Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 11/09/1995 • APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS • THURSDAY,NOVEMBER 991995 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,Mary Vasaly STAFF LIAISON: Scott Kipp,Planner Kelly Kroeninger,Recording Secretary BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Corrine Lynch,Kathy Nelson CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Weeks called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Corrine Lynch and Kathy Nelson were absent; all other members present. L 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 OCTOBER 12, 1995,MINUTES Final approval of October 12, 1995 Meeting, due to board members requests and input. These minutes are to be brought to the next meeting for final approval. Additionally,the corrections for the November 9, 1995 minutes will be approved and finalized. III. VARIANCES Weeks explained the order of the Variance presentation process to those in attendance. A. Request Number 95-31 by Tom Morgan for 10178 Phaeton Drive to uermit a garage addition 5 feet 6 inches from the side lot line. City Code requires a minimum 10 feet sidevard setback with a total of 25 feet both sides in the R1-13.5 Zoning District. This is a continued item from the October 12, 1995, meeting. Tom Morgan residing at 10160 Phaeton Drive briefly reviewed his variance request before the board. He also thanked the board members for their patience in dealing with this item Morgan stated the hardship exists because the garage cannot be extended out the back due to living space. Additionally, Morgan indicated that the backyard is • steep and wooded,they would lose many oak trees by trying to extend the garage out the back. Morgan indicated that they had received written approvals from 12 nearby neighbors to go ahead with the work. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS November, 9, 1995 Page 2 • Morgan also noted that he felt that the granting of this variance would not be out of character with the neighborhood and surrounding areas. Weeks inquired as to the inside dimensions of the existing garage. Morgan responded that it was 26 feet by 26 feet currently,but with the mudroom the total inside size would be reduced. Morgan also stated that due to the large amount of sports that their children are involved in, it is even more difficult to store all of the sporting equipment in the existing garage. Weeks then inquired as to what Morgan thought the actual hardship was, and to explain it to board members. Morgan indicated that the back of the property was such that it was not conducive to building onto the back of the lot. Morgan also indicated that he had consulted with an architect who stated that with the current position of their chimney,building to the back of the structure would force them to have to swing their vehicles nearly in a loop to enter the garage. This was not considered feasible by the architect or Morgan himself. • Morgan also apologized that the builder for this variance was unable to attend the meeting for this particular variance. Weeks inquired as to how many cars the Morgan's currently own. Morgan replied that they currently owned 3 vehicles and that upon investigating, it would be cheaper to put on a third car garage than to try to expand the existing structure. Morgan stated that he could but it was an extremely tight space and hard to move around within the garage. Mary Vasaly inquired of Morgan as to whether he had contacted the surrounding neighbors on this proposal. Morgan replied that yes he had and all of the neighbors were in approval of this variance and that they all signed a letter of approval. Vasaly then questioned Morgan as to the problems with extending the existing garage further back on the lot. Morgan replied that doing so would result in the loss of many trees. Vasaly reiterated that according to Morgan,his current vehicles were a Honda, Cutlass Supreme and a Station Wagon. • Morgan indicated that yes they were and having them presented a real problem in storage of needed maintenance tools, snowblower, etc. 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS November, 9, 1995 Page 3 • Delavan Dye then stated the current problem with this garage could have been easily solved in the beginning by turning the home 10 degrees. Additionally, Dye stated that we have a problem with poor developer builders and that they should be told to shape up and build homes correctly. Kipp agreed with Dye and stated that they have the same problems with building of decks and that builders set the tone of not being able to expand without violating city code. Dye remarked that he couldn't build in the floodplain, as is must be within the easement. Vasaly responded that in these types of situations many homebuyers pay less for such existing limitations on their new home. Cliff Dunham asked how hard it is to currently move a car from out of the garage. Morgan responded he had to manipulate around a large pine, a small crab tree and a basketball hoop. Dunham stated that this variance was different from others of this type in that they already had at least a 2 stall garage. He indicated that he was having a difficult time approving this,based on the hardship presented. Weeks inquired as to whether Morgan had built the house, with the current dimensions. Morgan stated that yes he had built the house to those dimensions, including the mudroom. Weeks inquired of Kipp as to how the maximum requirement of the 25 feet would work. Kipp responded that all setbacks are to be perpendicular to the closest lot line. Weeks inquired about adding an asphalt pad instead of a third car garage and brought up the fact that with respect to the recent variance request from Morgan's neighbors,the Graffs, Morgan did have more storage space than they did. Morgan stated that should he decide to buy a boat,jet ski, etc., leaving them on an asphalt pad would not sit well with the neighbors. Morgan stated that he thought this was a very reasonable request and stated that the other option of putting a blacktop driveway and having it run to the back of the home would be very unappealing. Weeks opened the public hearing. . Weeks closed the public hearing. 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS November, 9, 1995 Page 4 • Vasaly stated that although it would be nice to grant the variance, she was unable to see sufficient hardship for this request. Dye said that while it would be nice to have the additional space, but felt that an alternative plan should be researched and presented at a later time to the board. Weeks inquired as to the width of garage door. Morgan was quite sure that it was 16 feet. Weeks replied that he was sensitive to not creating a precedence and could not see any real hardship based on the evening's discussions. He stated that this variance would probably be denied this evening, and suggested that Morgan investigate other options and return before the board at a later time. Morgan stated that this would be agreeable to him and he would begin working with an architect and have him attend the meeting regarding this request. Weeks responded that he felt the board would be perceptive to a continuation on the variance and opened it up to the board members.. Dye motioned for a 60 day continuance and was seconded by Vasaly. MOTION: Dye motioned the Board for a 60 day continuance of variance . request Number 95-31 and seconded by Vasaly. The motion passed 5-0-0. B. Request Number 95-35 by Design I of Edina,Ltd. for 9973 Valley View Road (1) to permit a lot without frontage on a public road (pre-existing condition). City Code reauires all lots to have frontage on a public road. (2) to permit parking 0 inches from a side lot line. City Code requires a 10 feet side yard setback. (3) to permit exterior building material of 63 percent redwood siding. City Code requires 75 percent brick, glass or stone and not more than 25 percent wood. Robert Davis, President of Design I of Edina, stated that the hardship was due to the original concept and approvals for this site being based on code for variances which have since expired. Additionally, he stated that if the variance for elimination of public road frontage, as currently exists, then the site is essentially unbuildable. Davis also stated that the difference in the usage and percentage of exterior materials, as well as zero setback to parking, was necessary to maintain consistency with the original buildings. Vasaly inquired as why it was a hardship to be required to use a large amount of stone. • 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS November, 9, 1995 Page 5 • Davis responded that it would be consistently out of character to go with so much stone and so little use of wood. Weeks inquired as to whether in 1981 when variances A, B, and C were approved, did this also include Part D as approved. Davis stated that Part D was approved in 1981 and has since been the only building not built. Kipp remarked that he agreed there was a hardship and is currently unbuildable based on required codes. Weeks questioned as to who owns the remaining property within this area. Kipp indicated that there is a covenant on the property. Hansen asked why this property was not platted as one single lot. Kipp indicated that when this property was first developed, it was not to be condominiums and therefore was not platted that way. Hansen stated that the site plan currently meets requirements for pervious or impervious lots. • Dunham inquired if parking as currently exists is adequate. Morgan replied that yes he does meet city ordinance now and would be adding 32 stalls for the new 6400 feet. Dunham questioned if the 6400 feet included any type of garage. Morgan stated that he did not need to qualify for such a thing as he needs 32 stalls and currently has 34 stalls. Weeks opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing. Dunham motioned to approve and was seconded by Dye with conditions from the Staff Report of the Valley Place Office-Phase U. MOTION: Dunham motioned to approve and was seconded by Dye with the attached conditions of page 4 and page 5 from the Staff Report of the Valley Place Office-Phase U. This report was drawn up on October 6, 1995, and all provisions from these two pages must be adhered to as part of the variance request approval. The motion passed 5-0-0. C. Request Number 95-36 by Wayne Francisco for 17400 West 66th Street to permit construction of a garage addition with a front yard setback of 23.5 • feet. City Code requires a 30 feet front yard setback. 5 • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS November, 9, 1995 Page 6 Wayne Francisco stated that the he wanted to expand the existing garage of his home toward the street.. He stated that the hardship is created by the design of the home, enabling the only way to expand is toward the street. While a detached garage could be built on site, it would be nearly 40 feet from the front door, four large trees would need to be removed and extensive land grading would be needed to accommodate a steep slope from the front to the rear of the garage. Francisco also noted that a detached garage would require a great deal of foundation fill in the back of the yard. Kipp remarked that the older neighborhoods such as those platted in the 1960's had one car garages, and now most people need a 2 stall garage. Kipp also stated that any new driveway resulting from an expansion is required by code to be paved. Francisco indicated that the new garage floor would be concrete or paved. Hansen inquired as to whether they planned on maintaining the existing garage door to the home. Francisco stated that yes they would maintain the same door opening. • Hansen inquired of Kipp as to why there were different requirements for older neighborhoods. Kipp replied that the requirements are actually the same for all neighborhoods, but that he didn't have the current information with him on the average setback for a home. Hansen stated that he could see the hardship, but wondered why all the other homes are 30 feet back or more but this particular lot was not. Francisco replied that they could not build their home any steeper with the lot as it existed. Dunham stated that by allowing the variance, they would be aligning the garage with the end of the street. Francisco stated that the only other option was to expand on the west side, leaving it 3 1/2 feet dead level to the curb and with a four feet drop from the curb. Kipp stated that is was more likely that there would be a 15 feet clearance from the road,not the lower figures as indicated. Dunham wondered if the driveway could possibly be confused with a • continuation of the road. 6 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS November, 9, 1995 Page 7 • Francisco stated that this was doubtful with all of large signs showing arrows to direct people. Weeks stated that he favored the request as it was unusual to have a single car garage these days. He also indicated that the increased right of way is a good thing. Vasaly inquired as to why 16 1/2 feet of the front yard is city owned right-of-way and asked Kipp if he knew why. Kipp said that was normal for the 1960's and today's standard is 60 feet. Weeks opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing. Vasaly motioned to approve Number 95-36,with the hardship being a loss of trees to which the proposal is consistent, and seconded by Dye. MOTION: Vasaly motioned the Board for approval of the variance request Number 95-36 and seconded by Dye. The motion passed 5-0-0. D. Request Number 95-37 by Challenge Printim/RoLert Lothenbach for 7500 Golden Triangle Drive to permit construction of a building addition with a portion of the northeast corner 16.3 feet from a side lot line. City Code requires a side yard setback of 20 feet in the 1-2 Zoning District. Tom Hart,legal counsel for Challenge Printing, stated that in February of this year Challenge Printing received approval from City Council for a building expansion to the existing facility. The Board of Appeals also granted a 25 feet front yard setback variance as part of this approval for a portion of the parking. This was to allow the building to be as far away from the flood plain and wooded area of the property. Hart indicated that when the property was re-surveyed for building permit submittal, it was discovered that the lot line is at a slight angle. Jim Bayliss with Challenge Printing also addressed the board regarding this request, and commented on the need for approval of the variance request. Hart then stated that the hardship of a steep slope on the west land left them with no alternative for expansion on that side and said he felt due to the unique characteristics of the land,this was the best solution. Dunham stated that the intersections of the west and north areas are only at an 89 percent degree angle with the building. He added that earlier approved plans had shown 25 feet setbacks. Hart responded that during a previous survey the setback had been mislocated. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS November, 9, 1995 Page 8 Dunham inquired if he had received any comments from the neighbors to the south of him. Hart replied that he had received no comments nor complaints from neighboring buildings. Dye inquired as to whether construction had begun. Bayliss stated that construction would start soon. Vasaly stated that it doesn't look as if there would be that much of a loss of space. Weeks indicated that he needed a better understanding of the roof line, etc. Kipp stated that he had concern about the angled roof and preventing the storage of snow, etc. Weeks remarked that they could rack 3 feet onto the gridline,while pulling the north building wall 3/4 feet to the south. Kipp indicated that this request had been before the board in February or March in order to protect the floodplain area as much as possible. Kipp remarked that if they added 19 feet for parking stalls,they would still be within code . requirements. Hart stated that they had been working with contractors for many months now and that they cannot build to the west in any manner. Weeks inquired of Kipp as to what he thought the timing would be with regard to this request. Kipp indicated that if everyone involved would be contacted and involved,this request could be reviewed as early as December. Dye asked Kipp what he thought the hardship may be at this time. Kipp stated that the hardship at this point could be seen as going through the process itself, and the rigidity with which the rules must be followed. Vasaly stated that it seems to be a minimal hardship at this time due to the fact that it can be fixed as it is still in the planning stage. Beyond that, it would be very difficult to define what the hardship is. Weeks remarked that he looked over the request last evening and found the hardship hard to define and wanted to see more information. Hansen inquired of Hart as to whether any boundary survey had been done prior to having the plans drawn up. • 8 r BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS November, 9, 1995 Page 9 Hart replied that he is relying on Opus Corporation to design the building. Dunham said that he felt that the board needed more information and wanted to see more options explored. Hart indicated that they would examine other options per the board's request, and would like to meet with the board at their earliest convenience. Weeks stated that he was concerned of setting a precedence with this request being approved. Hart then remarked that with regard to other options,he felt that he had already verified these, and found no other alternatives. Weeks opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing and discussed the possibility of a granting a 30 day continuance with the board members. Hansen stated that if they could work with their current design and somehow redesign it while staying within required setback,he was favorable to the idea. Vasaly made a motion to grant a 30 day continuance on this request and to have this party return on December, 14, 1995 to discuss additional options. • MOTION: Vasaly motioned for a 30 day continuance on variance request number 95-37, with an expected return date of December, 14, 1995. This was seconded by Dunham, and the motion carried 5-0-0. VL OLD BUSINESS There was no old business for discussion. VIL NEW BUSINESS Vasaly inquired of Kipp as to whether there had been any new information on the court order that had been violated by Dennis Sherwood. Kipp stated that an attorney had some dealings with regard to this order approximately three weeks ago. The issue would probably take over six months to be resolved. VIR ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Dye moved the board adjourn. Hansen seconded the motion and was passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. 9