the lawn area on the west. Freemyer asked if there was sewer and water to the property. • Hanson answered no, there was none. Johnson said that sewer and water may come there in about 5 years. Freemyer asked if there had been many subdivision splits in the area. Johnson answered yes, and that in the future there is the possibility of E-W streets serving the backs of these lots. Wilkus noted that the width of the whole lot is 300' and that there is a possibility of the sale of another lot in this instance some day. Harvey asked for comments from the audience and there was no response. MOTION: Weeks moved that the Board approve Variance Request 92-014 as presented on the grounds that the hardship is the property has pre-existing conditions including garage, garden, view, etc. Wilkus seconded the motion. Anderson suggested an amendment to note that the city prefers not to extend the back lot line on the chance that it may interfere with a future street in that area. Weeks and Wilkus accepted the amendment. Motion passed unanimously. E. Recuest #92-015 by Coleman Griffing at 11073 Bluestein Lane is for a variance to permit a deck 3 feet from the rear lot line. Code requires a 20 foot setback. Chapter 11, Section 11.03. Subdivision 3. , Table 1. Mr. Coleman Griffing came forward to present the variance request. He would like to add a deck to the rear of the home, which is located on a cul de sac. The home is already located on the front and back setback lines. However, there is much space and parkland between his home and the neighbor behind him. If the deck is added, it will come to within 3' of the lot line. He showed photos of the area to the members of the Board. The neighbor behind him is located on top of a hill. There is a park shown on the plat between these two homes. The hardship is that the home is on a cul de sac and the lot is shallow. The situation is unique in the respect that it is backed up to a park. He does have the support of all the neighbors. He showed blue prints of what exists now and also the plans for the future. Johnson said that in the packet is included an area map to • show the site location and park configuration. It was done this way to allow as many lots as possible access to the park. If this were to be approved, she would recommend that the deck be brought back so as not to be located in the utility easement area if one should come through in the future. There have been no inquires on this request. Wilkus said he was having difficulty understanding the hardship. Griffing answered that the only way to expand is to go into that area. There are no other alternatives. Freemyer said he could not approve a variance that goes into the utility easement. Freemyer asked if there was a hardship in this instance. Weeks asked if Griffing built or purchased the home. Griffing said although he was involved in building the home, he did not actually build it. Weeks asked if Griffing was aware of the constraints? Was a deck contemplated before? Griffing said the deck had been contemplated, but he was not aware of the problem until one month ago regarding the set back. • Weeks said he had a problem with overlapping into the utility easement. There are other options and the encroachments could be reduced. Griffing said he could shorten the deck to reduce the utility easement encroachment. Would landscaping help? Weeks suggested other deck layout and options for Griffing's consideration. Griffing noted that those alternatives made the deck more spread out. Weeks said he would deny the request unless there are other alternatives. Anderson noted that there is no hardship and there are other options. Harvey agreed with Anderson and reminded Griffing that there is a reason for setbacks. Griffing reminded the Board that this was a unique situation because of the park behind the property. Harvey noted that there was a coverage of the lot problem-- not a separation problem. Freemyer asked about regulations regarding decks or patios on grade. Griffing asked if the, ground could be raised. Johnson said it must be approved by the Engineering Dept. Weeks explained the definition of a hardship to Griffing. He noted that the Board had presented some options. Harvey said that if this were to be denied, Griffing could go to the City Council and appeal the decision. Asking for a continuance is another option. Harvey asked for opinions from the audience. Mark Drew came forward and said he understands what Griffing is trying to do. Some of the real issues are the lot/house ratios that the City allows. Griffing asked why the park is there. It is a narrow strip that gives access to a weed infested area. No one is supposed to cut the grass there. It is not an ideal . situation. There is no way anyone could put anything in that easement--it is rough terrain and all the utilities are in front of the home. • Freemyer reminded Griffing that he had an option to go to City Council. Discussion took place on the process of the Board of Appeals, hardships, City Council appeals, etc. Griffing asked for a continuance of the request. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board continue request 92-015 to the next meeting. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Johnson asked that the Board consider Variance 92-011, even though there was no one present to explain the request. She noted that there had been no opposition. The Board considered the request. A. Reggest #92-011 by J.M.S. Development of 6625 Eden Prairie Road for platting of a single family lot 82 feet wide. City Code requires 100 foot width. Section 11.03, Subdivision 3. , A. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve the request citing the hardship as safety measures needed to . align the street with the one across from it. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. V. OLD BUSINESS Harvey asked about the publication of the City Council meeting minutes. Johnson said that would be done. Harvey suggested that the need for special meetings be discussed and some criteria be agreed upon. Johnson said that possibly a workshop would be necessary, but, additionally, staff can work on the issue and do an outline ahead of time. Freemyer said that a workshop was needed and he suggested that Staff come up with scenarios and suggestions. Anderson said the issue of fairness was important. VI. NEW BUSINESS Weeks felt that there should be a review process on the burning of houses. Anderson noted that she would be gone for the next two meetings. • Discussion on attendance/participation took place. Anderson said that other members could be put at a disadvantage if there is no quorum. Johnson suggested more discussion next month on attendance issues. Freemyer noted that turn over could be a problem. Johnson said that next month there would be a request from Woodale Baptist Church regarding directional signs. There are also two other residential requests. V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board adjourn. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M. S6EPMIN.JJ •