Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 06/08/1995 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS MONDAY, JUNE 8, 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: JEAN JOHNSON, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR; ELINDA BARLEY, RECORDING SECRETARY BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: CORRINE LYNCH CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL - _PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Weeks called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 P.M. Lynch was absent; all other members were present. I . APPROVAL OF AGENDA • MOTION: Dye moved that the Board approve the Agenda as published. Dunham seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. II . MINUTES OF MAY 11, 1995 MEETING MOTION: Dunham moved that the Board accept the Minutes of May 11, 1995 as published. Vasaly seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. III . VARIANCES Weeks explained the order of the Variance presentation process to those in attendance. A. Request #95-14 by Joseph and Jennifer Mischel for 6681 Tartan Curve for 1) approval of an 11 foot sideyard setback for a 24' x 28 ' garage (15 ' is reguired) and, 2) a 30 foot front setback for same enlarged garage (block average setback is 36 feet) . 1 Joseph Mischel, owner, reviewed his variance request with the Board. He indicated that someone from where he teaches came out to his home and did measures, and discovered that his garage is only 15 feet wide. Everyone else has a 16 foot garage. This was the reason why they had so much trouble getting in and out of their garage. He proposed to extend the garage 4 feet to the front and 6 .5 feet to the side.. He noted that most of the garages in the neighborhood are either set forward or set back. By bringing the garage out a little, it will break up the exterior of the house and make that look better. The reason for brining it over is that it will make the driveway look bigger. They only want a 16 foot garage like everyone else in the neighborhood has . To determine where everything is located, he went to the City and pulled the file of his property. There is no record of any survey done on his piece of property. He had the surveyor from Hennepin Technical College come out and locate the stakes where the property sits. A fence was installed by Sears, and as a result of this survey they found out that the fence is at one point 9 inches on his neighbor's property. He noted that the distance between the proposed distance and the adjacant house would be 52 feet. • Mischel is willing to shorten the 6 .5 feet to 6 or 5 .5 feet, or whatever the Board decides, so he can extend his garage. Weeks asked if he can park two cars in his garage. Mischel replied that they have two small cars . They still have to be careful how they park the cars in the garage. They do put both cars in the garage. They have noticed a lot of chips as a result of banging the doors because it is very tight in the garage. He also noted that it would be inconvenient to relocate the garage somewhere else on his property. Weeks asked if he keeps the lawnmower and yard equipment stored in front of the cars . Mischel replied that he has a shed located in the back of his property. He can not store stuff like that in his garage because he doesn't have enough room. Johnson noted that this is a half acre size lot neighborhood, and most of the homes were built in the 19601s . From looking at the accessing records, they have found that the garages ranged from 20 feet to 24 feet in this neighborhood. An option discussed with the applicant is to minimize the variance amount by • 2 Minutes Appeals Board of Adjustments & June 8, 1995 down sizing the requested extensions . This would allow for a little more of a buffer and safety zone. Staff would be willing to go out and do a tape measurement at the time of the construction, but it would not be an official survey measurement. She would like eOthe buffer safety area of a 23 or 22 foot garage. The family has requested that if the Board does approve the request, there be a condition on it that it be at least 11 feet from their surveyed lot line. Vasaly indciated that the proponent mentioned that the front yard setback is 30 feet. She asked if the block average has any significance to the setback. She also asked if the setback is required at 30 feet. Johnson replied that the setback is required in the established neighborhood. The average of that block is 36 feet. Vasaly commented that this is a degree of error in measurement. Johnson noted that the error would not be a foot, but probably one or two inches . Surveyors in the last five years have usually been accurate. • Dunham commented that looking at the proponents plans it appears that it would be a benefit to the neighborhood. His only concern is that the front yard setback stay at 30 feet. Nelson commented that she is comfortable with the 30 foot front yard setback. Hansen indicated that he is also comfortable with the requests . Dye noted that granting the request for the 11 feet is fine. He also noted that they must take into consideration the neighbor's wish to not approve anything less than 11 feet. Weeks asked if the extension would be in the same material and color as the house presently is. Mischel replied that it would be. He said that he's going to change the siding in the front of the house to update it a little, and reshingle the house, and also paint the house. Weeks inquired as to who will be doing the construction. Mischel replied that he's having a • 3 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals June 8, 1995 carpenter instructor and his crew from Hennepin Technical College. Weeks opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing. MOTION: Dye moved that the Board grant variance request #95-14 for the 11 foot sideyard setback as it provides better garage space for the individual, and that it would be a hardship, and that the plans coincide with the survey dated June 6, 1995, so it coincides with the property conditions. Vasaly moved to amend the motion with respect to the hardship. She does not want to set a precedent for people who want more garage space. The hardship here is more than the garage was built in an unusual manner so it isn't really useful for it's stated purpose in . the way it was constructed. By granting the variance the Board would be altering the construction significantly with respect to the other houses . In return for the variance there is an upgrade in keeping up with the neighborhood. Dye accepted the amendment. Nelson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. B. Request #95-15 by Marshall's for 2000 Prairie Center Drive for approval to install a 58 square foot Marshall's sign on an exterior wall of the Eden Prairie Center. The exterior wall is not an exterior wall of Marshall's space (Code requires signs to be on tenant wall) . Mike Johnson, Graphic House Incorporated, representing Marshalls, reviewed his variance request with the Board. He noted that the reason they are asking for the variance is that the City of Eden Prairie requires a comprehensive site plan for the entire mall area. This process alone will take years and Marshalls has already been located in this mall for a number of years without signage. Behind Marshalls ' store is a hallway and access to the back side of the store's mall. The wall they are proposing to put the sign on is actually a wall which 4 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals June 8, 1995 behind Marshalls ' store. The large wall in the photograph to the left of the entrance is the cooling tower, and that's where the sign is proposed to go up. Weeks asked what the hardship is . Mike Johnson replied the hardship is that Marshalls department store is not typically a shopping center store. They are typically a free-standing building in a strip center. According to marketing analysis, Marshalls is a "destination store" with repetative customers. Because they are inside the shopping center with no exterior exposure, the traffic flowing into this store is substantially different from the other Marshalls . The basic problem is that no one knows there's a Marshalls inside this mall . Therefore, the hardship also stems from the fact that no one knew at the time that they weren't going to be able to have a sign at the front on the outside of the store. Weeks asked what color would the sign be. Mike Johnson replied that all Marshalls ' signs are the same, the • letters being blue and white. Scott Swenson, manager of Marshalls, commented that they are not a traditional interior mall store. They are about 30, 000 square feet, not 5, 000 to 6, 000 square feet. They will be there two years in November. Many of the customers ask when did they open, or comment that they didn't know Marshalls was there. He noted that all of the advertising will say Eden Prairie Center, and they will do a location map program. Dye commented that if the Board approves this for two years, after two years they would need to reapply, or if Marshalls leaves the Center space, the variance will be null and void. Swenson understood and agreed with that. Johnson noted that the Center's sign criteria is outlined in the attached June 1, 1989 Staff Report. Staff has received one letter from a Mr. Hanson who stated that he's in support of the request. Staff 's recommendation is for two years, but they don't want approval to go to any other tenant without the Board or the City Council having a chance to review it. • 5 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals June 8, 1995 Weeks asked if there is any ordinance that stipulates in terms of what size the signs would be. Johnson replied that it would still be subject to the commercial sign code, no more than 15% of the wall, and this size sign would be well below that. The sign would be similar to what Old Country Buffet is using. The City is suggesting 36 inch letters . Marshall is proposing about 40 inch letters . The maximum height is 5 .5 feet. Target has a 5 foot sign, and so does Kohls and Sears . Hansen asked if Marshalls had an exterior wall, would they be allowed to put a sign up. Johnson replied that if they were an anchor store or one of the six allowed tenants, they would be allowed. Nelson asked if there are any other tenants similar in size to Marshalls . Johnson replied there are no stores similar in size. Dunham asked for a clarification of a "destination • store" . Swenson replied that traditionally Marshalls is not a small location. The people have to know it's there to even decide to make that their destination. Dunham asked if and when Homart's sign policy comes through in 6 months, would any signs put up prior to that be transferred. Johnson replied no, because the City is going to look at what their scheme is. If a sign doesn't fit in well with a new sign program from Homart, it should be removed. Mike Johnson noted that they have maintained all along that they would be very willing to have that condition put in that if Marshalls ' sign does not comply with the plan, they would be willing to change it so it did comply, or remove it. Weeks asked if there are any other tenants within the Center that have store front access that may want some additional signing on at this time. Johnson replied that they have not heard from any of them. Weeks opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing. 6 Minutes • Board of Adjustments & Appeals June 8, 1995 MOTION: Dye moved that the Board approve variance #95- 15 to Marshalls with options 2, approve for a two year period, and if in two years Homart, the applicant, needs to reapply, that variance would be null and void. Nelson seconded the motion and it passed 5-1-0 with opposition by Dunham. C. Request #95-16 by Doug and Sharyn McChane for 6625 Rainbow Drive for approval to construct a 22 ' x 25 ' room addition to the front of the house 50 feet from Purgatory Creek (Code requires a 100 foot setback) . Doug McChane, owner, reviewed his variance request with the Board. He noted that since his family has grown, he needs to expand the house. They like the neighborhood and would rather not move. The variance request is to expand the house to the front to add a living room addition. The hardship is that in 1982 the Shoreland ordinance imposed a 100 foot setback to Purgatory Creek. Prior to that it was 50 feet. As a result of this, they can not expand the house without a variance, and this Shoreland regulation has limited them to any type of expansion. This is the only place to add more space. Weeks asked what the approximate distance is from the roadway to the proposed addition. McChane replied approximately 70 feet. Johnson noted that this is one of the half acre neighborhoods, and some of the homes were built closer to the creek than this house is, and some are set back further. This was sent to the Department of Natural Resources and the City has not received any comments back from them. There were comments back in 1990 for the variance of the porch, and the letter stated that they had no objections . The concerns that the Watershed District had were that they be at least 200 feet from structures on either side of the creek. They did meet that request because the porch measured more than 200 feet away. Staff has not received any calls or letters from the neighborhood. Hansen asked if the Watershed District has to approve this . Johnson replied no, but the City does ask for comments. • 7 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals June 8, 1995 Dunham asked if any trees will be removed. McChane replied that there are two large existing plant materials adjacent to the front of the house that they will try and relocate. If they don't survive, they will replace them, but no trees will be removed. Nelson commented that the previous addition was very well done. She asked if they would be matching everything. McChane replied that they will. Weeks opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing. MOTION: Dunham moved that the Board approve variance request #95-16 based on the hardship of the home being in existance prior to a more recent Shoreland regulation, with the stipulation that the erosion control be done. Dye seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. D. Request #95-17 by Roger and Vickie WIndfeldt for • 6621 Golden Ridge Drive for approval of 1) a setback variance 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 the applicant. Roger Windfeldt, owner, reviewed his variance request with the Board. He noted that his home was built in 1963 and the survey at the time was not accurate. The house currently sits 21 feet from the street. The proposal is to build a house north of the existing house, and the reason for the variance is to save the oak trees . The only way to save the trees is to go 5 feet deeper with the City sewer and water in. Dye asked if they are planning to subdivide the lot. Windfeldt replied yes, that one lot will be 22, 000 square feet, and one will be 25, 000 square feet. Dye questioned where the new home will be. Windfeldt replied that it will be on the larger lot. • 8 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals June 8, 1995 Vasaly was concerned about the neighbors across the street. Windfeldt replied that they are here tonight, and their concern is about the tree situation. Vasaly asked how many trees would be removed. Windfeldt replied that the report says 5 to 6 additional oak trees . Weeks asked what the distance is from the one existing house, and also from the proposed house, from the street. Johnson replied that both are about 34 feet from the road surface. Johnson noted that there are two sets of variances because they are dealing with existing home Tract A, and that existing setback is 21 . 9 feet from the property line. It does meet the other setback requirement. For the proposed lot Tract B, they are requesting a 15 foot front yard setback, and the reason is because of the topography. Staff has not received any written comments on this . They have had a few • people come in and look at the plans . Hansen asked if there is a reason why the City could not put the new road in the same spot as the old road. Johnson replied that it's basically because all the lots already have their trees in and their improvements done. Hansen asked if this lot condition has been approved. Johnson replied no, that it's still pending. Weeks asked if 22, 000 is minimum size. Johnson indicated that it is. a Weeks was concerned about what trees shou ld be saved. Johnson indicated that they have looked at what's near the pad of the house shown, and it could be that one or two might still be damaged in construction, but it would still be less than the 10% on the lot now. Dye stated that if the 25, 000 square foot lot line were to be moved, you could have the 22, 000 in Tract A, and a little bit less in Tract B. Windfeldt showed the floor plans of the new house to the Board. • 9 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals June 8, 1995 Dunham asked if this new lot and house are for Mr. Windfeldt. Windfeldt replied that they have outgrown their house. His wife can walk to church and she wants to stay there. They have been there for 18 years. After this house is complete, they will sell their current house in the Spring. Hansen asked if the grading plan has been reviewed yet. Johnson replied not yet, that it would be reviewed at the time of the building permit as in the past variance case. Hansen expressed concern about the steep lots . Johnson noted that there are similar steep lots like this developed. Dunham expressed concern over the proposed blueprints, and trying to establish the front yard setback on this lot. He doesn't know where the garage will be or how many trees will be removed. He personally has a problem approving a setback when he doesn't know what • it is . Windfeldt commented that they have to figure out where to put the house before they can design it. Johnson noted that the Board has the option to contiue it for more information. Weeks agreed with Dunham that he needs more information. Vasaly also agreed that it bothers her to approve this in the abstract, and yet it seems reasonable for the proponent to approach it this way. He seems to be concerned about saving trees and the Board can place conditions on it. Weeks commented that the Board is looking at conceptual approval so they can proceed with further delineation of the plan. He cautioned the Board to consider that if they approve it, it should be conditional, and that is to save trees . Johnson stated that the Board is considering the tree preservation as part of this, and if the plans were to • 10 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals June 8, 1995 change where that's no longer part of the plan, it would have to come back for approval. Hansen asked for a site plan. Windfeldt indicated that his wife is working on it with the surveyor and engineer, but he doesn't have it with him. Weeks opened the public hearing. Ron Fancher, residing at 6609 Golden Ridge Drive, indicated that he disagrees with the building of this house. He doesn't think Windfeldt knows what this property actually looks like. He insisted that the Board come and take a look at the property. He was concerned about the lot being too steep, and the removal of many trees . He said the reason he moved there was because of the privacy. He said he should build off the home he has, not move down his way. There are only 10 homes there now. He suggested that they tear down their house and rebuild a new one. Nelson commented that there is room for two lots • legally, though the split has not been approved. She asked if there is any reason why the split will not be approved. Johnson said she does not see any reason why it will not be approved. Vasaly asked how big a lot does he have, and how big are the other lots in the area. Fancher replied that it varies . Some lots are bigger and some are smaller. His lot is an acre and a half. Clarence Schaeffer, residing at 6618 Golden Ridge Drive, was concerned that this has been an unbuildable lot for the past 30 years . Now that's changed since sewer and water has come in. He said that this would set a precedent and everyone will subdivide their lots because they all have over an acre of land. Then there would be 20 houses on that hill. He was also concerned about the tree loss . Weeks noted that the Board is acting tonight on the setback and not on the concept of whether the lot is split or not. • 11 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals June 8, 1995 Gordon Gubrud, residing at 6615 Golden Ridge Drive, commented that he feels the houses should be maintained at 30 feet. Weeks closed the public hearing. Weeks asked if there is a preservation ordinance code regarding the saving of the trees . Johnson replied on any piece of property in the City there's a 10% removal that is allowed. With the building permit, there could be more removal . There will probably be at least two more in addition to the ones they identified depending on the house design. Vasaly commented that if they are granting a variance to save trees, it doesn't make sense that the Board don't know how many trees they are going to be saving. If the house is put back and there are a few more trees lost, it still might come in within the 10% . There really isn't any need to grant a variance. • Weeks noted that they need more information, and they have to know exactly how big the house is going to be. Grading plans and site lines would be beneficial to the Board. He is not convinced that there is a hardship until he sees an exact proposal. Hansen asked why the setback in the front is 30 feet. Johnson replied that that's the standard setback for that zoning district. Windfeldt asked for a two month continuance if the Board decides to continue. MOTION: Dye moved that the Board continue variance request 95-17 for 60 days with no action. Dunham seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV. OLD BUSINESS Best Buy Johnson noted that Best Buy did not appeal to the City Council . They are going to return next month with the smaller sign. Is 12 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals June 8, 1995 Big Woods Johnson noted that Big Woods appeal may be withdrawn. V. NEW BUSINESS Weeks asked for the status of the Board's joint meeting with the City Council. Johnson noted that the City Council is behind on their commission and board meetings. A date is uncertain at this time. Johnson noted that there are five items on the agenda for next month. Nelson indicated that she will not be present at the next meeting. VI . ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Vasaly moved that the Board adjourn. Hansen seconded the • motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10: 05 P.M. barb\j=\mp0rta\mm6-8 13