Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 10/08/1992 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1992 7:30 P.M., CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: HARVEY(Chairman), ARGUE, WEEKS, FREEMYER, WILKUS, ANDERSON, AKEMANN STAFF PRESENT: JEAN JOHNSON, PLANNING SHARON STORHOLM, SECRETARY BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: AKEMANN 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. H. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1992 MEETING Harvey said that Akemann should still be listed as a member of the Board until he is replaced. Freemyer noted that on page 3, he had said that if a retaining wall were needed, then that would be raising grade. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve the Minutes of September 10, 1992 as amended. Weeks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. III. VARIANCES A. Request #92-019 by Michael and Jill Shaylik of 7353 Williams Lane to ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 1 affow an 11 foot front yard setback for a deck facing Williams Lane (a 25 foot setback is required) and a 11.5 foot setback to the private access drive for the same deck (a 15 foot setback is required) Michael and Jill Shavlik came forward to present the variance request. She noted that the proposed deck will be constructed of cedar, will have curb appeal, and there will be no obstruction of vision. She noted other variance requests that had been granted that were similar to theirs and handed out a listing which included 92-024, 92-016, 92-014, and 91-023. 92-014: In this instance, the hardship was that the property line prevents construction of a two car garage. The Shavlik's property line prevents construction of a deck. Most homes in the area do have decks. 92-016: The hardship in this instance was that there were three front yards. Shavliks have three front yards also. 91-023 The hardship in this instance was that the City had issued a permit for the structure. She knows of two other decks that are closer to the set back than was shown on the survey. Shavlik noted that revisions have been made since they were last in front of the Board: 1. The deck will not encroach towards a private drive. 2. Landscaping will be done. 3. A fence could be put up if the Board desires. Shavlik indicated the layout of the landscaping around the home. Johnson gave a short summary of the variances discussed by Shavlik and her comparisons: In the first example, the deck was to be constructed at grade. Obviously it was not as it is 14-18" above grade. The Lawrence Way example cited by Shavlik is also above grade, but is within a PUD that allows 25' setbacks for yards. There have been no further comments since the last meeting from neighbors or other interested parties. ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 2 Harvey noted that the Williams Lane deck was to be constructed at grade and would then require no variance. The deck is not built according to the permit. Johnson said she would send a letter out to the homeowner notifying them that they are not in compliance with code. Shavlik asked how such things get missed. Anderson asked Shavlik what she felt the hardship was in this instance. Shavlik answered that there are two doors, side by side, (only one foot apart). She would like the deck for a secondary fire escape. If there is a fire in either the garage or the furnace room, the exits are blocked. Weeks asked if Shavlik had a floor plan of the home. Shavlik said she did not have one with her this evening. Weeks asked why the deck would be constructed on the Williams Lane side of the home. Shavlik said that there is the same setback on both sides and Williams Lane is a half block street and does not get much use. • Freemyer asked if Williams Lane would be a through street in the future. Johnson answered that it will not be a through street. Freemyer asked Shavlik if she felt the hardship in this instance was the safety issue. Shavlik said yes, that was one hardship and also another hardship was that there are three front yards. Harvey said that this property is zoned in a certain fashion to encourage affordable housing. This home has constraints and owners should not expect to expand beyond those constraints. This is one of the larger homes in that lot size. Laura LaTell (a resident across the street on Williams) came forward and said that she has the same situation with her home. None of them were aware that they would have a deck problem. Maybe eventually, she would consider a deck someday too. She would remove a window if the deck were allowed. Argue asked how many square feet were in the home. ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 3 Shavlik did not know, but Johnson answered that there is approximately 900 feet on the first floor. Weeks asked about the rationale behind such a large deck. He felt that a smaller deck could serve as a fire escape just as well. Shavlik answered that they have two boxed windows (one to be made into a door) and it would not look good if it were too small. It needs to look good architecturally. Freemyer asked if the corners of the deck (14' by 26')would be clipped. Shavlik answered yes,they would be clipped. Freemyer asked if they would consider 10' as an option. Shavhk said a "rug shaker" deck would not look good on this large a home. Weeks asked how high off the ground the deck would be. Shavlik answered that it would be 8' off the ground. This is a split entry house. The area under the deck would be landscaped or fenced. Weeks said the deck is large and he would like to see the variance request reduced. This does not totally equate to a hardship. Freemyer said he would approve a motion for a deck 10' by 26',citing a hardship of safety issues (escape from the home) as the present entrances are side by side. Argue asked if there were common driveways. Shavlik answered yes, there were common driveways. Lawrence Way gets most of the traffic and Williams Lane is only a half block long. Harvey said that there was no error in the survey, no error in the permit, no french doors, no patio door, and no one led Shavliks to believe that they could construct a deck. This variance is being created. There are no excuses. Weeks asked how much landscaping exists at this time. Shavlik indicated the present landscaping on the drawing. Argue said he was sympathetic to the request. He once had a home he liked very much, but it did not have adequate fire exits. ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 4 . Freemyer said that he agreed with Harvey in many respects. There is nothing to indicate that wrongs were created in the construction of the house. On the other hand, fire safety is a real issue. In many ways, houses could be made safer. It is valid to cite safety as a hardship. He would prefer to see a 10' by 26' deck. Shavlik felt that if one were going to put that much time and money into the deck, it should be done correctly so it would look good. Originally, they had wanted it even Luger. Freemyer said that 10' is still a nice deck width. Weeks felt that 10' was generous considering the length of the deck. He had no problem with the length, but would like to see an 8' width. Wilkus felt the safety hardship could be resolved with a staircase. He had considered this type of home, but bought a different one. This area was zoned for cluster homes. Harvey said his concern is addressed to the community as a whole. He has a problem allowing additions to homes that are right on the setbacks. Builders will find a way to build right on the set back and tell people that they can have a deck. This Board needs to look beyond the proponents. Shavlik's answered yes to Freemyer's inquiry if he should make a motion for a 10' by 26' deck. MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board approve Variance Request 92-019 to allow a deck size 10' by 26'(reduced from original request of 14' by 26'). The hardship cited is a safety issue. This would allow a third exit from the home in a different position than the other two doors. Williams Lane is not a through street and it will not be in the future. Argue seconded the motion and the motion failed 4-2 with Anderson, Weeks, Harvey and Wilkus opposed. B. ftuest #92-027 by J. B. & D. Inc. of 9225 Homeward Hills Road to allow the placement of a newly constructed Hennepin Technical School house upon the lot with side yard setbacks 11.2 feet. 22.4 feet total for both sides. City Code requires a total of 25 feet. Don Faulks appeared to present the variance request. He said that the hardship is with the lot. They have developed Meadow Park 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Additions. This lot was an outlot and then put through as Meadow Park 2nd. They had assumed the lot was ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 5 1� 100'and since have found out that it is 98.4'. They have tried to market the lot with four different realtors. There is no interest in sale or trade. It is a bargain price at $33,000-$35,000. They have tried to make it saleable, but there are no takers. One problem is the fire station and a power line easement is another problem. This driveway would empty on to Homeward Hills Road and traffic headlights from Princeton Avenue would show straight on to the home. They hope to put the home constructed by the Hennepin Technical School students on the lot. Johnson said that Faulks had reviewed the characteristics of the lot. There have been four inquiries to the request,but no opposition. Weeks asked when they realized they needed a variance. Is the home centered on the lot, with equal side yards? Faulks said the position was recommended by Staff, but it makes no difference to him where the home sits on the lot. Anderson asked if this was a solution to the use of the property. How does 98.4' relate to the hardship? Faulks said, yes, this was a solution to the use for the property. Each lot in the 2nd Addition was 100' wide. Anderson asked if Faulks thought this property would sell if this home was moved on the lot. Faulks answered yes, that he will move in and his parents would be taking it over. Wilkus asked if the home could be moved in a position to increase the setback towards the other house. Johnson said that it has been publicized both sidesat 11.2'. It could be moved to the setback line on the fire station side, and meet the Code minimum of 10' on one side but require a variance for 22.4 total for both. Wilkus suggested that if this were done, this variance would only deal with one setback. Freemyer said he would prefer that the distance to the private property was maximized. Fred Schultz and Mike Murray (neighbors adjacent to the site) came forward and said that they were in favor of the request. They felt that the stakes seemed close to their home. Schultz explained and drew the situation regarding the stakes. • ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 6 Freemyer said that there.is a procedure that surveyors go through when determining where these stakes should go. They would be set up with careful measurements. The lot has three irons. The likelihood of the surveying company being wrong is unlikely. Murray asked what size home would go on the site. Faulks answered that it was a 1400 sq. ft. rambler. Argue asked who set the stakes. Faulks answered that it was Carlson Company. Freemyer said that Carlson Company could be called in order to check the location of the stakes. Still, a mistake would be fairly unlikely. Faulks said that the original stakes were uncovered. He saw the original irons. Argue told Faulks to make sure of the survey before he occupies the home or tries to sell it. Has Falks considered building on this lot? Faulks felt that if he built on the lot, he would be putting all the eggs in one basket. The Hennepin Tech home is a top quality home. Argue asked if there was a minimum square footage required in the development. Faulks said he was not aware of one. Johnson said that the City does not enforce minimum house size. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve Variance Request 92-027 to allow a side yard set back for city property and a total of 22.4' for both sides. This is a solution to make reasonable use of the property. Weeks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV OLD BUSINESS A. CITY COUNCIL APPEAL Johnson said that the decision last month denying the variance request for a deck was overturned by the Council. Freemyer said no hardship was stated. The Council spent 5-7 minutes on this item. ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 7 The proponent was allowed a couple of minutes to speak. A motion of approval was made when Enger and expressed concern on items: 1. If this is overturned, it should be made clear what the reasons are. 2. A reason should be cited why a precedent is not being set. Informal discussion took place, but neither concern addressed clearly. Council members concurred they would rather look at a deck than a door with a giant step. It was also stated that under the circumstances, the Board of Appeals and Adjustments probably made the right decision. Pauly went on to speak of court cases relating to variances. A couple of members were concerned about setting a precedent. Pauly said that the issue of precedent is not that great an issue, as each variance request is unique. Freemyer said he disagreed with this as there are cases in the northwest district that deal with precedent as it relates to ordinances. You could say each murder or each embezzlement case is unique too. He would like to have the Board respond to the Council as a unit in a written communication saying that the overturned decision based on different guidelines is troubling. Where is the law that says the guidelines are different? Harvey said that he had sat in on a joint Council/Board meeting where the Council indicated that they were in support of strict enforcement. However,they have not demonstrated fortitude in supporting this Board. There was no effort to compromise. This Board had spent 1 1/2 hours on this request and he said he was disgusted with • the attitude the Council is conveying to this Board. They do not always cite the reasons for the overturned decisions. Freemyer said that he was surprised that Pauly had made the statements about the issue of precedence not being that great an issue. At a previous meeting, he had been ready to address the Council, and they would not allow him to speak.The proponent had even stated that he would be willing to reduce the request from 10 by 13' to 10 by 10'. When the motion was made, no stipulation was put on it, so the 10 by 13' was allowed. If any derogatory statements had been made about this Board, Freemyer said he would have resigned this evening. He will finish his term, but will not seek additional terms. This Board is not taken seriously. He has attended Council meetings, and in only one instance was this Board supported. Harvey pointed out that appeals to the Council are not public hearings, but public meetings. Argue noted that if a proponent appeals to the City Council, the odds are in his/her favor. Weeks said he was disturbed by the comment that they would rather look at a deck than giant steps.There were other choices for Edwards and the variance could have been reduced. This is not a black and white issue - "deck versus giant step"-there are ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 8 Y lots of issues to consider. Harvey said he did not have a problem being overruled if it is for the public good, but there is no indication of why and no reason was given. He said that he had spent six years on this Board and was probably wasting his time. He said that this Board does things through a public process. With these overturns, code is being changed in a non public way. The Council in the past have said they view different issues on variances than the Board. Wilkus felt that the short time frame the Council spent on the issue tells the Board that they may not like to deal with these issues. Freemyer said he was hearing a high degree of frustration at this meeting. He felt it should be vented through a letter from the Board. Argue said that if only one appeal was upheld in past years, the process is disheartening. Anderson said that she did not think a question needed to be asked if one already knows the answer. Instead of asking, she suggested making statements as a Board. The Council needs to brief this Board on why the decisions are not upheld. The • responsibilities are parallel. These members have a right to ask for reasons. These are hard decisions for everyone. In fairness to this Board, more communication is needed when the Council sees appeals differently. Argue said he supported Anderson's views. Harvey said that the Board hears consistency and strict enforcement at the joint meeting, but this Board is not upheld. Anderson added that the Board wants to make this thing right. The members need to be briefed on their different perspectives if a decision is overturned. Freemyer said he has respect for the Council members, but laws and regulations apply to everyone in the same way. Harvey said that this Board is to relieve the Council of some responsibility. It is the reason for the existence of this Board. Yet, that is not being communicated back to us when decisions are overturned. Freemyer asked who would be interested in composing a correspondence to the Council. ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 9 • Anderson felt that a collective history would be important and that it should be stated that this is causing the Board concern. She added that all Board members should see the letter before it is sent to assure that everyone feels comfortable with it. Freemyer felt it would be counterproductive for him to compose the letter. Harvey volunteered to compose the letter if the Board so wished. The Board agreed that Harvey compose the letter. Anderson suggested that a copy be sent to each Board member for their review. Johnson answered an inquiry from Freemyer by stating that she did feel that the Shavlik's would appeal to the Council. Freemyer suggested that the letter be kept short. B. KURTZ LANE HOUSE Discussion took place regarding the electrical service at home on Kurtz Lane. Johnson said that the owner of this property had not applied for a building permit. C. MIDWEST ASPHALT PLANT Johnson noted that this plant did not utilize the variance they had been granted, therefore there is no control over the size of the piles. D. NON COMPLIANT DECK Johnson said she would send the City Inspector out regarding the raised deck that is non compliant that was discussed during the Shavlik variance request. V. NEW BUSINESS A. GUIDELINES FOR SPECIAL MEETINGS Johnson passed out suggestions for guidelines for special meetings. She said that there could be a special meeting held to discuss these proposed guidelines. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board hold a meeting to discuss the guidelines for special • ---- Board of and PPS Adjustments Appeals ---- 10 J meetings. Argue seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. C. DECKS R"LIED, BUT NOT ALLOWED Weeks suggested that the implied deck issue be discussed more fully. Homeowners are not aware that they cannot always place decks in certain locations. There should be a process to prevent this from happening. Harvey said when new housing permits are granted, could it be marked on the plans where decks are not allowed (beyond a certain point). Johnson said that the builder does not always give these plans to the homeowner. There are lots of stamped messages on house plans, cut generally it goes no further than the builder. Weeks suggested that when a proponent comes before the Planning Commission with parcels to develop, it should be assured that decks will fit. Johnson said that surveyors could help catch these instances also. Weeks said that homeowners need to understand what they are getting. What is the procedure to change procedure? Johnson said Staff will look into the matter. The city would need to use new procedures. Anderson said this deck issue is misleading, but maybe not intentional on the part of the builders. This needs to be clarified for the citizens. Weeks felt that something needed to be done that makes a connection with the average homeowner. VI ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Argue moved that the Board adjourn. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:39 P.M. ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 11 6-92 Jean Johnson REASONS WHY BOA MIGHT SCHEDULE A SPECIAL MEETING o When quorum not achieved at a regular meeting. o Error in publishing Notice information. o Expedite work to correct safety problem. o At request of City Council to expedite a variance resulting from recommended design changes to a project, (A project generally has 3-4 month review period; adding another 4-6 weeks for BOA meeting can be detrimental for a project.) o As requested by applicant for the following reasons: gain approval and proceed with grading prior to adverse weather. • - meet contract deadline conditions shorten a longer than normal City review process. 0 0 0 Process 1. Identify meeting dates available with adequate time to meet publishing and notification requirements. 2. Contact BOA members and determine if a quorum would be available. 3. Post notice on City Hall Bulletin Board. SPBOA.JJ.jo