Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 10/10/1996 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS i THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1996 7:30 P.M. CITY CENTER HERITAGE ROOM II 8080 MITCHELL ROAD BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chair Kathy Nelson, Cliff Dunham,Delavan Dye, Louis Giglio,Matthew Hansen, Corrine Lynch,Tim Nelson STAFF MEMBERS: Senior Planner Scott Kipp and City Recorder Barbara Anderson CALL TO ORDER Chair Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Board member Lynch arrived at 7:40 p.m. Tim Nelson was absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Dye moved, seconded by Giglio to approve the Agenda as published. Motion • carried 5-0. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1996 MEETING Hansen noted a correction on Page 4, third paragraph, stating he had said the plan did"not" make sense. MOTION: Dye moved, seconded by Dunham,to approve the Minutes of the September 12, 1996 Meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals as corrected. Motion carried 5-0. III. VARIANCES A. Request#96 19 by Venku Corporation for 6908 Bryant Lake Drive (Hills of Eden Prairie) for lot size ranging between 3.078 sq. ft. and 3,483 sa ft, in the RM-6.5 Zoning District (Code requires a minimum of 6,500 sq, ft in the RM-6.5 Zoning District)., Dave Pavelka, 8460 Montgomery Court, Eden Prairie, reviewed the proposal and the variances being requested. These are required because of the site and the style of the development which is clustered units utilizing common walls which creates a lot size which is insufficient to meet ordinance requirements. The tree loss on the site will be less than 9% and they are proposing a conservation easement around the wetlands. They have compensated for the small lot sizes by the large amount of open area which will be maintained by the property owners. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS October 10, 1996 Page 2 • Dye inquired if there would be any subsidized rental units in the development and Pavelka responded negatively, noting rents would begin at the$1,350 level. Kipp reviewed the staff report and noted that staff is currently reviewing the City Code to address the issue of small lots being created by triples, quads, and other larger multi- family unit types of development. He noted that lot sizes have changed because types of developments have significantly changed in recent years. Hanson inquired when the changes would be implemented and Kipp responded that they would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council and then would become effective upon publication;this process would take at least one month or longer. He noted the changes would address the issues involved with common lot lines. Nelson inquired if the units would be handicapped accessible and Pavelka responded that since the units contained only three doors, they would all be considered handicapped accessible. Discussion ensued regarding the potential for further units to be proposed on the open land area within the development and Pavelka stated that would require City approval, and it did not appear to be feasible because it would remove the buffer area from around this development and most people would want to retain that for privacy and screening purposes. Nelson inquired if there would be sufficient area for a play area for children to be constructed, and Pavelka responded there would be, although he doubted • the development would attract many young families based on the costs, but the issue could be satisfactorily addressed if necessary. Hanson inquired if the development would contain City sewer and water and Pavelka responded affirmatively. Hanson inquired if the property were to remain under single ownership why did it have to be platted in this fashion and Pavelka responded it was being required by their mortgage company. Dunham inquired if the proponent foresaw selling off the lots in the future and Pavelka responded that they want to keep the land in the family, as it has been, which is why this development has been handled as a condominium development. Hanson inquired if Pavelka had considered reducing the variances on the end units and Pavelka responded they could do this but they would have to encroach into the wooded areas, which they did not wish to do. Giglio inquired if the plans had been reviewed by the Fire Marshal and Kipp responded affirmatively. The Public Hearing was opened. No one present wished to speak. The Public Hearing was closed. Dunham commented that the units were nicely set into the property and while he believed that $1,300/month rental was a bit pricey, the units would be very nice. He was concerned about the similar appearance of the units and the ability of visitors to distinguish between them. Pavelka stated the plans were designed with the front BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS October 10, 1996 Page 3 entrances to the fore,rather than the garages,which tended to present a more uniform appearance, in the hope of creating a more individual look for each unit. Discussion ensued regarding the time frame for the ordinance amendment and Kipp noted that it would take approximately 90 days from Planning Commission review to the publication date. Pavelka stated he did not wish to delay the project pending the approval of the ordinance amendment. MOTION: Dye moved, seconded by Giglio, to approve Request #96-19 by Venku Corporation for 6908 Bryant Lake Drive (Hills of Eden Prairie) for lot size ranging between 3,078 sq. ft. and 3,483 sq. ft. in the RM-6.5 Zoning District based on the hardship that the density and area requirements in the ordinance were closely met by this development. Motion carried 6-0. B. Request#96-20 by Zachman Development Corporation(Eden Hills Townhomes) for lot size ranging between 4,611 sq ft and 5,051 sq ft, in the RM-6.5 Zoning District(Code requires a minimum of 6,500 soft in the RM-6.5 Zoning District, Arne Zachman reviewed the development proposal and the variances required which are created by the style of the development. Hanson commented it appeared that units 14-21 • could be reconfigured as all twin homes to meet the minimum lot size requirements. Zachman stated that their objective was to keep as many trees as possible on the property and they had configured the development around the trees, and had also reduced the density to 21 units. Hanson inquired if other site plans had been reviewed by the City and Kipp stated that staff had reviewed other configurations which did not have staff approval, and the present plan had the best design components for this property. The site was comprised of four individual homesites which were all landscaped and the extent of the tree preservation ordinance was not to penalize homeowners for planting trees and the proponents had endeavored to save as many trees as possible. Zachman stated they intend to plant 100 trees to replace those that are lost by the construction of the development. Dunham commented he believed any tree that had lived for 40 years and appears to be healthy was a significant tree regardless of its species. Zachman stated they intend to transplant trees 8" in diameter and under,and those over that size would not survive and will have to be removed. It was to their advantage to retain as many trees as possible to provide the aesthetics and privacy for the project. The roadway coming into the development was one of the factors determining the layout of the site. Dunham inquired about the style of the buildings and Zachman described the materials they propose to use, including the brick and cedar siding. There will be two different styles in the project to give it more character. Dye commented he was concerned about the amount of the parking space for each unit, noting one of the most frequent requests reviewed by the Board was for a second garage stall. Zachman noted that all the units have two car garages provided. Dunham inquired if there was an opportunity to provide more parking so that when people had parties BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS October 10, 1996 Page 4 there would be extra space available. Zachman responded that the streets were being built to City standards and parking on one side would be permitted. Kipp confirmed this, noting there should be ample room for vehicles to park on the street. Nelson inquired about the smaller deck being proposed for the unit on Lot 20 and was concerned that the future owner would request a variance to construct a larger deck. Zachman stated that Lots 19,20, and 21 would be the model units and would be sold at a discounted price when the development was completed. He proposed that they construct a 9'X 14'deck which would create the same amount of square footage as the others,but in a different configuration. Nelson commented that the idea was not to grant variances which would shortly be appealed. Kipp stated that the Board could stipulate that a deck be constructed on Unit 20 of a certain square footage to avoid a difference between that unit and the others. Kipp reviewed the staff report and again referred to the Ordinance amendment in process dealing with lot area requirements. He noted that in this development, the lot depths would be excessive based on unit widths. The deck plans on Unit 20 could be revised prior to Building Permit issuance. . The Public Hearing was opened. The property owners were present and requested the Board to grant the variances requested as the development has been in process for a long time and they feel very frustrated by the delays. They noted that any changes to any units would have to be approved by the Homeowners Association which will review any changes an individual homeowner might wish to make to the property. The Public Hearing was closed. MOTION: Dye moved, seconded by Giglio,to approve Request#96-20 by Zachman Development Corporation(Eden Hills Townhomes) for lot size ranging between 4,611 sq. ft. and 5,051 sq. ft. in the RM-6.5 Zoning District based on the hardship of the City Code not addressing triplex units. Nelson wished to amend the motion to include that Unit 20 construct a deck with the same amount of square footage as the other decks in the development. Dye accepted the amendment. Motion as amended carried 4-2. Hanson and Dunham voted"nay". IV. OLD BUSINESS None. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS October 10, 1996 Page 5 V. NEW BUSINESS Joint City CouncWB.O.A.Meeting of December 3, 1996 Nelson inquired if the Code changes would be discussed at the joint meeting and Kipp responded that the meeting was for the purpose of raising issues with the Council which concerned the Board, such as the items which typically had variances requested. The Code changes will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council,but do not have to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments. Staff will make sure that board members receive copies of the proposed changes prior to Planning Commission review. Dye commented he would like to have some of these instances, such as the variances requested that evening, brought to the attention of the Planning Commission so that they could avoid approving projects that would create a need for variances in the future. Kipp outlined the purpose of the joint meeting with the City Council and suggested the board members think about issues they believe should be discussed. He noted that there will always be some person who wants a variance for something bigger than what was originally approved. The City Codes are guides for plans and they have to be flexible to allow versatility in developmental designs. Staff will also be considering an amendment to reduce the required acreage for PUDs to accommodate this. Discussion ensued regarding the triplex style of housing and the issue of affordable housing in Eden Prairie and how this could be addressed. It was suggested perhaps smaller lot sizes could be implemented to make it fiscally feasible to construct some affordable housing. Kipp noted that staff did not want to reduce lot sizes to allow higher densities to be constructed which would still be above the"affordable"category in price. Discussion ensued regarding what constituted affordable housing. Kipp noted that the next meeting of the Board was scheduled for November 14, 1996. Steve Durham will be serving as the Staff representative. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.