Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 07/14/1994 A. Request #94-13 BY Norwest Bank of 935 Prairie Center Drive for permission to allow construction of 2 additional drive-up facilities and an ATM driveM facility 12 feet from the front property line of the planned Highway 212/Prairie Center Drive right-of-way (Code requires a 35 foot setback). Doug Watschke, representing Norwest Bank, came forward to present the variance request. He stated that the existing bank building was built in 1982. Norwest Bank is proposing to expand their building from 5,953 square feet to 8,767 square feet. The bank will also add two drive-up lanes and an ATM drive-up lane to the four existing drive-up lanes. Norwest is requesting a front yard setback variance for the construction of a canopy which will extend over the drive-up lanes. The current canopy covers the four existing drive-up lanes. The canopy is considered a structure and is subject to the front yard setback of 35 feet in the C-Regional Service Zoning District. The canopy will extend to 12 feet from the MNDOT right-of-way. The southern property line of Northwest Bank borders the proposed 212/Prairie Center Drive interchange. MNDOT has also purchased 12 feet of right-of-way north from the southern property line. Ten of these twelve feet will be used as a proposed bituminous bike trail, with the remaining two feet retained as right-of-way. They have worked closely with MNDOT in devising these site plans to fit the proposed Highway 212. Johnson stated the main expansion is about 2800 feet, two additional drive-up lanes, and one ATM lane. The main building meets the setback requirements but the drive- up lane does require a variance. The planning commission reviewed and recommended approval on July 11th. The Staff Report is included in the packets. One item they have for recommendation is additional trees to be planted along the southwest side of the property. The variance request is for 12 feet to the new drive- lane and there will be a berm and plantings between that and the property. The City Council is scheduled to hear this request on July 19th which is next Tuesday. Weeks asked about the timing on the issue. Watschke replied they would like to start construction this fall but it depends on the highway. Weeks asked if he has seen the plans for the interchange. Watschke answered he has seen the plans. They had two meetings regarding that issue. Weeks questioned how close would the nearest drive lane be in relation to the location of the right-of-way and the access lane. Watschke replied it would be approximately 33 feet from the corner of the canopy. • 2 i APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1994 7:30 P.M., CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 8080 MITCHELL ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: DELAVAN DYE, CORRINE LYNCH, ARTHUR WEEKS (Chairman), MARY VASALY, RONALD MOELLER, KATHY NELSON, CLIFF DUNHAM BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: DYE BOARD STAFF: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JEAN JOHNSON RECORDING SECRETARY ELINDA BAHLEY I CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Weeks called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. Roll call was taken as noted above. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Vasaly moved that the Board approve the Agenda as presented. Dunham seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. III MINUTES OF JUNE 9, 1994 MOTION: Dunham moved that the Board accept the Minutes of June 9, 1994 as submitted. Vasaly seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0 with Weeks abstaining. IV VARIANCES Weeks explained the order of the Variance presentation process to those in attendance. • 1 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 14, 1994 Lynch asked if they have considered any other possibilities. Watschke answered yes. Prior to meeting with the bank they did explore other possibilities. The problem they have is congestion would tie up traffic and they are expanding the access lane in order to free up space to help move traffic through efficiently. Lynch asked if it would be six or seven drive-up lanes in total. Watschke replied counting the main area at the building it would be seven drive-up lanes plus an ATM. Lynch asked if that was standard for banks. Watschke answered yes, it's beginning to because customers want to be able to get money on the weekend. It gives customers different ways to access their money. Lynch asked what the hardship is. Watschke said the hardship is being imposed by MNDOT's proposal. If they weren't doing that it would be a minor setback by the canopy. Nelson stated until the road goes through this wouldn't be necessary. She asked if they would consider putting in more trees, perhaps decorative fencing to make a definite line. Watschke replied that the Staff Report suggested some scattering of trees and shrubs and a combination of some kind of fencing. MNDOT does not let you do anything on their side of the right-of-way. Moeller said it appears that if there was no ATM they could comply with the setback except for one corner. If they didn't have an ATM the canopy would not be needed. Watschke replied that the reason the canopy has to extend out is there is an overhead delivery of the cash. He said ATM is an important part of banking. Moeller questioned the location of the ATM. • 3 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 14, 1994 Watschke answered the location is as a result of an audit issue for Norwest Bank and for security reasons. Dunham asked if there is enough parking on the site. Watschke replied there is. Dunham said reference was made to a new sign location. He asked if the one out there would not be in the way. Watschke answered yes, that where it's located there is a 20 foot setback. He said they don't know what they're going to do with it. When they do decide, the sign will have to go. Weeks asked what is the distance from the current canopy, is it to the nearest curb line. . Watschke said it is 100 or so yards away. He said the distance from the canopy to the interchange, which would be MNDOT's curb line to the existing canopy, it would be 60 feet. Johnson stated there is a vacant lot between the two and it will be taken up by a right- of-way. Weeks asked if there was any consideration for expansion at the time the bank was originally designed. Watschke replied that was ten years ago and there was some consideration to an extent. There was a plan to expand the drive-up situation. Banking has a way of changing on how to utilize facilities. The expansion of this drive-up is long overdue. The bank would like to proceed with this as quickly as possible. Weeks asked if there was a possibility to put an additional canopy anywhere on this property. Watschke answered no because their service of tellers are in the building. Nelson asked if there has been any discussion of making one of the lanes a dual lane, both a drive-up teller and an ATM lane. • 4 Minutes . Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 14, 1994 Watschke said it was considered but it was not a good option for the bank because of traffic tie-ups. It makes customers irritated. There are a few banks around that do that and it is not a good idea. Weeks asked what Staff's recommendation is with regards to landscaping in the grey narrow portion of the map. Watschke replied the landscaping would not screen the canopy or the top of the cars as they go through the drive-through, but it would be more of a continuous planting plan then from the southwest to the northeast corner. Right now you see the existing one tree there and a few shrubs. The Staff wants to see more of that. Weeks opened the public hearing. No one came forward. Weeks closed the public hearing. • MOTION: Nelson moved that the Board approve Variance Request 94-13 upon the conditions stated in the Staff Report and decorative fencing at the two foot dividing line. The hardship being the taking of 212 by the State. Johnson asked that it be contingent upon the final City Council approval. Nelson accepted the amendment. (Dunham seconded the motion as amended and it passed (one abstained (Vasaly), two opposed and three for) B. Request #94-14 by Dwight Bialowas of 15616 Park Terrace Drive to allow construction of a garage addition 6.5 feet from the side lot line (Code requires 15 feet), and to aMnrove the existing 13.8 foot setback to the other side lot line. Dwight Bialowas of 15616 Park Terrace Drive came forward to present the request. He said the reason they are trying to do this is because his family is maturing to the point where three automobiles have become a necessity. The additional garage stall • 5 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 14, 1994 allows room for three cars as well as lawn equipment and kids toys. They want to get things out of the house. They are removing the bulk. This will also allow them to keep vehicles off the street and protected. Johnson stated the lot in question is in the Paradise Valley addition which is in the R1-22 district and requires a minimum of 15 feet on both sides. Staff reviewed some alternative locations for the addition, but had a problem with it being aesthetically pleasing to the appearance of the house. They have not had any comments on this request either negative or positive from the neighborhood. Moeller asked if there would be any problems with the drainage on the lot with this type of easement. Bialowas answered there has been nothing identified and the engineer does not see a need for any draining on that side. Vasaly asked what their reasons are for this request. Bialowas replied one reason was for storage space alone. He said they have three cars and they want to keep them all garaged along with the mowers and the bikes. They also don't want to keep the garbage outside. Vasaly questioned the ages of the children. Bialowas answered 17 and 13. Vasaly asked if they have thought of constructing a utility building. Bialowas said they had one in the back but it can't be used for his vehicles because of the topography. Weeks asked if there were any considerations to place the garage forward. Johnson answered that with a forward garage addition, with the arrangement of the house, it would block more the front view of the house. From the street area it would make everything look tighter than it was. Weeks stated he would like to see the proponent minimize the request to an extent. • 6 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 14, 1994 Bialowas said he could go another foot or two feet forward. Weeks opened the public hearing. No one came forward. Weeks closed the public hearing. Vasaly stated that the hardship here is really just the desire to have the extra garage stall. The proponent wants to put additional construction on a lot that just won't accommodate it. She does not understand why it's necessary for everyone to have a three stall garage. Bialowas answered that part of the reasoning that he would like to have an additional stall is he doesn't want cars exposed and garbage cans exposed. He said it is very important for appearance purposes. That's the main reason. • MOTION: Lynch moved that the Board approve Variance Request 94-14. The hardship in this instance is the topography of the land. Moeller seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-1 with Vasaly voting opposed. C. Request #94-15 for John Ketcham of 14007 Holly Road to allow construction of a garage 11 feet from the front proper line (Holly Road). (Code requires a 30 foot setback). Dunham said he is abstaining from these proceedings. John Ketcham of 14007 Holly Road came forward to present the variance request. He said he and his wife are expecting a child and the house they have right now is too small. They like the area they are in and have a nice lot. What they want to do is convert their single car garage into a double car garage. They also want to build above the building creating two additional bedrooms and one additional bathroom, and renovate and update the rest of the house. He said they want to straighten out the front door access because he is concerned for the safety of his family in the wintertime. He has a very steep incline in the drive-way and in bad weather when the ice builds up it's very slippery and it would be hazardous carrying the baby in the carrier. The stairs leading from the drive-way up the entrance way of the house is • 7 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 14, 1994 inadequate. It's minimal excavating and economically it's the wisest way to expand the house. Johnson noted that this property is in R1-22 zoning. The setback is 30 feet. According to City files this house was built around 1942 and the garage was added by the previous owner in 1951. Also, a previous owner in 1986 did request a variance for a garage addition and that was also 11 feet to the property line. The Board back in 1986 felt that the garage should have a gable roof not a flat roof. They had concerns that the second story would appear too close to the road. The variance in 1986 was never used. The new owner took a look at the site and has tried to formulate the best way to expand on the house and garage because of the topography of the property. He feels this is the best approach to improving the property. The difference to the two areas is the second story addition. An alternative would be to minimize the amount of the addition. The addition shown is 24 feet. If it was 22 feet it would put it back to 15 feet. The concern with one of the neighbors is the structure appearing to close to the road. • Weeks asked where the neighbor who opposes the project lives relative to the property. Johnson answered it's across Holly Road and it's the lot to the west. Weeks asked how long has Mr. Ketcham owned this property. Ketcham replied three years. Weeks asked if Mr. Ketcham was aware that there was a variance request back in 1986 when he bought the home. Ketcham answered no. When they bought the property they planned on living there to see if they wanted to stay there for a long time. They decided yes and started looking at different means to add on to the house, and that's when they discovered the variance was in effect. Lynch asked whether this was an existing one or two car garage because the drawing was confusing. Ketcham replied it is a one car garage. • 8 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 14, 1994 Lynch asked what else is along Holly Road. Ketcham answered they are at a very high peak, they are very high up. From the actual development itself, when you look to the east you see roof tops and the valley. If you look to the north you see the berms and the neighbors houses. If you look to the west you don't see anything. Then you look to the south and there's a neighbor right next to their property. Moeller asked if there is a retaining wall. Ketcham answered the retaining wall goes right into the bushes that are already there and they will make sure it is as natural looking as possible. Moeller asked about the designing and plumbing of the additional living space. Ketcham replied he plans on updating the copper pipes, electrical and the plumbing. Nelson asked if with the 11 foot setback from the road, is there any room to put in • seven or eight foot evergreen trees that would give some year round screening. Ketcham answered you probably could if you wanted to take out the lilac bushes. Nelson asked if there was any room without taking out the lilac bushes. Ketcham answered behind them he doesn't think so. He said the room between the wall and the lilacs is probably going to be very small. He doesn't know if there's going to be a lot of room or not. Nelson asked if they thought of looking for another home in the same area due to the fact that this is such a large expansion. Ketcham answered they looked at that alternative and they really like the lot they have in addition to having incredible views. He said they looked at building a new house but didn't like the lot. The design they have come up with he feels is a fairly attractive design for what their needs are. The homes they looked at were very expensive. He said their lot has 30 trees on it and they like that sense of privacy. Weeks asked about the timing on this project. 9 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 14, 1994 Ketcham replied that his father is the architect who designed the plans on this project and said they are ready to start construction as soon as possible. Weeks asked if they looked at ways of reducing the two story effect above the garage by placing it in the back or under the existing house. Ketcham answered they did but it would be too expensive because of the landscaping involved and the extra excavation. He said their house is approximately 1000 feet on the upper level and 800 on the lower which is totally unfinished. In the future they want to put a recreation room because they need the space. If they were to put the garage in there they would loose their basement. Herbert Ketcham, architect, stated that the way the house is constructed it would be very difficult to do it without going into major expenses. Weeks asked if there were any other way to do that and reduce the variance request. • Herbert Ketcham answered if there were other ways to move it around they would but it would be difficult. He said it really belongs on that side of the house because of the location of the plumbing and the kitchen. Weeks said he is concerned about the retaining wall being seen in the wintertime when there are no leaves. He said it is uncharacteristic of what's in the neighborhood. He asked if Mr. Ketcham has spoken to the person who wrote the letter against this project. Ketcham answered that he did not. He has never met him. Weeks opened the public hearing. No one came forward. Weeks closed the public hearing. Nelson said she has a smallproblem m 1 variance and bringing it into about taking a small g g a more expensive variance. She is also concerned with the objection from the neighbor. • 10 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 14, 1994 Weeks said he would like to see a continuance on this matter to see if there's a way they can reduce the variance and still maintain their plans. He asked if there was any possibility of looking at this again for another design. Herbert Ketcham answered it's a possibility but it just changes the entire layout beyond being economically reasonable. Weeks asked if it was possible to get additional landscaping. Johnson answered what might work is removing some of the lilacs and placing the evergreens in between the addition and the property line. MOTION: Lynch moved that the Board approve Variance Request 94-15. The hardship in this instance is the topography of the land. Vasaly seconded the motion. • Moeller added the amendment that some landscaping modifications be made and submitted. Motion passed 4:1:1 with Weeks voting opposed, and Dunham abstaining. D. Request #94-16 by Bruce Bren Homes.Inc for 15339 Mason's Pointe for apl royal to place a home 82 feet from the Ordinary High Water Elevation of Red Rock Lake (Code requires a 100 foot setback. Bruce Bren, builder representing Bruce Bren Homes, Inc, came forward to present the Variance request. He said his client came and wanted a home to be built by the water. He designed the home with what he thought were the setbacks. He has built many homes on several lakes and it was always a 75 foot setback. When he obtained the building permit he discovered that the setback was 100 feet. He was not aware of the 100 foot setback. The biggest hardship on the site is the tree. They can come forward some but not 18 feet, that's right in the tree. The design is for a four car garage and they can eliminate one stall and move the whole house forward and it still would be ten feet from the tree requiring only an eight foot setback. This setback is determined by the normal high water elevation. Weeks asked if that setback is measured to the house or the deck. • 11 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 14, 1994 Johnson answered that the setback is measured to any portion of the house. She said Boulder Pointe neighborhood was zoned to R1-13.5 back in 1988 and there are a number of lake lots in the subdivision. There were two variances given for lot width and those lots were to the southeast of this lot. Todate, the homes have met the 100 foot setback for requirement. The applicant is requesting the variance in order to stay far enough back from that significant tree to save it. The tree was noted on the original development plan as being saved. There is one letter of support for this variance and there is also a petition from the neighborhood on the opposite side of the lake that are in opposition to this request. Vasaly asked why won't any of the alternatives that the City suggested be suitable. Bren answered because if the garage is to be turned so it's parallel with the length of the house, the entire front of the house would be facing the garage. That would not meet his client's approval. Moving the house forward turning the garage, just brings you back into the tree so they are not gaining anything. The owner wants a four car garage but a three car could work. • Vasaly asked how the builder designed it without checking the Code ahead of time. Bren replied that he has built many homes on the lake and it has always been a 75 foot setback. Vasaly asked when the setback was put into effect. Johnson answered in 1982 it was put into effect. Vasaly asked at what time did Mr. Bren find out about the setback. Bren answered when he applied for the setback. He said if they knew about it ahead of time they would not have purchased the lot because it would have been too restrictive. Vasaly said she was concerned about the vegetation next to the lake. Bren answered there would not be any removal of the vegetation that would be seen from the other side of the lake. • 12 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 14, 1994 Vasaly asked if the owner was planning on putting a lawn in for a certain number of feet. Bren replied he does not have any knowledge of that. Dunham said the plans could be redrawn to accommodate and fulfill the required setback. Nelson wants to make sure that the oak tree gets saved. Lynch is concerned about the objections from the neighbors. Bren said he would like to see what the objection is and he would like to see the list of neighbors. Bren was given a copy of the petition. Vasaly asked how many lots are left on this lake. Johnson answered there were approximately 12 left. Moeller asked what the elevation of the ground level is at the rear of the house and the high water. Bren replied the level mark is 81.4 so it's a 30 foot drop. Moeller asked if they considered moving the house forward 8 to 10 feet and took a few feet off by the eating area exclusive of the deck, that it could fairly be achieved. Bren answered that the deck is not the closest point to the deck right now. The part off the living room is the closest to the lake and that is part of the structure. Moeller asked what if they brought the house forward ten feet. Bren said that would still require an 8 foot variance. Moeller stated that if they took off the living room, then it would be closest to the 100 foot setback. Weeks asked what the hardship is in this instance. Bren replied that the tree is the biggest hardship. • 13 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 14, 1994 Weeks asked if they have exhausted all possibilities in designing this home. Bren answered that when you design a home for a client you have to design it according to what the client wants, the client's needs and the living style. This is the design that he wanted. My client said he can live with a three car garage as opposed to a four car garage. Weeks opened the public hearing. Sandy Rosen, of 8701 Summit Drive, said she submitted the petition. She lives across the street from where the home is being built. She is concerned about the variance being granted which would put the home closer to the lake than allowed according to code. She has lived there since 1987 and has seen a lot of trees removed. She doesn't want to see a precedent with having this variance passed for these remaining lots to do anymore removal of the natural road. She said she would hate to see this tree destroyed and hopes it can be saved. With regard to charging the tree as a hardship, she is concerned with what kind of precedent this is going to set. • She said her home is 1900 square feet and this is a much larger home being built. She doesn't want homes closer because of the intrusiveness of the side. Nelson asked if she would be more comfortable with an eight foot setback with the provision of any tree over one half inch in diameter not be removed from the property. Rosen replied that she just doesn't want a precedent set. Dan Dineen of 15607 Summit Drive, said his opposition to the variance is strictly on the basis that he believes that a variance could be used as a precedent for future variances down the road. He said whether it's 8 feet or 18 feet, it doesn't really matter because it's moving along in the direction away from the ordinance as originally intended. He doesn't feel the real hardship is an oak tree, but rather a four car garage or a three car garage. He is amazed that a builder would not have been familiar with the ordinances. Kevin Russen of 8731 Summit Drive, suggested to mirror the image and push it up a little. He said the encroachment is a little on the tree but, in fact, if you shift things around it might work. He would like to see Mr. Bren look at those alternatives. Weeks closed the public hearing. • 14 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 14, 1994 Vasaly said the hardship here is really the mistake made by the developer. She doesn't feel the City Code Ordinance should be bent simply because somebody made a mistake in planning a house. She doesn't feel that is a hardship at all. Nelson asked if the oak tree was taken down, would the plan go through. Johnson replied it might take a few small trees to replace one of that caliber size. Nelson asked if it fits with the three car garage design. She was concerned if they move it up through the oak tree, can they put this house as designed on this lot. Nelson answered there still would be an eight foot variance, tree or no tree. Weeks asked if the Board denies this request tonight, does the developer have the right to cut down the tree and replant with a landscape ordinance. . Johnson answered he has to obtain permission to replace that tree. Weeks stated that he is concerned about the precedent issue and he doesn't feel a hardship has been demonstrated. He feels the house could be redesigned. MOTION: Lynch moved that the Board continue the hearing and allow the developer time to make some other alternative. Bren suggested the Board either approve or deny his Variance Request. Lynch stated no adequate hardship has been demonstrated and, therefore, moved that the Board deny Variance Request 94-16. Vasaly seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-1 with Nelson opposed. E. Request #94-17 by Maribeth and Mark Tanen for 6525 Rowland Road (1) to allow a 0' setback for a driveway length of 75 feet and clarify the location of the previously aparoved driveway (Code requires a 3 foot setback. The remainder of the driveway will conform to code, (2) to allow a new garage to be located 9 feet from the side lot line (Code requires a 15 foot setback). Maribeth Tanen, of 6525 Rowland Road, came forward to present the Variance • 15 Minutes • Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 14, 1994 Request. She said her husband and her are here tonight to request a variance to try and resolve several hardships on their property. They are proposing that the common driveway between their property and the undeveloped Lot #3 of the Farber Addition extend only 72 feet in from Rowland Road onto their properties along their side lot line. Beyond this point, the driveway will split to two separate private driveways, one to each property. They are requesting that the minimum offset for each of these private drives be at least three feet from their side lot line. She said their drive-way was not theirs exclusively that the former owners failed to disclose this issue. Their drive-way is quite long and steep. The driveway has more than a 12 degree grade. It is very dangerous and people have refused to come up their driveway in the past. Permitting this change will allow drastic improvements to the grade, and hence the safety, of the driveway to conform to City Code while enhancing the privacy of each of the two properties. Their plan involves improving the grade of the property by bringing in more than 1100 cubic yards of fill while removing fewer than 8 mature trees. They will replace them with comparable caliper trees. They have met with the owners of the undeveloped lot, the Lubavitch house, to review their plans. They have informed them verbally that they support their plan. She said they want to build a • new 3 car garage attached to the house on an elevation 10 feet higher and in a different location than the current garage. Joel and Karen Ackerman gave their verbal approval of this request but unfortunately are out of town on vacation for the next two weeks and were unable to endorse the attached application before they left. The current garage will be permanently sealed, buried and converted to storage space, accessible from the inside of their home. Johnson stated that the plat on this subdivision was approved in 1989. It was three lots and one outlot. One lot has been built on todate. The variance was granted in 1990 for this shared driveway. A copy of that variance is attached to the Board's report. The 25 foot access for both lots was done with a condition in a Developer's Agreement. It required a cross access easement for both lots so that only one access cut would be made to Rowland Road. The approval was to include a maintenance responsibility for the driveway. There was an existing driveway on the property serving the home on Lot #2. This was not necessarily meant to be the location of the shared access for the two properties nor was improvement to the access prohibited. Todate, homes have not been constructed on Lot #1 or Lot #3. The request before you today is one to take action on this plan here which would be the shared portion being 75 feet from Rowland Road into these two properties. The second request is the garage addition which would be a 9 foot setback instead of the requirement of 15 feet. They have had a lot of inquiries from people on this request and some people • 16 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 14, 1994 are concerned about the driveway, and some concerns are whether they would see the new garage. Since all the other homesites are heavily wooded, it does not seem that the new garage would be visible from where it will situated. Lynch asked what the Lubavitch house is. Tanen answered that it's a non-profit charitable organization. This property was donated to them. Dunham asked what the problem of sharing a driveway is. Tanen replied they both have a significant parcel of property. They both believed they were getting a private piece of property. Currently most of the driveway falls on their property. They get so little traffic at this point that when someone is coming up the driveway they know their either coming to see them or they are lost. Dunham is concerned about the tree issue. • Tanen said that on the other property there is a strip of pine trees and with their proposal it would not be affected in any way. On their side there are some mature trees. They want to enhance the safety of their parcel. Dunham asked if they would be filling the grade. Tanen answered, yes, so that the surface level of the driveway would be closest to the existing garage. Weeks asked what would be the use of the existing garage. Tanen replied they would use it as storage. Dunham asked what the size of the lot is that is adjacent to the street. Johnson replied it is about 160 feet deep. It's about a half acre. Nelson asked if there was going to be enough width as a result of building up off the level of the land in some places, so when there is ice on the ground they won't slip down. • 17 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 14, 1994 Tanen replied, yes, there is going to be a retaining wall. She also said that they want a simple garage with no peak on it. From the back lot you can barely see the existing garage. Weeks asked what their timetable was. Tanen replied that they are trying to coordinate their project with the construction on the Ackerman lot. Moeller asked if they have considered moving the three car garage back. Tanen said they did, but the increase grading and tree loss would be detrimental. Weeks opened the public hearing. Steve Guyette, of 6529 Rowland Road, came forward and said to replace the road and create two roads is not what he thinks the original zoning people intended to have on • that lot. He said it's obvious because they had a stipulation that said, share driveway. He is concerned with the screening and the potential future of the pines. He is also concerned about the drainage on the property. Joel Ackerman, of 732 9th Avenue South, Hopkins, stated he is the owner of the other lot. He said he looks forward to being neighbors with Mr. Guyette although he hasn't met him yet. He has spoken with the Tanen's about what they are proposing to do. Neither him or his wife have any objections to what they are proposing. They are very comfortable with the plans. The plans for the driveway and the garage does not cause them any problem. Tanen stated they had heard stories of how the previous owner had to get their children and groceries up and down the driveway with sleds because the driveway is too steep. She feels their hardship is basically a safety factor. Weeks asked if the Board chooses to consider a continuance, how will this effect their building timetable. Tanen responded it will not effect their building timetable if it takes a month. Gary Renike, of 11757 Boulder Bay Road, came forward and said he does not have a problem with the proposed plans. He said he does not have a problem with the 18 . Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 14, 1994 visibility of the proposed garage from his house. He said he had a question, which was asked already, as to the fill of the driveway, it was the extent to spread out without retaining walls, whether or not it's going to effect the wetland area or not. He said the response to that question was that it would not. he Guyette stated is concerned about what effect of the changing of the grading will have on the soil. He is also concerned about the effect this will have on future development. Weeks asked if there has been grading plans relayed to the City Engineer. Johnson answered they looked at the preliminary plans. Detailed plans for a grading permit need to be submitted for review and approval. Weeks closed the public hearing. Vasaly said that the variance that's requested involves hardship, because they need to • improve the safety of the property. She is concerned about the objection from Mr. Guyette. She does not see how allowing the Tanens to branch off further on their own property would harm him. She does not feel a need for a continuance. Weeks said he does not feel a need for a continuance and would like the City to take a harder look at the plans and evaluate whether the trees are going to be saved or not and to what extent. Moeller said that saving the trees would be helping Lot #3. Lynch stated that it's an unusual subdivision. MOTION: Dunham moved that the Board approve Variance Request 94-17 based on the hardship of the site condition's unsafe driveway and the vague drawings that were submitted in 1989, conditioned upon the City reviewing the driveway elevations as it pertains to both lots. Lynch added they grant approval subject to the City approving the grading permit. Johnson noted it should also be subject to the executed cross access agreement being submitted to the City. These were acceptable to the mover. • 19 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 14, 1994 Moeller seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. F. Request #94-18 by Richard E. Ingram for 18900 Pioneer Trail for approval to construct an additional garage door (access to garage addition) on a property which has more than the code maximum of 4 garage doors per dwelling on the property. Richard E. Ingram of 18900 Pioneer Trail, came forward to present the request. He stated he is requesting a variance for a garage door. Lynch asked if this is a double garage door or a single. Ingram answered it is a double. Lynch asked how many garage doors will this be in total. Ingram answered that on his house he has three attached garage doors. He has three singles in the front a double in the back. The three singles face south and the double will face the west. He said the only place to go for additional storage was behind the house. He said he is surrounded by evergreens and nobody will see it. His property backs up to the creek and nobody can see it. Johnson stated that the home was built in 1972. The property is a 6 acre piece zoned Rural. In 1984 the City enacted a new Code amendment limiting single family residents no more than 4 garages. The way this has been administered is that not more than four garage doors per dwelling unit is permitted. This does not prevent people from having additional storage room behind the 4 garage doors. The purpose is to maintain the residential character. The setbacks on this house are way above most areas. He is approximately 300 feet from the closest resident. It will be in the back and it will not be visible from the front driving area of Pioneer Trail. It is well screened by pine trees.The alternatives they have looked at is the option of no doors but maybe just access doors in the back but Mr. Ingram does wish to have an adequate width to get boats in. The other alternative is to maybe get by with an oversized single door instead of the double door. This is the first time this type of variance has come up before the Board. Ingram stated he brought in three letters, one from each of his neighbors, and they have no objection to this proposal of a double door. He said there is nobody close and he is very secluded out there. • 20 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 14, 1994 Lynch asked if he had any kind of business back there. Ingram answered this is just for personal storage. He said he has a lake place and he wants to put his Pontoon boat in there in the wintertime and not have to winterize it. He also wants to keep his lawn mower in there and he is going to insulate and heat it. Lynch asked if he was going to have a paved driveway access. Ingram answered it's going to be a concrete driveway. It's going to be top shelf, not anything that is going to look bad. Dunham asked if a residence is limited to a 4 door garage. Johnson answered yes. Ingram stated that he has almost 7 acres and all around him are 40 foot high evergreens. • Lynch stated she doesn't have any problem with the variance. She wants to know how to define the hardship. Ingram replied the hardship is trying to get in and out, access. Moeller stated he feels there is a little difference between an oversized single and a double door, but he is struggling with the hardship also. garage Nelson is concerned about the price of a double standard or a single oversized door. MOTION: Nelson moved that the Board approve Variance Request 94-18 to allow the double garage door on the lower level; the hardship being access in and out of the garage. Lynch seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. • 21 . Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 14, 1994 V. OLD BUSINESS A. Sherwood Matter Johnson stated that the Sherwood issue is in the hands of the City Attorney now. She said they hope they can get a resolution without going to Court. She said she has been to Court on one driveway issue. VI. NEW BUSINESS Johnson noted there are two new items. One is a mini-store project and the other one is another garage project. VU. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Dunham moved that the Board adjourn. Weeks seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. • 22