Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 02/11/1993 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1993 7:30 P.M., CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: HARVEY(Chairman),ARGUE, WEEKS, FREE, WILKUS, ANDERSON, LYNCH, ARGUE (arrived at 8:15), ANDERSON STAFF PRESENT: JEAN JOHNSON, PLANNING SHARON STORHOLM, SECRETARY BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: LYNCH, FREEMYER • 1. CALL TO ORDER - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - ROLL CALL Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7:36 P.M. and roll call was taken as noted above.. U. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve the agenda as presented. Weeks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. III. MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 1993 MEETING Weeks noted that on page 2, he had asked how many parking stalls were provided and how many were required. The answer had been that 70 were required and 73 were provided. Three more than required were being provided. MOTION: Wilkus moved that the Board approve the minutes of January 14 as amended. • Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 1993 MEETING ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 1 • Harvey noted that the day of the meeting had been on Monday, not Thursday. MOTION: Weeks moved that the Board approve the minutes as amended. Wilkus seconded the motion and it passed 3-0 with Anderson abstaining. IV. VARIANCES Harvey explained the order of presentation for the variance procedures to those in attendance. A. .Rgguest #93-06 by John Markham Project Developers. Inc. for grop&rty located south of Townline Road (West 62nd Street) and west of Cranberry Lane (1) to allow platting of two lots in a 38 lot subdivision with lot widths less than 120 feet at the Ordinary High Water Mark (widths are 85' and 1051) and (2) platting two cul-de-sac lots 29' and 30' wide versus 55% platting three corner lots 80', 95'-%' wide versus 1001; and the platting of one lot 40' wide versus 85' wide. Terry Schneider came forward to present the variance request for John Markham Project Developers, Inc. He gave a brief explanation of the overall subdivision. He said that the project was divided into three segments: East (largest), Center (Phase 1), . West (Phase 2). The project originally had 48 lots and was reduced to 38 lots. One variance request is for Phase I and the other is for Phase III. There are four elements involved in the hardship: 1. Unique topography, 2. Constraints on boundaries (woods/oaks) 3. Constriction on the east side (Heathbrook Drive/Rustic Hills connection) 4. Wetlands criteria. In Phase III, all shoreland requirements are met. The property is being rezoned to 13.5. There is a tree preservation issue: they are trying to maximize the number of trees conserved. Wetlands have also had some impact on the area. The biggest factor is that when Heathbrook Drive was put in, the sanitary sewer was put in at a depth of only 5'. For a time it was thought a lift station would be necessary, but a balance point had been defined which solved the problem. There were variances needed to accommodate that. A variance is required on one of the neck lots (68,000 square feet) which has many oak trees. He went on to explain the situation in the other lots that need variances: cul de sac, another neck lot, etc. A natural spring is located on one lot. It will be allowed to continue and steps will be taken to protect it from erosion. The home site needed to be moved away from the spring in order to protect it from possible water seepage in the basement area. It was Schneider's feeling that he had more than met the intent of the ordinance. Johnson said that there is a copy of the Staff Report on this request in each packet. This request has already gone before the City Council and the Planning Commission. There are lots of constraints on the property. It took a long review process to work • out a plan.The Planning Commission recommends approval. The Council has had the first reading. The DNR has reviewed the subdivision. No letters have been received in opposition or in support. ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 2 . Harvey asked about the maximum grade on the streets. Schneider answered that it was 7.4%. Wilkus had a question about possible access to a lot off of Rustic Hills. Schneider answered that the driveway would be pretty steep in that instance. Weeks asked about the marketability of the neck lots. Schneider answered that a number of lots have special characteristics. Covenants would be established on those lots. A site plan review will be conducted with builders - plans can be reviewed before it comes to the City. He felt that they had met the intent of the code as far as preserving topography. Harvey asked if the west knoll would be cut to meet the county's grade. Schneider answered that it would be done. It would be cut 15'. They are working with the county and their staging. Harvey asked how many cubic yards of fill were involved in this cut. Will there be a separate road for hauling? Schneider answered that the cubic yards would be about 48,000 - 50,000. No special hauling road will be used. They plan to use road 62. Harvey asked if homesites will be constructed on the east portion while the hauling of fill is taking place. Schneider said that this would be unlikely. Actual construction will probably begin in the summer of 1994. All slopes should be under 3-1. There has been considerable interest from builders already. Anderson asked about the covenants regarding the property adjacent to the creeks or wetlands. Schneider answered that it will not be a full set of standard covenants. Instead, they will select quality builders and the sites will be reviewed. Covenants will actually be put on the property for several lots (6 & 7). These will involve minimum and maximum depths for the homes. Anderson asked if the proponent would be working with Staff regarding those depths. Schneider answered that they would work with Staff. Harvey asked if there was anything being required in addition to the standard escrow account. ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 3 Schneider answered that there is a standard escrow account. Instead of additional accounts, they preferred to take a chunk of that money for builders that met certain criteria. Staff, however, felt that it would be too complicated to administer. Schneider said he had a full landscaping layout. They will be replacing lost trees with some coniferous trees, such as Blue Hill Spruce and Colorado Spruce. There will also be other trees such as American Linden, Ash, and American River Birch. Almost all the sites except three are walk out homes. Harvey asked if 32 acres of land will be dedicated to the City. Schneider answered yes, it was 32 acres of wetlands and an outlot. Harvey asked if Purgatory Creek was protected. Johnson answered that this plan protects a lot of the creek. Weeks had a question on the letter from the DNR, item 5. Schneider answered that the conditions in item 5 had been met. All DNR protected lands are being donated to the city. Harvey asked about the distance between the developed lots and the creek bed. Schneider answered that it was about 50-60 feet. The area will be allowed to grow wild. There will be erosion control. Jeff Martin had a question regarding Rustic Hills Drive. He asked if the lots at Rustic Hills Park would have access directly to the park. Will the trees remain? Schnieder answered that there would be direct access to the park from those lots. All trees indicated on the drawing will remain. Martin asked about access to the park and also if outlots C & B will remain wilderness. Schneider answered that there will be direct access to the park and that outlots C & B will remain natural. Weeks asked about driveway grades. Schneider answered that a few driveways are at 12%, and the rest are less. Harvey felt the proponent had done well with a difficult site. ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 4 MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve Variance Request 93-06 with the hardships cited to include unique topography and wetland conservation. Wilkus seconded the motion. Weeks suggested that the approval should be contingent additionally upon compliance with the DNR requirements and conditions of the developers agreement. Anderson and Wilkus accepted the amendment. Motion passed 4-0. B. Rfquest #93-07 by Bill Kinney for 17650 West 78th Street for Shoreland variances; to plat two lots less than 40,000 square feet in size (291. 100' and 351, 1251) with setbacks from the Ordinary High Water Mark less than 1501. 75' and 120' for two new lots, (100' for existing house), lot width less 150' for two lots (1101). Also, variance to plat two lots without frontage on a public street. Greg Kopischke of Westwood Professionals come forward to present the variance request for Bill Kinney. He said it was a small remnant piece and Highway 5 lies to the north of the property. One year ago Kinney had asked what options he had to develop his property. Pressures indicated that he needed to do something with his own property also. Hardships include: 1. Slopes - 30' drop across a 250'-350' site. 2. The shape is a hardship. 3. Vegetation on the site 5' park dedication. These constraints have really boxed the owner in as far as what he can do with his property. A cul de sac was suggested, but a private driveway to service all three lots was chosen as a better alternative. They had worked with Staff to determine reasonable standards. These lots are larger than the eastern side of the lake and narrower than some on Mitchell Lake. There is an average 200' width for the lots. The smallest lot is 29,000 sq. ft, the largest is 85,000 sq. ft. and the average is 53,000 sq. ft. Johnson noted that the project had come from the Planning Commission and the Council. It is a 3.5 acres parcel proposed into three lots. The DNR and Orrin Thompson oppose the request. After the opposition letters, Staff did another evaluation of the site. The Council had approved a three lot subdivision and recommended setbacks of 105' for all three lots. If the Board approves, it should be based upon the final project review by the City Council. It is recommended that address signs be placed at the entry way to the driveways. The diagram in the packets shows what Council did at the second evaluation. Anderson asked if the existing home needed a variance because of an addition. Johnson said it was requested in order to give expansion potential. Johnson gave a brief history of variances on Mitchell Lake including density, lot size, shoreline and setbacks. This is not the same type of subdivision, but will appear comparable from the water's edge. It will be pretty much consistent with what has been done. Orrin ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 5 • Thompson's concern was that they had platted their lots quite wide and these are smaller. Anderson asked if the proponent had considered dividing the parcel into two lots. Kopischke answered that two lots did not seem reasonable. Kinney felt that these lots are comparable with what Orrin Thompson has done. The standards are considerably lower on the east side of the lake. Kopischke said that these lot are well in excess of other averages. Anderson asked if the City Council had recommended a minimum 105' setback. Does the proponent agree with that figure? Kopischke answered that they did not agree. They are asking for 75' or a compromise. Johnson said that they had published the initial request (75'). However, the Council thinks 105' is better. Harvey asked for the setbacks on each lot. . Kinney answered in the following manner: Lot Setbacks 3 162,175,100 1 O.K. 2 130,170 Kinney said that the 105' setback is not totally unacceptable. He will live with it if he has to. He would like 70' building pads Johnson said the variance could be continued until next month if Kinney wishes. Kinney asked for a decision this evening. Weeks asked what the proponent felt the hardship was. Kopischke said that he knew hardships could not be economic issues. He felt that in this instance it was the shape of the land. If one compares it with Mitchell Lake averaging, these lots average 50,000 square feet between the three. Weeks asked the average lot size for Orrin Thompson lots. Johnson answered that the average Thompson lot size is 31,800 sq. ft. Weeks asked what would prevent Kinney from turning this into two lots. ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 6 • Kinney said he had owned this land for 26 1/2 years. The taxes are becoming excessive. In order to develop this, road, water, and sewer have to be brought in. It will cost about $75,000 to develop it. Weeks asked if the goal was to achieve parity with the development around this site. Kinney answered yes, that was the goal. Weeks asked about the trees on the site. Kinney explained the types of trees in that area (oaks, box elders, etc). Weeks said he had a difficult time with the 75' figure. Kinney said if it was 75', then he would have the only two lots on the lake that meet shoreland ordinance. Wilkus asked if there was a fire safety problem. Johnson said that the fire safety situation was acceptable. Harvey asked about park dedication. Kopischke answered that there is park dedication land on the west boundary line (5' wide strip, length of property) for a trail easement. Harvey said this development is not like that of U.S. Homes. He asked Johnson if there were DNR covenants on the U.S. Homes proposal. Johnson answered that she did not recall. Kinney showed a map of U.S. Homes development and noted many lots that had 110' setbacks. Harvey said that there were neighbors to the north and east. Kinney answered that there was a lake to the east. Older homes are nearby in the area. Weeks said he could understand the dilemma and can accept it to some degree as a physical hardship. He would like to see greater parity on site 3. He has a problem with the 75' figure. • Harvey said he would like to see 100' on area three, 130' on area two, and 125' on area one. Actually, he would prefer a two lot development, but he understands the restraints. ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 7 • Weeks felt that two lots would be creating something that is unlike the area around it. Harvey said he would prefer that any structure on lot one not be built closer than the existing structure. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve Variance request 93-07 with the following conditions: 1. On lot 1, restrict any building to the existing setback. 2. On lot 2, a 130' minimum 3. On lot 3, a 100' setback The hardship involves topographical and vegetation problems, and also a 5' trail dedication to parkland. Appropriate signage on the public road to the area shall be installed. Argue seconded the motion. Wilkus added that the 100' setback should not follow the high water mark. Anderson and Argue accepted the amendment and the motion passed unanimously. C. ftuest #93-08 by Wooddale Builders for Dennis and Irene Bingham/Rafferty and Dale and Helen Dobson of 10447 and 10452 Fawn's Way to allow a 0" (zero) setback for the driveways to the side lot line. Johnson said she had expected the Builder's representative to appear. The variance involves two lots on Fawn's way. The homes are large duplexes and the builder placed a number of lots at the end of a cul de sac. The driveways were difficult to place and meet setbacks at the same time. What was illustrated did meet code, but did not work in the field. Johnson said this was a PUD. Harvey asked if widening of the driveways at the street was what was being requested. Johnson said that there would be a 0' setback on one side. Dobson said he wrote to the City in August requesting that the light pole be moved. His home was built in 1991. Bigham said that they have a shared driveway. The width expansion would be no more than 3-4 feet. Anderson asked why this problem did not surface before. ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 8 • Johnson said she had discussed this with the staff that reviewed the project. Anderson asked if there were criteria for PUD's to ensure that it does not happen again. Johnson said no, there were none. The specific regulation is a 3' setback. One needs to consider maneuverability. There have been some calls on the request, but no written words or requests were received. MOTION: Weeks moved that the Board approve Variance Request 93-08 to allow a 0' setback for the driveways. There are physical hardships for both properties due to existing conditions. The driveways were not installed properly. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. D. Rgquest #93-09 by Davidson of 11080 Blossom Road to permit a 6 foot setback to the side lot line for a proposed third garage addition. Craig Davidson, owner of the property, came forward to present the variance request. He said that the home was tilted 6 degrees. There is 16' setback on the back end and • 20' on the front end. He cannot make a 10' setback on the back end, so is requesting a variance. There has been no negative feedback from the neighboring property owners. Johnson said that Davidson was not the builder. When the home was built, it was set back more than necessary. Alternatives are a detached garage, or if it were placed off of Bennett Place, there would be a steep driveway? If it were placed on the back, it would require a driveway all around? Weeks asked what the garage would be used for. Davidson answered it would be used for children's bicycles, etc. Harvey asked if the church was likely to expand towards Davidson's property. Johnson said the church has rolling topography and it would be difficult to expand. Harvey noted that the problem is not when the church owns the property, but problems could develop when and if someone else buys the property to develop it. Davidson said he had tried to purchase land from the church, but they would not sell. Harvey said he was concerned about the 6 acres of vacant land between the church and this property. It may be worthwhile for the church to sell this as developable land. Are there other options for storage? ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 9 Davidson said that the builder had advised this option as the sides and back are too • steep. Harvey said that this Board needs to define a hardship to justify the variance. Anderson asked if the original plans for the home showed a third stall on the garage. Davidson answered no, they did not show a third stall. He is trying to gain some storage and improve the property. Johnson said she felt the constraints of the land would be the hardship in this instance. Weeks asked where the items were stored now. Davidson answered that they were in the garage. He would like a shop in the garage too. Weeks said there is a problem with luxury versus necessity. A man from the audience asked about the location of the garage. Davidson said it was placed where it is illustrated because the hill is too steep in other • areas. Argue asked about the amount of variance being asked for. Johnson answered the request was for 4'. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board deny Variance Request 93-09 due to lack of a hardship that meets the character of those by which the Board is constrained. The request does not meet the spirit and intent of the code. Weeks seconded the motion and the motion passed 3-2. Wilkus and Argue opposed. E. Request #93-10 by Bent Creek Golf Club of 14490 Valley View Road for permission to locate a 24' x 28' wood accessory building 15 feet from the front property line (50' required). The building will be for a three yea period and utilized as a golf shoiL. • Robert Larson came forward to present the variance request. He was representing Bent Creek Golf Club. He noted that the packet noted a request for a 24' by 28' accessory building. The actual size being requested is 24' by 48'. At this time they cannot adequately house their membership. They would like a temporary structure. It ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 10 • is difficult to locate a 24' by 48, temporary structure, but he has located one that is 24' by 60'. He showed the different ways the structure could be placed. Although they could get by with a 24 by 48' building, there is a time problem and the 24 by 60' structure is available immediately. Johnson said the variance is for 15'. The golf course is in a rural zoning district. It requires a 50' setback from the property line. They have discussed other locations for the structure, but the applicant feels the one he indicated as preferable is best. Larson said it is a control issue. Johnson said a three year period for the building was stated, but the request is actually for only 8 months. Anderson asked the proponent if he understood that a permanent building would require a 50' setback. Larson answered yes, he understood. The permanent structure may be built with the parking lot underneath. He explained other options also. Anderson asked if there was anywhere else where a 35' setback could be achieved. • Larson explained the other options and said that they were not very workable. He added that strength would be added to the tunnel through concrete reinforcement and beaming. Argue asked if Bent Creek Golf Course was a private club. He asked what the parking capacity was for the club. Larson answered that it was private. The parking capacity is 186 stalls. Wilkus asked if the proposed building location could be rotated vertically and moved back to the club house. Discussion took place on alternate locations for the proposed structure. Larson said he had looked at 12 by 60' structures, but they look like a railroad car. Harvey asked what was wrong with the existing building. Larson said it was too small. There have been 105 new members since last year. It is a high usage course and other promotional programs are going on too. The new structure would be used for merchandising and control. • Harvey noted that many country clubs do not have visual access to the first and loth tees. Anderson felt it could be placed in the same area that is requested and would not need ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 11 a variance. Larson said that may not work as far as getting into the tunnel. Argue agreed the current pro shop is inadequate, but a hardship needs to be defined. There are other options. Weeks felt that no hardship was demonstrated. Argue asked about the site under the deck. Larson said the time frame was a problem. Wilkus asked if there were any problems with building code or plumbing. Johnson answered that there were none. Weeks asked when a decision would be made for the location of the permanent structure. Larson answered it would be in July or August. • Johnson said that there had been no comments from neighbors. Brian Comstock of 7298 Penny Hill Road said he was concerned with the visibility and good looks of the area. He does not want it too close to his condo. MOTION; Weeks moved that the Board deny Variance Request 93-10 on the grounds that no hardship was demonstrated and that alternatives are available. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. V. OLD BUSINESS A. Shavlik Variance Request Johnson noted that Council permitted construction of a deck for the Shavliks provided it was no closer than 15' to the property line. They had requested 1l' from the property line. . B. Code Changes Johnson said that Council had decided that no changes in code would be necessary. ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 12 • C. Beach Road House Johnson said that someone is living in the home now. The builder owns 2-3 lots there. D. Discussion Harvey said he had enjoyed serving on the Board and that this may be his last meeting. He has enjoyed all the of the Board members and also John Freemyer, who was not present at this meeting. He noted that John has missed very few meetings during his terms. He expressed his thanks to Jean Johnson and Steve Durham as members of the staff. Weeks said he has also enjoyed working with the group and is impressed with this Board. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Installation of New Members Johnson noted that the installation of new members will take place at the next meeting. • B. March Variance Requests Johnson noted that there are seven variance requests for next month. C. Variance Request Fees Increased Johnson noted that fees for requesting a variance are increasing from $150 to $300. D. Tentative Third Stall Garages Anderson said that she felt that Staff should look carefully at plans where there could be a possibility of a third stall. VII ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Argue moved that the Board adjourn and Wilkus seconded the motion. It passed • unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:40 P.M. ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 13