Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 09/08/1994 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1994 7:30 P.M. CITY CENTER 8080 MITCHELL ROAD ATRIUM CONFERENCE ROOM. BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Arthur Weeks, Chair; Cliff Dunham, Delavan Dye, Corrine Dahlquist Lynch, Ronald Moeller, Kathy Nelson, Mary Vasaly BOARD STAFF: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator Bev Draves, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Johnson added the special meeting request from Adrian and Robin Toy be added to New Business. MOTION: Moved by Dye, seconded by Vasaly to approve the Agenda as amended. Motion passed 6 - 0. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 11. 1994 MOTION: Moved by Dye, seconded by Dunham to approve the Minutes as submitted. Motion passed 3 - 0, 3 abstentions. III. VARIANCES Weeks explained the order of the Variance presentation process individually to those in attendance in the Atrium Conference room for each variance request. A. Request #94-20 by K-P Properties Inc for 17009 Duck Lake Trail to allow: 1) Platting of proposed Lot 15 with 28 feet of frontage (Code requires 55 feet). 2 Platting of proposed Lots 3 - 16 13,889 square feet and 18,564 square feet respectively (Code reguires 20,000 square feet) and 3)Platting of proposed Lot 9. 75 feet wide at the 100 foot setback line (Code requires 120 feet). Johnson said because of the revised petition for the 75 foot shoreland setback, the City Council took action to continue the item and refer it back to the Planning Commission and the PRNR Commission. is Donald Peterson, K-P Properties presented his request for 4 variances as stated above. He indicated that lot 16 isn't within 150 feet of the lake, but is within 150 feet of a pond across the street, which they contend doesn't affect the project. Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals September 8, 1994 Two lots are within 150 feet of the pond and technically requires a 20,000 square foot size and they are below that. Lot 15 is a double frontage lot with 180 feet of frontage on the lake but is short on the court side with only 28 feet of frontage and 55 feet is required. Because of the double frontage lot, they are requesting the variance. Ms. Nelson arrived for the meeting. He's also asking for a 75 foot setback on Lot 9 to allow for construction of patios and decks. For that reason, they are going back before the Planning Commission and City Council. Dunham asked about the 20% of the trees that will be destroyed according to the report. Peterson indicated the land hadn't been farmed in 8 - 10 years and has grown up with a lot of small trees. They will be removing some significant trees; they are now required to replace 40 caliper inches. MOTION: Moved by Lynch, seconded by Vasaly to continue the hearing to October 13, 1994. Motion passed 7 - 0. Johnson indicated that a notice will be republished in the paper with the revision. Discussion by Board Members agreed that since presentations need to be made again, it should all be done at one time. Also, people were told it wouldn't be heard tonight. B. Request #94-21 by Larry and Linda Konya for 9928 Lawson Lane to allow construction of a 12 x 15 addition to the rear of their house which will be 9 feet from the rear lot line (Code requires a 20 foot setback). Rick Faint, associated with Steve Longman, the builder, presented the request for the Konya's. They want to add space for a dinette area. He passed around pictures for board members to review. The existing back entrance doesn't conform to Code now. Something needs to be done to get back access out the patio door. Mrs. Konya indicated there was no dining area and a big glass sliding door going out to nothing when they purchased the home. They thought the existing steps were temporary. Johnson indicated that the original rear yard setback was 20 feet. This lot has an 85 - 95 foot depth. There's an outlot platted behind this lot. The adjourning neighbor had alternative plans; there are a number of variations on how this outlot can get platted. Johnson passed those alternatives around. The area is heavily • wooded. Staff would like to see an alternative to reduce the request to perhaps 12 feet. Johnson also said that the building inspectors indicated that at the time 2 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals September 8, 1994 • of the final inspection, the stairway going down toe the patio wasn't attached to the house and the permanent barrier was in place. Faint made the following statements in response to Board Members questions: - There's a bar off the kitchen area but no place to put chairs. - Heat issues and options weren't discussed in detail but the trunk line could be extended out to the 3 season deck and a damper could be closed if they didn't want to heat the space. -A 12 x 12 foot addition would be the minimum he would recommend. Anything smaller would restrict traffic. A 3 foot bay window would only result in having to put a table right where they are trying to avoid putting it now. Mrs. Konya added the following comments: - They want space for a table and chairs and something that would lead out to an area beyond the glass sliding door. They're requesting a 3 season deck. - The addition couldn't go out the other way (15 feet along the house/12 feet out from the house) because windows would be blocked. She said she would settle for a 12 x 12 foot addition. Mr. Konya made the following statements in response to Commission questions and comments: - They'd be asking for the same amount of space whether a 3 season or 4 season addition in response to Nelson' concern about granting a variance for a 3 season addition, especially when neighbors were concerned. - He indicated he wasn't aware of the possibility of acquiring any land out of Outlot A. - He indicated when they purchased the house, they thought the stairway leading down to the patio was temporary and didn't question it. Weeks asked Johnson if Outlot A is developed, assuming the Board approves a 9 foot addition, what would the distance from the addition to the next adjacent property be? She indicated it would depend if platted with a rear yard or side yard. It could be a minimum of 19 feet to 29 feet. At present, there's no application to develop Outlot A. Konya's described their hardship as a kitchen with no place to eat except at the bar or in a formal dining room and that they have a glass sliding door that goes nowhere. They don't understand why the original owners didn't put in a bay window rather than a sliding door if they didn't have a variance in the first place. Weeks stated he wasn't able to determine if all options had been explored and would like to see the house plans and demonstration that all options have been looked at. 3 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals September 8, 1994 Faint asked if any addition could be put on without a variance and was told "no". Only the steps down to the patio could be accommodated as they wouldn't be a setback problem. The entire board agreed that they could recommend something less than 12 x 15 but would need more information to decide what's reasonable. Discussion was opened to the public, at which time Mr. Johnson, 9995 Bennett Place spoke. He is opposed to the 15 foot variance request. He owns Outlot A. The addition would interfere with his own plans to build a house on the Outlot. He has talked to Al Gray but no formal plans have been drawn up. He does have a 25 foot easement between the houses. He would accept a smaller addition -- perhaps 10 feet and something that blends into the house. He doesn't care for the glass. He'd like to see something permanent. MOTION: Moved by Lynch, seconded by Moeller to continue to next month. Motion passed 7 - 0. Discussion: Dunham suggested the Konyas bring back floor plans and some other options and also meet with the Johnsons. • C. Request #94-22 by Prop= Resources Corporation of 6851 Flag Cloud Drive for permission to: 1) use an existing building 19 feet from side lot to line (Code requires 20 feet). 2) use of existing loading dock along the front of the building, 3) allow front yard parking lot setback 41 feet(Code require 50 feet). 4)construct an 8 foot height securily fence Code limit is 6 feet Mr. Hallenkamp presented the request. The building has been vacant and in disrepair for some time and they want to renovate it. They will reface with masonry block,put in new windows, canopies and an 8' ornamental fence in front and chain link fence around the rest of the property. He further indicated the on site parking would be minimal because of the type of facility use. The truck dock is important to keep since the two story building doesn't have an elevator and this dock is the only way to access the 2nd level. They've added landscaping to this area. They are reducing the existing drive to the dock from 40' to 30' and are planting 8' evergreens and adding more than originally planned. Johnson indicated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project and City Council approved the project Tuesday night. The 8' fence issue was discussed. Mr. Hallenkamp pointed out that the 8' fence • is a perception of security--it seems like it wouldn't be easy for someone to scale. 4 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals September 8, 1994 The 8' fence provides additional deterrent; it's a security item. Using barbed wire can be unattractive. Lynch stated she thinks they definitely have a hardship with the first three items because they're preexisting and doesn't think the 8' fence is unreasonable in an industrial area. It was further noted that the side will have camera surveillance on the exterior buildings. Everything is stored inside. In response to Weeks question, Mr. Hallenkamp indicated traffic users are 40% residential, 60% commercial,there will be about 4 trips per hour and there will be an occasional 18 wheeler. MOTION: Moved by Nelson, seconded by Dye to approve Variance 94-22 with the understanding that no barbed wire be placed on top of it now or in the future. The hardship for 3 of them being the existing building and the fence is both a security and visual effect. Motion passed 7 - 0. D. Request #94-23 by Greg and Nancy Orne for 7025 Autumn Terrace to allow construction of a 6' x 24' addition to the from of the house a corner of which will • be 10 feet from the side lot line (Code requires a 15 foot setback), Mrs. Orne, 7025 Autumn Terrace, stated they have a three bedroom rambler with a walkout basement. They want to increase the size of the master bedroom, closet and bath area and improve the exterior of the house. They want it to look like it was always there to enhance the house and neighborhood. They explored a number of options: 1. Cantilever off the east wall of the house. Cantilevered because it's a walkout there. The plan had a bay on the from of the master bedroom. It was unattractive on the front and expensive for basically a closet. 2. One contractor suggested they consolidate the two bedrooms into one master suite. They have two small children and that didn't meet their needs. 3. They tried some layout themselves like angling in the addition. It looked unattractive from the street. 4. Another suggestion was to go through the one bedroom and make a two story addition out the back. Mrs. Orne passed out packets with the proposal to Board Members. She stated these packets were also given to the three neighbors across the street. • 5 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals September 8, 1994 • Johnson stated that just a corner of the addition requires only a 13 foot variance. The Board of Appeals received three letters, which she passed out. Two support the 15' addition and one supports a 13 foot variance but not 10'. MOTION: Moved by Dunham, seconded by Vasaly to approve Variance #94-23 for a side yard setback of 13' to build the addition in the packet drawing. The hardship being the existing plan has been outgrown. Motion passed 7 - 0. E. Request #94-24 by M. Grantier for 6626 Rainbow Drive to allow construction of a 3-season porch to the south side of the house which will be 56 feet from Purgatory Creek ( City Code requires a 100 foot setback). Chad Miller, Contractor for Patio Enclosure of St. Louis Park, represented the request for Mr. Grantier, who was not able to be here tonight. His hardship is, when the house was built in 1962, the setback was 50'; now it's 100' which would put 75% of his entire house within the setback. He wants to add a 12' x 15' 3-season room to use in the spring to start growing plants. He can only add to the rear or side and would like the south side which has the most sun exposure. There's a steep hill in back that comes close to the house. That would be putting the addition close to the hill. • He's an agronomist and grows lots of plants and trees. He thought the intent of the 100' setback was for runoff and for new homes being able to maintain the Watershed. Johnson stated that the 100' setback has been a regulation since 1982. Prior to that, 50' may have been a policy to maintain a buffer strip between houses. She said the Parks Department has no current plan for a future trail in this area. However, 50' would be the minimum easement for a trail to go in. The request was send to the Watershed District and the DNR. The DNR had no comment. Their recommendation isn't required. Dye stated that the item was brought up at the Watershed District. Their legal counsel recommended we maintain existing conditions of 100'; the same as if the property was destroyed and replaced. Miller stated that the man across the street was granted a 50'variance 3 years ago. He also said the addition wouldn't add any burden to the sewer system. Dunham said he doesn't see a significant hardship. Lynch responded that she finds it difficult to deny, when his neighbor has a 50' setback. Weeks asked why the addition was needed to at side of house rather than the back. Miller responded that there's a steep hill to the back; he would have to put 6 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals September 8, 1994 in an extensive retaining wall. Grantier would have to go through the kitchen or a comer of the living room. He wants a working greenhouse without having to carry plants through the dining room or living room. Using the lower level would mean digging out the hill. A foundation would be needed; it would be a basement. Weeks indicated that he's not sure that all the alternatives have been explored---the affect on the grade, affect on the landscaping if on the rear. He would like to have physical and economical information showing what he wants and why it won't work around the comer. The Board needs to test against what's reasonable. They also can't approve a variance just for economical reasons. Miller stated the only other option is off the kitchen, which shoves it up against the hill. It wouldn't serve Grantier's need for having sunlight and to maintain any backyard area. He wants an enclosure with glass on three sides and glass roof panels. It's not meant for a year round or heated room. MOTION: Moved by Vasaly, seconded by Moeller to continue Variance#94-24 for additional information sufficient to demonstrate hardship and explore other alternatives for this board to review. Motion passed 4 - 2, 1 abstention. • IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Resurrection Life Advertisement Johnson indicated that they do have an electrician there this week to disconnect the lighting to the south wall sign and they will be taking it down. They will be submitting a permit for the new ground sign. B. Appeals The Ketchum house expansion appeal went to the Council and nobody showed up in opposition. Council upheld the Boards decision. The Tanen Drive appeal is still being resolved between staff and neighbors. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Letter of August 26. 1994 from Adrian and Robin Tomrequesting a special Board of Adiustments &Appeals meeting to request a 3 foot variance for a front addition to their house. . Johnson briefly stated the Toy request for a special meeting per their attached 7 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals September 8, 1994 • letter of August 26, 1994. The earliest the Board could get them on would be October 3. They want to start building before cold weather. MOTION: Moved by Vasaly, seconded by Nelson to deny the special meeting. Motion passed 7 - 0. This was because there would only be 10 days difference and it would have resulted in three meetings in October. VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Lynch, seconded by Dye to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m. • 8