Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 01/14/1999 a APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 1999 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD: Kathy Nelson, William Ford, Cliff Dunham, Louis Giglio, Mary Vasaly, Michael O'Leary. STAFF: Jean Johnson,Zoning Administrator James Merrill, Recorder PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL The following members were present: William Ford, Cliff Dunham, Kathy Nelson, Louis Giglio, Mary Vasaly. Michael O'Leary arrived at 7:35 p.m.; Ismail Ismail was absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION/SECOND: Giglio/Vasaly, approval of the Agenda. Motion carried 5-0. H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of December 10, 1998 MOTION/SECOND: GiglioNasaly, approval of the minutes. Motion carried 5-0. III: VARIANCES A. Request 99-01 by Stephen and Kimberly Niosi for the northeast corner of US 169/212 and Eden Prairie Road for approval to construct a single family home on 1.2 acres having a side yard setback of 20 feet (city code requires Rural lots existing as of July 6, 1982 to be a minimum size of 5 acres for a single family dwelling and the minimum side yard setback is 50 feet) Perry Ryan(Ryan Engineering) home address is 430 Lafayette Avenue, Excelsior, presenting as the engineer and new owner of the lot. . Mr. Ryan expressed the points that he believes are important about this property. This property was before the board in the summer of 1995. Mr. Ryan pointed out some of the changes since then. The land is currently vacant. There are some oak trees, and pine trees on the site. • A portion of the property is within the MUSA. Percolation tests indicate the area is suitable for a drain field. Mr. Ryan requested the Board to approve the variance as is so the property could develop in a similar fashion as the surrounding properties. He further noted no additional land was for sale. To minimize the variance, Mr. Ryan stated one thing to be done was to take the home and move it 20 feet northerly, and that puts it at 10 percent grade on the driveway, which is still less than the city maximum allowable, which is 12 percent. If everything shifts 20 feet to the north, we can take a 20-foot conservation easement which basically goes right at the top of the slope and put a 20-foot conservation easement over the southern 20 feet of the lot. Erosion control along the city street and HWY 212 would be a combination of silt and wood fiber blanket where appropriate. Mr. Ryan proposed the hard surface runoff will be directed north, proposing to catch the runoff from the house via gutters and direct that to the north, so it does not go down these slopes towards 212. Mary Vasaly inquired about the properties that were built prior to the time the five acre minimum land took effect. Mr. Ryan pointed out properties within one- eighth mile, they were all built before the five acre minimum. Referring to variance 95-24, Vasaly asked what was the hardship stated at that time, the details of granting that variance. Mr. Ryan responded there was a structure on that property, maybe an old structure. Vasaly asked Mr. Ryan to clarify his hardship. Mr. Ryan stated there are two variances, one is lot size and one is setback. The adjacent landowner will not sell additional land, which is the hardship. Jean Johnson gave her report to the Board. The two variances are the lot size 1.2 acres, code minimum of five and the setback, 20 versus the 50 in the code. The issues are the driveway still remains a dangerous situation on this portion of the road which has a high number of accidents. The turning movements could cause difficulties for people entering the property and for those traveling on the road. Mr. Ryan has reviewed some of the options that were in the report. The first option was to consider development on this property when there is a rezoning and when there is city sewer and water available to the property. The second issue was to attempt to acquire additional land, and then to look at the design features that would be more conducive to the site which is very steep. The property is characterized by loose, non-cohesive soil, so all steps that can be taken will have to be taken when the site is developed because there is a high concern for erosion. Additional material for this request related to the 1995 request is in the Board's packet. If the Board chooses to approve the variance or deny the • variance request, there are recommended conditions in the staff report. Kathy Nelson requested more information on the reference to the Spring Road • variance. Johnson responded the variance site already contained a structure. The applicant requested to remove the old house and build a new house. No additional dwellings in the rural area on a substandard lot was approved. William Ford asks the status of the MUSA zone. Jean Johnson stated the MUSA has been extended into southwestern Eden Prairie and the sewer and water lines are about a mile away. Mr. Dunham made mention of the property line to the center of the road. Johnson responded additional background work will need to be done. Kathy Nelson opened the public hearing. Dean Edstrom, 10132 Eden Prairie Road, also own the lot that is adjacent to the variance site. Mr. Edstrom objects to the proposed variance. This request is similar to the variance request three years ago. That request was denied. It was appealed to City Council, and the Board's decision was upheld. Mr. Edstrom believed the variance procedure is inappropriate for what is being • requested here. That five acre minimum was in place before the acquisition of the property and owners are deemed to take such ordinances that are in place at the time they do the acquisition. Any hardship that is involved is self-inflicted. It is inconsistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance to grant a variance of this nature, on this type of property. Mr. Edstrom noted the road is a steep and icy in the winter, and has numerous accidents. He also noted Eden Prairie Road may be a cul-de-sac in the future. Edstrom stated the MUSA line barely touches this property. In effect, the small touching of the MUSA line of this property does not justify putting a house on the steep slope. Scooter Hill, 10131 Eden Prairie Road. Mr. Hill stated he lives to the east and is against the variance. Mr. Hill states any development down there is going to encourage sewer and water, and states there is a perfectly fine well system down there, and does not want sewer and water. Mr. Hill stated others are prepared to come forward, depending on if the variance is granted. Darril Peterson, 18700 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie. Mr. Peterson states he has lived in Eden Prairie his entire life, and is a property owner. Mr. Peterson believes in property rights and that the City should give Mr. Ryan direct use of his property as he sees fit. • Being no further comments, the Chair closed the public hearing on this. Mary Vasaly stated she believes the City's Zoning Ordinance is reasonable. The f • Road situation is dangerous, and the large deviation from the code is contrary to the City Code intent and purpose. Mr. Giglio stated this is an extreme variance, and it is self- inflicted plight. Mr. Ryan purchased this land and has been involved in this process for three years and certainly couldn't have gone into it without knowledge. Mr. Dunham stated he sat on the Board in 1995 when the issue came up before. The major issue on this whole thing is the safety issue. Development may be more appropriate when and if Eden Prairie Road is cul-de-sacd. Mr. Ford stated he is against granting the degree of variance. There are surrounding lots with similar acreage but those met code at the time. Kathy Nelson stated she was on this road a couple years ago in the middle of winter when it was icy, she, like may drivers, was unaware of the steepness and degree of curves. This is a dangerous situation to add a driveway. Ms. Nelson indicated the owner knew the property's limitations. A hardship is something usually specific to the property, not simply because you bought something undersized. Ms. Nelson stated she is not in favor of granting this variance. Michael O'Leary stated he concurs with the previous statements. • MOTION: Vasaly moved the board deny the variance request No. 99-01 with the following findings and conclusions: (Seconded by Giglio) 1. The applicant failed to demonstrate an unnecessary hardship if the variances were not granted. 2. The property circumstances were self created. 3. The applicants have not demonstrated that denial of the variances will deprive them of all reasonable uses of the property. 4. The driveway movements created will be hazardous to owner and the publics' health, welfare and safety, particularly during winter conditions. 5. Granting the requested variances will set precedent contrary to the city's Rural District purpose and intent. The motion carrried 6:0. ADJOURNMENT Dunham moved, Ford seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 9:35PM. Motion carried. barbJean\boa\minutes\99\1-14.99b