Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 08/10/1995 APPROVED MINUTES • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, AUGUST 10, 1995 7:30 P.M. CITY CENTER 8080 MITCHELL ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: ARTHUR WEEKS, (CHAIR); CLIFF DUNHAM, DELAVAN DYE, MATTHEW HANSEN, CORRINE LYNCH, KATHY NELSON, MARY VASALY STAFF PRESENT: STEVE DURHAM, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, ELINDA BARLEY, RECORDING SECRETARY BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: DELAVAN DYE, CORRINE LYNCH, MARY VASALY CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL- PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Weeks called the meeting to order at 7:37 P.M. Dye, Lynch, and • Vasaly were absent; all other members were present. Nelson arrived at 7:40 P.M. There was no pledge of allegiance because a flag was not present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Dunham moved that the Board approve the Agenda as published. Nelson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. II. MINUTES OF JULY 13, 1995 MEETING MOTION: Dunham moved that the Board accept the Minutes of July 13, 1995 per Mr. Weeks instructions. Mr. Weeks noted that on page 6, regarding variance request 95-19, there was discussion by Mrs. Owens, who was the neighbor of the proponent, acknowledging that there was a general agreement about the first variance request, and that was not reflected in the minutes. Mr. Weeks • 1 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 10, 1995 would like the city attorney to render an opinion as to whether that can be inserted into the minutes because the public hearing was closed. Nelson seconded the motion and it passed 3-0-1 with one abstention by Hansen. III. VARIANCES Weeks explained the order of the Variance presentation process to those in attendance. A. Request #95-17 by Roger and Vickie Windfeldt for 6621 Golden Ridge Drive for approval of 1) a setback for the existing house which is 21.9 feet from the front property line (Code requires a 30 foot setback) and, 2) to grant a 15 foot front Yard setback for a new house to be constructed north of the existing house on a new lot to be created by applicant. (Continued item) Vicki Windfeldt, residing at 6621 Golden Ridge Drive, reviewed her variance request with the Board. The request is for a 15 foot variance for a house • proposed to be built on the north section of the existing piece of property, which is an acre. They want to subdivide the lot and build a house. They would move the house further north and a little more close to the street because of the severe steep grade of the yard. The final floor plan was not ready, but they showed a blueprint of the house depicting the way it will look. The house is a double basement rambler walk-out. The lay of the land is dictating the design of the house. If they move it closer to Golden Ridge Drive, they will have to have a double basement. They will still be able to meet the building code. They are proposing a double car garage attached, and also another double car garage underneath near the foundation. If the variance were granted, it would permit the necessary drainage for the sewer and water that they have in there now. The need is to blend with the neighborhood and to be a reasonable house for this lot. Because there will be a double foundation, it was recommended that they hire a structural engineer for the foundation. They have lived in the house for 19 years and the desire is to stay in the neighborhood and build a house. 2 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 10, 1995 Weeks was concerned about how many trees could be saved. Windfeldt replied that it was her understanding for the lot split that they could remove up to 10% of the trees, and with the building permit it would be more. It's not their desire to remove trees. Weeks expressed concern about the feasibility of bringing in utilities. Windfeldt replied that it will be just as easy to hook up to sewer and water as it was with their existing house. Weeks asked what the hardship was. Windfeldt replied that the hardship is the slope of the land. If they move the house down into the woods any further, it would be a cost issue because of the foundation. They also had to have a pump in the lower level to boost the sewage out. The hardship would be the cost of the construction from a structural foundation standpoint primarily. Durham gave a brief history of that area. The applicant has indicated that the hardship is the topography on the site which Staff agrees with. He noted that • this drops off rather steeply. The option would be to build a house with a 30 foot front yard setback which is required. Anything can be done but it's a matter of just how much the cost would be with that in terms of meeting the setback. There is a house pad on there that could meet the setback. After checking with the city attorney in terms of a subdivision of the lot, both lots that are being created do meet the 22,000 square feet. Staff suggests the recommendation by the engineer, and the letter submitted be adhered to, and that a professional engineer be obtained to keep an eye on the house, and erosion control plans be submitted. Staff received one letter from Clarence Schaefer, dated August 7th. The letter indicates their opposition of the variance request. Weeks asked if the city engineer has looked at this. Durham replied that the city engineer has been involved with the plans. He has not done a detailed study of it. He has visited the site and he believes that the house can be built in there. Roger Windfeldt, residing at 6621 Golden Ridge Drive, showed the Board pictures of the house. He noted that the City never took an accurate survey before they put the road in, and that's why they paid to have it surveyed. They 3 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 10, 1995 measured across the street from the property line and it's 20 feet from the property line. Vicki Windfeldt noted that these houses were built in the early 1960's before the 30 foot setback was required. Dunham was concerned about access to the garage underneath the house. Vicki Windfeldt showed the access on the plans. If they don't do this, they would have to fill it in and it would be like a dirt road coming through the window. They felt a triple car garage would look too long, and there are no triple car garages in the neighborhood. Nelson asked if a driveway could come within 6 or 7 feet of the property line. Durham replied that 3 feet is the minimum. Nelson was concerned about why they want to stay on this particular piece of land. Vicki Windfeldt replied that they have been there for 19 years, and they love the neighborhood. They like the schools and love the church. She works • at the church and it's close to home. They feel very established in Eden Prairie. They could sell the house and move to another location, but they can't find any other location as nice as what they've got. Nelson suggested building an addition on the existing house. Vicki Windfeldt replied that there's a limit on how much you can get on a second mortgage. The builders have come in with an estimate of over $100,000, and it's too expensive. Hansen noted that it's a beautiful spot, and suggested that they work with an architect. At this stage it would be extremely important to see some details with the slopes and the trees. He expressed concern about whether or not the proponent has looked at enough details. He can not support this without seeing more details such as where the retaining walls are going to be. Dunham agreed with Hansen that he needs to see more detail. Weeks asked what is the proposed distance from the front of the house to the curb line of what is being asked, and how does that compare to the other houses on the block. Roger Windfeldt replied that the rest of the houses are either 30 feet or less, and theirs would be more than 30 feet from the curb. • 4 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 10, 1995 Weeks suggested that they submit a set of plans or a sketch to show what the house would look like with this type of elevation if they complied with this variance, showing it at 30 feet. He indicated that he needs more details to support it. Weeks opened the public hearing. Jim Jenson, Vicki Windfeldt's father, indicated that he is an engineer. His opinion is that this is the only place the contour and the slope of the ground will let the house fit on. He agrees that it has to be designed, but when you start doing that there are a lot of architectural and engineering costs to get to that point. If they're not going to get the 15 foot setback, it's not going to be feasible to build from an economic standpoint. Even if the Board grants the 15 foot setback, it would not be blocking anybody's view. Weeks closed the public hearing. Nelson is not positive that she needs additional information looking at the • setback distances. The proponent is going to ultimately want to relook at the house plan. They are not going to get a lower driveway. They might want to do something different once they get professionals involved with their plans. This will not effect her decision of the 15 foot setback. She is ready to make a decision along with the decision of the Staff. Dunham noted that he agrees to some degree. He can not grant a variance without knowing what's going to happen on the site. There are too many variables for him to blanket lay a 15 foot variance. Weeks noted that in terms of the Board's jurisdiction, there are two possibilities. The Board can take action on the variance with conditions attached in terms of additional documentation that may be above and beyond what's required by the city engineer. Option #2 would be to ask for a continuance for the Board to see the documentation and address some of the specific items that are not outlined yet. Durham commented that the Board can put any condition that they need to on this variance request if they can approve it based on the particular plan submitted tonight. It has to be in location and all the information they think would be necessary for the city engineer to see, and the department to see prior 5 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 10, 1995 to construction. Plans being submitted need to be reviewed by the Building Department and the engineer, and if it does not meet those conditions, the variance would be null and void. The proponent would have to come back and apply again. The second option would be for the Board to see all of that information at a following meeting, and there is the option of denial and appeal to the Council. Weeks asked what a timetable would be to start the development. Roger Windfeldt replied as soon as possible. They would like to get the foundation dug this fall. If they have to, they would wait until the Spring, but the rates are good and the lumber prices are stable now. Weeks asked what the timetable is for the lot split. Durham replied that it's about 60 days depending on whether it's an administrative split or the Planning Commission/City Council review process. MOTION: • Dunham moved that the Board continue variance request #95-17 for 60 days with the condition that the Board receive a grading plan, site section plan, information on the utility connections, retaining walls, decks, and driveway slopes. Hansen seconded the motion and it passed 3-1-0 with opposition by Nelson. B. Request #95 25 by Landform Engineering Company for Fuddrucker's and Rio Bravo for the corner of Technology Drive and U.S. 169. Darren Lazan, representing Landform Engineering Company, reviewed his variance request with the Board. He noted that it's a two lot Commercial subdivision on Technology Drive. One site is Fuddrucker's, and the other site is Rio Bravo, but at this point it's not definite about Rio Bravo. It was an approved PUD for approximately 230,000 square foot office building. Since that time, the shore line requirements have gone into effect which requires several variances on this project. They are proposing to use two dining room facilities with outdoor use on the property which Staff is in favor of. The property with variances has been reviewed, and received approval from the DNR. • 6 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 10, 1995 Durham noted that the area's current Guide Plan shows it as Office in the downtown area. It would be an appropriate change to go to Commercial for this particular site. Lake Idlewild is now a protective water, and with that new classification, no development can occur around this lake without variances. American Baptist Homes was built prior to the change in classification, but it's similar in terms of its setback. Dairy Queen and the convenience center all have variances for the setback. It was anticipated by the City and Staff that variances would be required. The Planning Commission has reviewed this and recommended approval for the City Council. The City Council has reviewed it and passed the First Reading on it. Staff received one call from the attorney from American Baptist Homes who wanted to know some basic history about the site, and why the variances were being requested. The DNR also has reviewed and approved this. Since the publication of this in the paper, there has been an amendment. Item #1 dropped off, and #3 and #4 setbacks have increased. Weeks was concerned about when the last time the Guide Plan use was • reviewed and updated. Durham replied that it's more like a 10 year cycle. It doesn't change that drastically. Since 1967 the Guide Plan has changed very little. Nelson commented that her concern is protection of the shore line, and it does have DNR approval. Dunham noted that there is 30% more parking stalls than required. He asked if that would help with the impervious surface, or is it not much of an issue to reduce the number of parking stalls. Durham replied that it's not much of an issue. They anticipate in the downtown area the impervious surface going as high as 70%. It's not what Staff desires, but it's what they anticipate. Nelson was concerned about what would be in place of Rio Bravo. She wanted to know if it would be another restaurant or could it be a hardware store. Lazan replied that they hoped it would be a restaurant. Weeks opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing. 7 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 10, 1995 MOTION: Nelson moved that the Board approve variance request #95-25 of lot #1, lot size of 1.66 acres. shoreland setback from water 70 feet, parking setback of 55 feet, impervious surface of 55%, and lot #2, lot size of 2.44 acres, shoreland setback from water at 50 feet, parking setback of 37 feet, impervious surface of 60%; and the hardship being the different setback from what was a manmade lake from the original PUD to current. Dunham seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. C. Request #95-26 by Robert Schmidt for 7153 Emerald Lane for approval to permit construction of a deck addition 10 feet from a rear lot line (City Code requires a minimum side yard setback of 20 feet). and 14'6" from the side lot line (City Code requires a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet with a total of 25 feet both sides). Robert Schmidt, residing at 7153 Emerald Lane, reviewed his variance request with the Board. The proposal is to reconstruct a deck on his home which is a • little larger than the one he had before. The old deck was only 10'x 10' and made out of untreated materials which started to rot. For safety reasons it was taken down. He applied for a permit and found out it was too big. They wish to go larger because 10 feet is only big enough for a table for 4 people. He wants something a little larger. They put stairs out the back rather than straight out because he wants to go along the side of the house, and that's why they are asking for 14 feet. City Code would only allow 8'x 10'. Because of the lay of the land, they get water in the basement and that's the lowest part of the land. That's why they don't wish to do a flat surface type patio. He submitted a letter from the neighbors who have no objections to the construction. Weeks was concerned about what the hardship is. Schmidt replied that he would rather build it up on top rather than on the ground. He would only have more problems with the water entering the basement. Durham noted that the property is zoned R1-13.5. All the homes in the area are single family residential homes. Directly to the east of this site the property is zoned R1-9.5. That does allow a total of 15 foot setbacks. Should the Board decide this variance has hardship, the setback would not be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. 8 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 10, 1995 Hansen asked what the size of the new deck is. Schmidt replied 14'x 16'. Dunham asked if the colored in trees on the map would be left. Schmidt replied that they would not be disturbed at all, nor would the bushes. Weeks was concerned about there being another location to build the deck. Schmidt replied that at the back end there are bedrooms and there would be no access. Weeks opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing. Nelson commented that it seems to be a minimal request and the neighbors have no objections. It looks like it's a nice deck and does not distract from the house. She supports the variance request. Weeks indicated that the new deck has to comply with the new standard of the new treated wood. MOTION: Dunham moved that the Board approve variance request #95-26 for a 10 foot rear setback and 14'6" from the side; the hardship being the existing grade, location of the house, and the condition of the old deck. Nelson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. D. Request #95-27 by Taurus Properties for West of Baker Road and south of Theresa Place to allow lot size variances from 13,500 square feet for 1) proposed Lot 2, Block 2 (12,050 sa ft., 2) proposed Lot 7. Block 2 (12,047 sg ft., 3) proposed Lot 9 Block 2 (13,094 sq. feet.) Duane Dietrich, representing Taurus Properties, reviewed his variance request with the Board. The request is on interior lots #2 and #7, that they be allowed to use within the R1-13.5 zoning distance 5 and 10 instead of 10 and 15. This will allow them to build a bigger house. This was the desire of the neighborhood. • 9 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 10, 1995 Dunham asked if the request for a variance on the side yard is part of this. Durham replied no, that it wasn't published for that. It has to be published in the paper. Dunham was concerned about the pads being within the requirement for that particular zoning. Dietrich replied that there's no reason for it. They can build a smaller house. The pads that are on there are maximum size pads. They are shown as 50 feet deep. Dunham questioned the price range of these homes. Dietrich replied $210,000 to $280,000. He noted that they originally started with 23 lots and now they have 19 lots. This has satisfied all but one neighbor out of 50. Durham indicated that the Planning Commission and City Council have taken action. Weeks opened the public hearing. • Weeks closed the public hearing. Nelson commented that this is the agreement that the City and the neighborhood came together on. If this is going to make the neighborhood happy, they you must go along with the agreement. Weeks asked if there has been any opposition to this variance request. Durham indicated that a couple of people stopped in but their concern was unrelated to the variance. He noted that the variance creates the perimeter lot size which abuts R1-22 zoning. Staff believes that the smaller lots should be considered as a trade- off providing a better perimeter transition between R1-22 lots and R1-13.5 lots. MOTION: Nelson moved that the Board approve variance request #95-27, that Lot 2, Block 2; Lot 7, Block 2; and Lot 9, Block 2, be allowed a lot size less than 13,500 as indicated on the plat; and the hardship being increased size in perimeter lots as requested by the neighborhood, and this became a trade-off, the perimeter for the Forest Hills 8th Addition preliminary plat. Hansen seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 10 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 10, 1995 VI. OLD BUSINESS It was noted that there was no appeal by Mr. Mischel regarding variance request #95-19. The appeal was from the lot size down.on Highway 169 and Eden Prairie Road, the Niosi sign, and it will go to the next Council meeting. VII. NEW BUSINESS There are no variances on for next month, but there is still one more week that someone could apply. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Dunham moved that the Board adjourn. Nelson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. -# Meeting adjourned at 9:40 P.M. barb\jean\boa\min810 11