Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 10/12/1995 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS • THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1995 7:30 P.M. CITY CENTER 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Arthur Weeks (Chair), Cliff Dunham, Matthew Hansen, Corrine Lynch,Kathy Nelson,Mary Vasaly STAFF LIAISON: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator Kelly Kroeninger,Recording Secretary BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Delavan Dye CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Weeks called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Dye was absent; all other members present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Vasaly moved that the Board approve the Agenda as published. Hansen • seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. H. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 10, 1995,MINUTES Weeks noted that the August 10, 1995, minutes have been sent to City Council for appeal to be read on Tuesday October 17, 1995, due to requested staff text edits. Hansen stated the an error appears on Page 8 stating that the motion carried 5-0-1 with one opposition by Hansen. Hansen indicated that the correct information was 5-1-0 with no abstention. With no other corrections or additions requested, Dunham moved for approval of the minutes, seconded by Vasaly with the motion being carried and the minutes were approved. III. VARIANCES Weeks explained the order of the Variance presentation process to those in attendance. A. Request Number 95-17 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. This is a continued item from the August 10, 1995, meeting. i BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS October 12, 1995 Page 2 • Vicki Windfeldt residing at 6621 Golden Drive, reviewed her double variance request before the board. The request consists of a 15 foot variance for a house proposed to be built on the north section of the existing piece of property of approximately an acre. They want to subdivide the lot and build a house on it. They would move the house further north and closer to the street due to the severity of the grade of the yard. Windfeldt stated that the hardship is the lay of the land which does not enable them to move the house down into the woods due to sloping of the lot. Additionally the cost involved would be great due to the number of foundation blocks needed to bring the home out of the woods. They would have to pump in the lower level to boost the sewage out as well. Windfeldt noted that since their last meeting before the board, they had hired an architect, Steve Binkey of Fineline Design Group who then addressed the board members. Binkey stated that this site has been modified by the addition of a street, creating a financial issue with regard to taxes. The street was constructed differently in that the centerline is not in the center of the right-away. With the 15 foot variance the home sits approximately the same distance from the curve as a house does customarily with a standard road. The plans for the home will have two • levels below grade. Jean Johnson stated that new plans were submitted showing the topography, the property and the site line through the house as it sits on the down slope. Neighbors have been re-notified and no further correspondence has been received. Vasaly inquired as to whether a gentleman who had been formally in opposition to this variance had expressed these concerns recently. Johnson replied that he had made another objection, with the nature of the opposition being adding another home to the subdivision. Weeks inquired as to whether the City Engineering Department has looked at sewer systems and utility ties into the new structure. Johnson stated the homeowner had worked with the City Engineering Department with regard to those ties and the proposed placement is favorable. Binkey remarked that with regard to the new construction, the lowest elevation of the flooring would be 934 feet and the lowest sewer stub would be 934 feet. Weeks inquired as to how this plan compared with the previous plan regarding tree loss. 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS October 12, 1995 Page 3 • Binkey responded that this plan loses six trees, one of which is already dead. Weeks indicated that he had no further questions and opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing. MOTION: Dunham motioned the Board approve the variance request Number 95-17 for one year. Hansen seconded the motion and it passed 5-1-0 with opposition by Nelson. B. Request Number 95-29 by Abra Auto Body for the northeast corner of Highway 169 and Aztec Drive 1) to permit platting of proposed Lot 1, Block 1,Aztec Drive Addition with a lot size of 1.11, a lot depth less then 300' and a lot width less than 3001. The Community Commercial District reauires a 5 acre minimum lot size and lot depth and width greater than or equal to 300' 2) to permit platting of proposed Lot 1, Block 2,Aztec Drive Addition with a lot size of.84 acres and a lot depth less than 3001. The I-2 District requires a 2 acre minimum lot size and lot depth at 300' or greater. This is a continued item from the August 10, 1995, meeting. Allen Stowe, Developer of the new Abra Auto Body property stated that one lot . existed until the MnDOT created Aztec Drive thereby dividing the lots in two separate entities. Stowe stated that the additional lot would be remaining undeveloped at this time. Corrine Lynch inquired as to how short of 300 feet the lots are. Johnson stated that the dimensions are 250 and 258 respectively. Vasaly inquired that since Lot 1, Block 2 is not to be developed right now it is necessary to have it platted it at this time. Stowe stated that it must all be platted now because it is part of the same property and is legally considered one parcel. Johnson stated the rezoning involved in this property is from rezoning industrial to community commercial. This has been approved by the Planning Commission with the recommendation that Lot 1, Block 2 come back for review in the future because there are no building plans currently. City Council will have this issue next Tuesday; all materials will be to code with a condition that should be attached to the staff report. Weeks inquired as to whether the zoning change was part of the variance, also there is still some unresolved questions regarding landscaping. • Johnson replied that the zoning change was not part of the variance, but that there were still landscaping issues that needed to be addressed. 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS October 12, 1995 Page 4 • Stowe stated the landscaping plan has been approved by the staff with the Tuesday meeting for final approval with City Council. Kathy Nelson inquired to Johnson as to where the landscape exception was within the 5 point conditions. Johnson stated the landscaping plan would be to code prior to a permit issuance. Weeks stated that he had no further questions and opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing. MOTION: Lynch motioned the Board for approval of the variance request Number 95-29 and seconded by Nelson. The motion passed 6-0-0. C. Request Number 95-30 by Dave and Carol Graff to permit a garage addition 216" from a side lot line Code requires a minimum 10' side yard setback with a total of 25' both sides in the R1-13.5 Zoning District. Dave Graff stated that the hardship as stated in Webster's Dictionary as a `situation that is hard to endure'. This home is approximately 4000 square feet and the current garage is very narrow at 20' x 20'. Graff also stated the functional depreciation is directly related to the two car . garage. Additionally they have a Mazda Van that has had the outside mirror knocked off on two different occasions. There has also been a number of vandalism's upon automobiles within this neighborhood recently on cars that were parked outside of the garage. Graff indicated that they would make every effort to follow the aesthetic beauty of the existing neighborhood by following the same roofline and paint colors. Their new garage would be as appealing as those homes around them. Graff commented on the slides taken throughout the neighborhood that have 3 car garages, and the slide of Graff home and the home next door. Carol Graff then stated the neighborhood support that they have received with regard to the 3rd car attachment. She noted that there was one letter sent from one residential neighbor opposing the additional garage. She was concerned that they were not fully aware of their full plans. Graff had notified all the neighbors within their cul-de-sac and asked them to sign a petition if they approved of the new addition. Weeks inquired why the original house was built with such a small garage. Dave Graff stated that this was the $50,000 question, and stated that they really did not know why the garage was built so small except to say the people who • lived there previously did own two very small sports cars. 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS October 12, 1995 Page 5 • Vasaly spoke of the objection letter and stated that the developer had agreed to plans having some homes with two car garages and others with three. Weeks inquired as to how this development was originally planned; one road first and then the other roads. Carol Graff responded that because they were not the original owners of the home, they were unclear about the developer's plans. Vasaly asked about the possibility of building the garage forward. Dave Graff stated that it would be a very costly option and would look very odd due to the way the home sits on the lot. Vasaly commented on the dictionary definition of the word `hardship' and clarified that the definition as stated in the ordinance does not consider economics a hardship and ordinances are not to be granted due to financial hardships. Graff stated the functional depreciation is directly related to the two car garage. Additionally they have a Mazda Van that has had the outside mirror knocked off on two different occasions. Nelson noted that a side drive was roughed-in next to the other drive, wondering • if this was how the new driveway would get to the existing garage. Additionally, she stated that 2 1/2' does not leave and overly large space should the home require maintenance, etc. on that side. Dave Graff agreed that 2 1/2' would be somewhat of a challenge and they would make every effort to keep from violating the other homeowner's property. Hansen inquired as to whether this addition would affect drainage. Nelson noted that a side drive was roughed-in next to the other drive, wondering if this was Johnson stated that there will be a swail and the water will be carried away. Hansen also inquired about building a permanent structure into the easements and would there be a need to vacate the easement. Nelson noted that a side drive was roughed-in next to the other drive, wondering if this was Johnson stated that the landowner's are requesting a vacate and the Engineering Department has looked at it and does not foresee any future need. Weeks noted that he had viewed the site today and the garage is quite narrow. With no further discussion by the board, Weeks opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing. • 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS October 12, 1995 Page 6 Vasaly stated that the presentation was nicely done but she could not see any hardship except for a small garage. She did not want to set a precedence that allows people to build closer than the law allows without any real hardship shown. Hansen stated that he was encouraged by the neighborhood support,but was concerned that they may be trying to over-expand based on the size of the home and lot configuration. Dunham agreed that there would be encroachment of space and would lose some of the beauty of the trees in the background if such a structure were built. Nelson noted that another option may be to have two driveways although it would probably not look very appealing. She did note however that this is a very narrow garage and does create some kind of a hardship. Lynch stated that this was a hard one to decide upon as she had sympathy for the homeowners and yet it was really not a technical hardship to be without a 3rd garage. She inquired as to whether there was a way to re-draw the lot lines somehow. Weeks responded that the pictures shown during the homeowner presentation are very deceiving and the lot really does slope away quickly. He stated that their job is to minimise variances and this is a difficult request. He did state that he believed it was a definite hardship for the homeowner and looked upon it favorably. Lynch stated that if this variance is granted we must grant the next door homeowner's variance as well. In response Johnson indicated that there would be 16' between the garage in the front and 35 feet between them in the back. Weeks stated that perhaps both variances should be looked at together. Lynch indicated that we should be aware of both of them but that they should be voted on separately,unless there are compelling reasons that cause the two to be acted on as one. Weeks stated that because these two homes were staggered, and there is juxtaposition there, it helps him to favor the addition. Vasaly inquired as to whether than adding another stall why not expand the existing garage to a normal size. Dave Graff stated that this would cost as much as putting on a 3rd stall. 6 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS October 12, 1995 Page 7 • Vasaly stated that this wasn't a hidden condition to the homeowners at purchase time, and the concern is that it works an avoidance of the ordinances that should have been considered in the first place. Weeks inquired the board members as to where that leaves them now, and any other options that should be discussed. Lynch made a motion for a continuance. Weeks stated that Lynch had made a motion for a continuance and asked if the proponent desired to have a continuation which is usually for 60 days. Weeks also stated that each variance needs to be looked differently and each one has different hardships associated with it. Lynch withdrew the motion for a continuance. Dunham made a motion to approve the variance based on the hardships. The motion was seconded by Nelson. Hansen asked if a condition on the grading and drainage must be viewed and approved be attached to the variance. • Weeks approved of the condition and asked Dunham and Nelson to accept that condition to which they agreed. Lynch questioned the large amount of property on the other side of the lot due to the placement of the home on the lot. Weeks inquired Lynch to have both amendments added to the variance and she agreed. Weeks then asked Dunham and Nelson to accept this amendment as well, they agreed. MOTION: Dunham motioned the board approve the variance request with the two amendments for Number 95-30 for one year. Nelson seconded the motion and it passed 6-0-0. Vasaly requested that an adjustment to the agenda to allow Number 95-31 to be moved to the end of all the variances should someone show up. Weeks agreed and requested that a motion be made to adjust the agenda. MOTION: Vasaly motioned the board approve the adjustment to the agenda with regard to variance Number 95-31. Nelson seconded the motion and it • passed 6-0-0. 7 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS October 12, 1995 Page 8 E. Request Number 95-32 by Janet Griffine of 11073 Bluestem Lane to construct a deck 12 feet from the rear lot line (code requires 20 feet). Mark Weig, speaking on behalf of Janet Griffing, stated that the hardship is the slope drainage flows down past the retaining wall and the hills behind it. Therefore the proposal for of a concrete or paved patio would get too wet. The proposal is to build a deck off of the existing deck and to come out as planned on the map. Also the porch has patio doors that you can exit from both sides onto the deck. Our hardship again is the drainage for everything would be hard to work with. A neighbor also signed a letter that said the deck would be esthetically appealing. Weeks stated that he had viewed the property today and that the deck was already under construction. He asked as to whether the request was filed prior to the beginning of construction to which Weig responded that it had not. Johnson stated that one item with regard to the lot survey with their attachment, we scaled it off with an approximate 12' setback from the rear lot line,but the letter refers that you will be 5' into it. If you are requesting a 15' setback we can consider that tonight. Additionally, this item was before the board in 1992 but did not come to action and have had no calls from neighbors on this issue. Weeks discussed the design of the proposed deck with some trellis work in the • 1992 variance request. Are you still proposing this trellis work for tonight's request. Griffing stated that the trellis work was not a part of the current variance. Hansen asked the owner if she had investigated building the deck within the setbacks directly to the south instead of going to the east. Griffing responded that building to the south would have resulted in the loss of 3 large cedar trees. Vasaly commented on whether the land behind the home was public land and wondered by whom it was owned. Johnson confirmed that the land was to be open space preservation. Weeks opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing. Weeks opened up the motion to the board members. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve the variance Number 95-32 and was seconded by Dunham, The motion carried 6-0-0. 8 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS October 12, 1995 Page 9 • F. Reauest Number 95-32 by Janet Griffmg of 11073 Bluestem Lane to construct a deck 12 feet from the rear lot line (code requires 20 feet). Richard Ahman stated that the issue with the garage is the addition of a detached third garage to a 1960's home development. The hardship was stated as the plat not being put in proportion to this house. Setbacks were not in effect at the time of this development and are proposing a third car garage further off the street and further behind. Ahman stated that they were trying to bring in aesthetic appeal to the neighborhood. The plot drops off quickly on the right north of the lot, bordering the lot is Hennepin Park on both sides and straight into the woods. Ahman noted that no trees would be removed or injured with the addition of the new garage. Ahman stated that another aesthetic advantage would enable them to park their boat in their garage. Dunham inquired if the garage would have its own driveway. Ahman responded that it would have its own driveway and that they had just put in sewer and water and street improvements as well. Lynch stated that if he did shift it back to meet the thirty or the other option to • decrease the depth of the garage,but existing home is closer now. Johnson commented that this variance had been reviewed, with no calls or negative comments received from any homeowner in the neighborhood. Weeks opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing. MOTION: Nelson made a motion to approve variance Number 95-33 with the hardship being the original placement of the house originally and was seconded by Vasaly. The motion carried 6-0-0. G. Request Number 95-31 by Tom Morgan for 10160 Phaeton Drive to permit a garage addition 4'6"from a side lot line. City Code requires a minimum 10' side yard setback with a total of 25' both sides. Weeks stated that because there was no representative present for this variance, he opened it to the board to make a motion. MOTION: Dunham make a motion for a 30 day continuation for variance Number 95-31 and was seconded by Hansen. The motion carried 6-0-0. 9 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS October 12, 1995 Page 10 • IV. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business for discussion. V. NEW BUSINESS Johnson noted that two items had been included in board member packets and are as follows: (l.) A form to fill out for anyone interested in diversity training and forms should be filled out as soon as possible. (2.) An update memo on Dennis Sherwood that is currently in court. Johnson noted that they are urging him to contact the judge to work this issue out. Vasaly noted that Sherwood had violated the court order. VL NEW BUSINESS MOTION: Dunham moved the board adjourn. Nelson seconded the motion and was passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:28 p.m. • �I • 10