Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 03/10/1994 APPROVED MINUTES • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 1994 7 : 30 P.M. , CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 8080 MITCHELL ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: DELAVAN DYE, CORRINE DALQUIST LYNCH, ARTHUR WEEKS (acting Chairman) , MARY VASALY, RONALD MOELLER NEW MEMBERS TO BE SWORN IN: CLIFF DUNHAM AND KATHY NELSON BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: CORRINE DALQUIST LYNCH BOARD STAFF: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JEAN JOHNSON RECORDING SECRETARY,SHARON STORHOLM I CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Acting Chairman Weeks called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 P.M. Roll call was taken as noted above. II OATH OF OFFICE FOR NEW MEMBERS Johnson asked the new appointees each to read the oath of office. Each did so and signed the proper documents which were witnessed by Weeks and Vasaly. III APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Dye moved that the Board approve the Agenda with a change that would move ELECTION OF OFFICERS to later in the meeting under New Business . Vasaly seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 1993 MOTION: Vasaly moved that the Board accept the Minutes of December 9, 1993 as submitted. Motion passed 5-0 with Weeks abstaining. V VARIANCES Weeks explained the order of the Variance presentation process to those in attendance. 1 Minutes • Board of Adjustments & Appeals March 10, 1994 A. Request #94-01 by James and Linda Marek of 16749 Baywood Terrace for permission to extend the garage out 10 feet closer to the street creating a front setback of 20 feet. (Code requires 30 foot front yard setback) . James Marek of 16749 Baywood Terrace came forward to present the Variance Request. He explained the project that they would like to undertake. They would like to add a 10 ' extension to a 2 car garage. Their utility room would be moved to the front of this extension. This would increase the size of their eating area which is now small, especially with three children. The hardship cited was that there is no room for expansion on the side of the house and no room on the back either because of a porch and deck. It would be difficult for them to move to a larger home because they have already re-done many parts of the home. The next door neighbor home is set much ahead of this area and the other side is a cul de sac, so there will be very little effect on the neighbors . They would use shrubs, brick and other materials that would enhance the appearance of the house. 10 , is needed for this extension as they would like to have a small room above it. • Johnson said that other lots in the area have setbacks of 30-38 feet. There have been no letters in opposition to the request. The usable parking area in the driveway would be 30-35 . Dye asked about the 30 foot setback. Johnson answered that it was standard for a residential neighborhood. Vasaly asked about the setbacks of other homes . She felt the drawing made it hard to put into perspective what the actual street would look like. Marek explained that the setback is to the east, not the end of the driveway. Moeller noted that the curb line looked offset compared to the other three. Marek noted that the curb line would be 40 and 50 feet after the addition was done. Johnson said that setback should be measured to property line and not to curb area. • 2 Minutes iBoard of Adjustments & Appeals March 10, 1994 Vasaly asked about the neighbors opinions . Marek said that there were no problems with the neighbors . Vasaly asked what problem the porch presented in conjunction with this possible addition. Marek said that the topography drops down in that area and there would be difficulty with windows . Dunham asked about the large increase in the area of the mud room (from 8 ' by 9 ' to 10 ' by 221 ) . Marek answered that part of that area will be storage and also a bathroom will be incorporated into the plan. Dunham asked about the drainage in the area. Was it front to back? Marek said that they would add drain tile as needed. Dunham asked if there would be a parking problem because of this addition. Marek answered that there would be plenty of parking space left after the addition was constructed. Moeller asked about the computer room upstairs . Marek answered that the mud room was the driving force behind this addition. The computer room would be an added advantage. The topography in the back yard also makes accessing the storage building difficult. Backing vehicles into the back yard is also difficult and complicates any construction that one would want in that area. Water tends to collect in the back yard area. Nelson asked about the other homes that had the same plan in the neighborhood. Marek said that there were 3 or 4 with similar plans but they need the additional living space more than the others . Nelson asked if Marek had considered adding an entire second floor. Marek said he had considered that option, but the mud room is • 3 Minutes • Board of Adjustments & Appeals March 10, 1994 what is needed most, and that needs to be on the first floor. Weeks noted that the driveway slopes toward the garage. Will this area need regrading? Marek said if that was necessary, they would do it. Weeks asked what the hardship was in this instance. Marek answered that there was no where else to go for expansion of the first floor. The kitchen is too small for the family and the entry is a hazard and bottle neck area. Weeks asked why the proposed mud room was so large. Marek noted that the computer room above, need for additional storage, and the bathroom being moved to that area are all reasons why they are requesting this size. He pointed out that according to the photo, they would still be several feet behind the next home. Weeks opened the discussion to the public. No response from the audience. Weeks closed the public hearing. Weeks was concerned on how this all will fit together. He does not have a concern on how it comes out or the adjacent property, but feels he does not have enough information. Dunham said he would like to see a sketch of the addition and the drainage pattern. Mrs . Marek said the visualization will be the same with the addition. There will be a floor drain from the driveway to the back yard. The pitch may have to be readjusted and the drain may have to be relocated. Dye said he had no reservations in allowing this as it does not interfere with either neighbor. There is a hardship in that the proponents do not have the opportunity to build or extend to the rear of the home without cutting off the vision from the four season porch. He felt approval should be given. Weeks asked if it would be possible to get the Engineering Dept to look at the driveway. • 4 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals March 10, 1994 Johnson answered yes, that would be possible when the building permit is received. MOTION: Dye moved that the Board approve Variance Request 94-03 as submitted with a hardship being there is no opportunity to put the addition elsewhere on the property. Moeller suggested an amendment that the drainage situation be evaluated. Dye accepted the amendment and the motion passed 5-0 with Weeks abstaining. B. Request #94-02 by John Gerten at 12600 Plaza Drive (Menards) for permission to place a 21' x 60' greenhouse in the Menards parking lot from April 15, 1994 through July 7, 1994. This proposed temporary sales greenhouse will result in the Menards property exceeding the allowable 10% of outside sales area permitted by code, and the poly greenhouse will not meet code material standards. John Gerten of Gertens Farm Market, Inver Grove Heights, came forward to present the variance request. He said he was requesting that a 21 ' by 60 ' greenhouse be constructed on the Menard property from April 15 to July 7th. From this structure they will sell bedding plants and nursery stock. They were located at this site last year and operated the business in a forthright manner. There was no vandalism or parking problems . They would like to operate the business there again this year. Johnson noted that Menards was built in 1978 . There was a variance granted at that time on the outside buildings . Gertens was in this same location last year for approximately the same period. She showed a sketch of the structure and noted that they had monitored the location and there were no noted traffic problems . Other similar structures have been located at Target, Cub, WalMart. Nelson asked why it was 61 days last year and the request is for 83 days now. Gerten answered that the lease is for 60 days . There is two weeks flex time added because of weather. The business will only be open for 60 days . Moeller asked how long it took to put the structure up and take • 5 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals March 10, 1994 it down. What about drainage control? Gerten answered that it would be up in one day and down in one day. The water hardly leaves the greenhouse area. No chemicals or fertilizers are kept. Vasaly asked Johnson if there had been any problems with these situations . Johnson answered that there had been no significant problems . Vasaly asked if this was the same structure, the same location, and if it would be removed on time. Gerten answered yes to all questions . Weeks opened the public hearing. Don Anderson of 7465 Eden Prairie Road came forward to speak regarding the request. He said the variance is based on two items : code materials and outside storage of 10% . More • information must be considered here: 1 . None of these were allowed before last year. 2 . Is this a service that citizens need that is not already available here? 3 . Next,there may be one in front of Anderson Lake Road and 18 or Prairie Village Mall. 4 . Is that what we are looking for? 5 . He has 25 employees (full and part time) and pays a lot of taxes . These structures pay no taxes . 6 . He opened up his business 14 years ago. It was small and they struggled. He came to the City to do the same thing as this and was turned down. He does not think this is necessary or enhances the community. It will hurt his business . 60% of his gross is done in this same time period. Maybe that is what he should do (same as proponent) . His business is open year round. If this is granted, there will be many more. This variance should not be granted. Gerten came forward and said his greenhouse is made by the same • 6 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals March 10, 1994 company that made Andersons . If it is good enough for his year round business, it should be good enough for Menards parking lot. Regarding the question of taking away business, then there should never be a McDonalds next to Burger King. Competition creates business for everyone. When he sets his business up in Eden Prairie, it keeps people in Eden Prairie. Weeks closed the public hearing. Dye felt that Mr. Anderson's point should cause the Board to look at the ordinances . This would make an opportunity for many to build these structures on other lots . Nelson agreed and felt that these structures should be allowed only when there are not adequate permanent structures . Vasaly said she sympathizes with Anderson, but does not feel that competition is an appropriate consideration for deciding if a variance should be granted. There is a code for materials and this does not seem to meet code. Perhaps a permanent structure should be considered. Moeller said he was not sure if healthy competition should be considered at all. This variance should be considered on its own merits . The problem here is deeper. Uniformity needs to be established - maybe ordinances need to be changed. Weeks asked about PUD projects . He asked about the time limit on a temporary structure. Have precedents been set by previous approvals? He did not fee it was the job of this Board to re- write ordinances . Johnson said that there was a 180 day limit on temporary structures . Each site is considered separately. This request was approved last year. MOTION: Moeller moved that the Board delay action until it has a chance to pursue the proper course of action. ***Action taken on this motion at bottom of page. Weeks said if this were to be continued a month, it may affect Gerten's plans . Gerten asked if this were denied, would that mean that this 7 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals March 10, 1994 could not be done at Cub parking lot either? Johnson answered that Cub is a commercially zoned lot. 10% is allowed and Menards is over the 10% limit now. Vasaly felt it was better to make a decision this evening. Gerten said the lease starts when the building is set up. Dye asked what the reason would be for postponing a decision for 30 days . Moeller said it would allow time to study and consider the discontinuity. A standard approach is needed. Weeks said that a standard will not be established within 30 days . Postponing this decision is doing a disservice to the proponent. Nelson felt she had enough information for a decision. ***Vasaly seconded the motion. Motion to continue was defeated 5-1 with Moeller in favor. All others opposed. Motion denied. MOTION: Dye moved that the variance be denied on the basis of the exterior material variance and that this is an excessive use of property that already well exceeds the 10% allowed by code. Dunham seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Vasaly suggested some type of screening be considered around the greenhouse. Menards lot has a solid wood fence for screening. Gerten said that there would be white plastic covering the structure. He could build a false front of lattice or some other material. Johnson said a greenhouse could be located in the back yard area of Menards . Gerten said that this would not be acceptable to Menards because of insurance and traffic problems . • 8 Minutes iBoard of Adjustments & Appeals March 10, 1994 Vasaly said the item could possibly be continued if Gerten could come up with a plan for screening the structure. VOTE: In favor of Motion: Dye, Nelson, Dunham. Against Motion: Vasaly, Weeks, Moeller C. Request #94-03 by 24th and Hennepin Center Partnership of 16500 West 78th Street for approval for the Blockbuster lot without frontage on a public street. Approval on the Blockbuster site plan was granted in 1993 . John Trautz came forward to represent Blockbuster Video in presenting the Variance Request. The property under consideration is located at 16500 West 78th Street. He displayed a blueprint on an overheard project for the review of the Board. Code states that commercial property must have street frontage. Access would be through a parking lot. They propose to build a Blockbuster Video store on the site. This variance was overlooked when it should have been considered • with the others . There is a similar Variance near Bakers Square. Johnson noted that this project had been before the Board in December of 1993 for consideration and site plan review. Others with this same platting situation are Bakers Square and an office building on 494 . Moeller, Nelson and Dye had no questions . Dunham had questions regarding signage. Johnson answered that signage was compatible for the building size. Vasaly asked what the hardship would be in this instance. Johnson said platting regulations do not cover these situations and the City prefers to consider such requests on a case by case basis . Weeks opened the public hearing and there was no response. The public hearing was closed. MOTION: • 9 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals March 10, 1994 hardship as : the property is in a unique situation and there is an inability of the current codes to take that into consideration. A condition was added that window signs not exceed code. Dye seconded the motion and it passed unanimously D. Request #94-04 by David Hermanson of 9275 Overlook Trail to permit construction of a new home with a side yard setback of 10' on one side with a total of 20' both sides. City Code requires a minimum side yard setback of 10, one side with a total of 25 ' both sides. Dave Hermanson came forward to present the Variance Request. He explained that he was asking for a variance in the setback requirements for the home he was building. He felt the hardship was that many surrounding houses have three car garages and also that he has a recreational vehicle he prefers not to store outside. He does not have much time to make changes as his finance package is to be approved March 21 . Johnson said that most homes in this area are a combination of single family or duplex. There are difficulties in building on . this lot: 1 . Drainage and berm proximity in the backyard 2 . Protrusion in the front 3 . The house plan has been cut down to maintain some distance 4 . The majority of the homes do have three car garages 5 . There has been some interest in the request from the public, but no objections . Moeller asked if the house was already designed. When did this problem arise? Hermanson answered that it was a spec home built in Bloomington. He had an architect size it down. When he called Eden Prairie, he found out that the other localities were more limited in what they would allow. Moeller asked if other options had been explored. Hermanson said he did not have much time to do that as the financing package at the current interest rate will be approved soon. If he needs to finance at higher interest, he cannot afford it. Vasal asked about the neighbors opinions . Y g P Hermanson said they did not object. Dunham asked about the egress window. Does this lot drain from • 10 Minutes • Board of Adjustments & Appeals March 10, 1994 back to front? What type of recreational vehicle does Hermanson own? Hermanson said the egress window was to provide light for the downstairs and also provides a chute for pouring concrete. Yes, the lot drains from back to front, which is consistent with all the other homes on this street. Hermanson said he owned a boat. Weeks asked if the property had been purchased before the house was arranged for. Hermanson said he has a purchase agreement on the property. Originally, the plan was to have the home wider and they had reduced the size already. Weeks asked when Hermanson got the house plan. Hermanson answered before he purchased the property. The survey was done 1 1/2 weeks ago. He has not asked for a permit at that point but the problem came up when he went to the city. . The architect is Hermanson's father in law and he had given estimates of time needed to revise the plans showing removal of the the third stall. This is too much time to submit the new plan for the financing package. Weeks asked if there were property stakes . What is the hardship? Hermanson answered that the hardship was : Would like to store the boat inside (aesthetics) the financing package is based upon the drawings that are presented this evening, the proposed location best corresponds to homes on either side and to existing drainage. Weeks asked about modifying the plan. Hermanson said there was no way to do that at this time. Weeks opened the public hearing. A neighbor residing at 9286 Overlook Trail came forward and said that his property was adjacent on the south side to the property under consideration. He has reviewed the information and has no objection to the request if the plans do not change and the garage remains on the north side of the property. This is the final lot to be developed in the area. The empty lot • 11 Minutes • Board of Adjustments & Appeals March 10, 1994 detracts from the neighborhood. He would prefer to see a home built on the site. The three car garage would be an advantage as the boat could then be stored inside. Weeks closed the pubic hearing. Dunham asked if the home was too wide - it seems the site may be a bit too small . Hermanson said there was 20 ' on one side of the home and 25 ' on the other side. It is consistent with the planning of the City of Eden Prairie. Johnson said that when the building permit is submitted, the drainage plan will be reviewed. Nelson said she agreed with the neighbor - a home on the site would be attractive and increase property values . The plan does meet the neighborhood character. MOTION: Nelson moved that the Board approve a side yard set back of 9 . 69 on one side (with a total of 19 . 69 on both sides) providing the plan stays the same and the garage remains on the north side. The hardship is meeting the neigborhood character and maintaining the drainage pattern. Vasaly seconded the motion and it passed 5-1 with Dunham voting against. VI . OLD BUSINESS A. BEACH ROAD HOUSE Weeks noted that there have been some complaints from the neighbors . Johnson said she could ask the building inspector and the zoning inspector to evaluate the house. Weeks said it had been recommended that contractors and developers post a bond. VII . NEW BUSINESS A. ELECTION OF OFFICERS • 12 Minutes . Board of Adjustments & Appeals March 10, 1994 Johnson noted that there were three positions to be filled on the Board: Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and Secretary. MOTION: Dye nominated Weeks for Chairperson. Vasaly seconded the motion. MOTION: Dye moved that nominations be closed and a ballot be cast for Weeks . Vasaly seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0 with Weeks abstaining. MOTION: Dye nominated Vasaly for the position of Vice Chairperson. Nelson seconded the motion and it passed 5-0 with Vasaly abstaining. MOTION: • Vasaly nominated Dye for the position of Secretary. Dye declined the nomination. MOTION: Vasaly nominated Moeller for the position of Secretary. Dunham seconded the motion and it passed 5-0 with Moeller abstaining. B. APRIL VARIANCE REQUESTS Johnson said at this point there were no applications for April . She added that a new position on temporary greenhouses had begun to be established this evening. Discussion took place on temporary greenhouses in Eden Prairie. Weeks felt that it has been an ongoing problem and some consistency is needed. Dye felt they could be allowed on commercially zoned vacant lots . C. APRIL WORKSHOP • 13 a Minutes • Board of Adjustments & Appeals March 10, 1994 C. APRIL WORKSHOP Johnson asked the Board if a workshop for the Board should be set up if no variance requests are scheduled for April. The Board agreed to a workshop in that event. VIII . ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Dye moved that the Board adjourn. Vasaly seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9 : 30 P. M. BARBUEAN TOAMINUTES.3l 0 • • 14