Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 08/12/1999 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS THURSDAY, AUGUST 12, 1999 7:30 P.M. CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD: Kathy Nelson, Chairperson; Cliff Dunham; William Ford;Louis Giglio; Ismail Ismail; Michael O'Leary and Mary Vasaly STAFF: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator Carol Pelzel, Recorder GUESTS: David and Rachael Lowe, 6633 Harlan Drive;Rob and Catherine Wasseenaar, 6625 Harlan Drive;Ron Whitman, 6617 Harlan Drive; Mike Pollack, 6640 Harlan Drive; Jeff and Barb Anderson, 17613 West 62nd Street;Matt Strodel, 14521 Excelsior Boulevard;Robert Hinck, Hinck Ink, Architects, 1820 Colfax Avenue South • CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL—PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Kathy Nelson, William Ford, Ismail Ismail, Michael O'Leary and Mary Vasaly Absent: Cliff Dunham and Louis Giglio I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion/Second: Ismail/O'Leary, to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried, 5-0. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of June 10, 1999 Motion/Second: Ismail/O'Leary,to approve the June 10 minutes as presented. Motion carried 4-0-1 with Nelson abstaining because of absence from that meeting. • Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals August 12, 1999 • III: VARIANCES A. Request#99-12 by David and Rachael Lowe for 6633 Harlan Drive for approval to construct a 10' x 12' deck 24 feet from the Edenvale Boulevard front property line (City Code requires a 30 foot minimum setback). Ms. Lowe explained that they had purchased this house in 1996 with the intention of adding a deck. A sliding glass door off the dining area does exist and the realtor told them that a deck could be built off this door. There was no mention of any variance being needed for the deck at that time. Without the variance they would be able to build a deck that angles back towards the house. It would be 12 feet across but out 8 feet on one end and 5 feet on the other end. Ms. Lowe said they did discuss this plan with an architect and were advised for resale value, they should have a square or rectangle shaped deck rather than an angled deck. Ms. Lowe said they are requesting to build a deck 12 feet wide by 10 feet deep in order to have room for patio furniture. She explained that there are no immediate neighbors behind them,just Edenvale Boulevard. The angled deck with added stairs would require additional footings resulting in a higher cost than a rectangle deck with no stairs. Ms. Lowe said that at the time of closing, they did question the necessity of variances to build a deck. The realtor said that it would not be a problem to get a variance and they should be able to build the . deck. Mr. Lowe explained that a variance request is new to them and they were not at all familiar with the process until they presented their plans for the deck to the City. The first time they were aware that a variance may be necessary was at the closing. Ms. Johnson presented her staff report stating that the applicant is requesting to construct a 10' x 12' deck 24 feet from the Edenvale Boulevard front property line. The applicant does have two frontages on their property, Edenvale Boulevard and Harlan Drive. The lots along Edenvale Boulevard are smaller lots. Staff did discuss with the applicant the option of constructing a wrap around deck and construction of a landing off the sliding glass doors and stairway down to a patio. The proposed deck size is minimal. Ms. Johnson indicated that they have not received any comments from neighbors regarding the proposed deck. Ms.Nelson asked what the typical size of a deck would be in this zoning district. Ms. Johnson responded that it would be approximately 12' x 16'. Mr. Lowe explained that they did look at wrapping the deck around the house. However, there is 10 feet between the house and the lot line and they would be required to put in additional footings. Mr. Lowe said this is a concern because of a sprinkler system and because of a gate on the fence and the additional post may restrict movement in that area. Following discussion, Ms.Nelson opened the public hearing. • 2 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals August 12, 1999 • Rob and Catherine Wassenaar, 6625 Harlan Drive, explained that they are immediate neighbors to the applicant and they are not opposed to the proposed deck. Ron Whitman, 6617 Harlan Drive, said he is not opposed to the proposed deck and trusts that it will be a quality deck and will add to the assessed value of the property. Mike Pollack, 6640 Harlan Drive, said he faces the front of the applicant's house and would not be able to see the deck. He feels the deck would be an improvement and he has no opposition to it. Ms. Nelson closed the public hearing. Mr. O'Leary stated that he is in favor of the proposed deck because of the shape of the lot. The hardship in this case would be the lot configuration. The deck addition would enhance the value of the property and the proposed deck is not a huge deck. Ms. Vasaly explained that generally she is opposed to any variance that the buyer is aware of prior to the purchase of a house. Ms. Vasaly said she feels it is inappropriate to grant a variance under those circumstances. However, the applicant was not aware of the variance at the time of purchase. Given the circumstances, Ms. Vasaly said she would support the variance. Mr. Ford said in essence, the applicant is requesting a variance for a square deck instead of a triangle deck. Mr. Ford said he does not strongly support the 10-foot deck but would rather see an 8-foot deck. Ms. Nelson pointed out that this lot does have two street setbacks. Ms. Johnson explained that a typical setback would be 20 feet for a standard rear lot setback. Ms. Nelson said she does not consider ignorance of the zoning requirements a hardship. The hardship seems to be the lot configuration. Motion/Second: O'Leary/Ismail to approve Variance#99-12 with the hardship being the odd shape of the lot and the fact that the lot lines are somewhat different than standard because of the two street frontages. The motion carried, 5-0. B. Request #99-13 by Jeff and Barb Anderson, 17613 West 62°a Street, for approval to construct a 24' x 32' addition 19.5' from the west side property line (code requires a 50' minimum setback on one side and 150' total for both sides). Ms. Anderson explained that their property is zoned rural and based on that zoning they need to be 150 feet from the existing property line. The addition they are proposing would include a master bathroom and bedroom. Ms. Anderson said when they submitted their variance application there was no neighbor on the west side. Since that time, a house is being constructed on that side. The applicant presently owns Outlot A located to the south and their driveway is to the east. Ms. Anderson stated that their • request is to allow construction of the addition without having to rezone. Once the addition is completed it is their intention to hook up to City sewer and natural gas. 3 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 12, 1999 Ms. Vasaly asked what the property next door to the proposed addition is zoned. Ms. Johnson explained that the property to the east and west is zoned R-1. Ms. Vasaly pointed out that the proposed addition would not be any closer to the setbacks than the existing house. Ms. Johnson presented her staff report explaining that the applicant is proposing a 24' x 32' addition, which will be 19.5 feet from the side property line instead of 50' which is required by Code. The home was built in the 1950's and was zoned rural. The properties to the east, south and west are platted residential lots and to the north is Crosstown 62. The only options staff has reviewed is the rezoning of the property and the possibility of minimizing the setback by decreasing the size of the addition. Ms. Johnson stated that no calls or letters were submitted from surrounding neighbors regarding the variance request. Mr. Ford clarified that the only two lots zoned rural are the Anderson's lot and Outlot A. He asked if the applicant has considered expanding their home up rather than out. Ms. Anderson responded that they really did not consider adding a second story since they don't have a basement. Their existing home is rather small and the addition would give them added room. Mr. Ford asked if the lot was zoned to correspond with the . surrounding properties, what would the setbacks be?Ms. Johnson explained that there would be a 10' minimum on one side and 15' on the other. Ms. Johnson stated that to rezone the property would be substantially more expensive and would take considerably more time. Ms. Vasaly asked how the existing house came to be in non-conformance. Ms. Johnson explained that the house was built in the 1950's and she was not sure staff even reviewed the permits. Ms. Vasaly said it seems as thought all of the surrounding properties have been rezoned. She asked if it is always the citizen's responsibility to begin rezoning proceedings. Ms. Johnson responded that the City does wait for the landowners to make application for rezoning. Following discussion, Ms. Nelson opened the public hearing. Having no one wishing to speak, Ms. Nelson closed the public hearing. Mr. Ford said he could support the variance. The expansion simply follows existing surrounding properties and it would not make sense to make the applicant adhere to the setback requirements. Mr. Ford said he feels the hardship is the zoning of the surrounding properties. Mr. Ismail said he is in support of the addition as presented and he has no problem with granting the variance requested. Ms. Vasaly said it seems that this situation is about the existing zoning that prevents the use of the property. Ms. Nelson pointed out that this is a non-conforming use because of the age of the property. This house was small in size to begin with and because of the size, the proposed addition appears to be reasonable. 4 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 12, 1999 Motion/Second: Ford/Ismail, to approve Variance#99-13 with the hardship being the shape of the lot and the way the house is currently situated on the lot and the only option the applicant has is to build to the south. Motion carried, 5-0. C. Request#99-14 by Mathias Strodel, 6282 Industrial Drive to expand on a non- conforming use; lot size less than 5 acres (lot size is .06 Acres);building front yard setback from 75' to 40';building side yard setback from 30' to 10';not meeting the landscape requirements; storage in required setback; front yard parking setback from 75' to 0' (zero); side yard parking setback from 15' to 0' (zero);reduction in the number of parking stalls from 15 to 12; shoreland lot size from 5 to .96 acres; shoreland setback for structure from 150' to approximately 70'; shoreland parking setback from 50' to 40'; crushed rock instead of bituminous surface for the vehicle storage area. Mr. Strodel stated that he does towing and storage for the cities of Eden Prairie and Minnetonka. He explained that his property in Minnetonka has been acquired by NSP necessitating the relocation of his office from that site. Mr. Strodel gave a brief description of the site and the history and process of impounding vehicles. When they originally developed this impound lot they did meet with the DNR and did do some soil • testing. At that time there was no severe contamination to the soil caused by vehicle residue. The Planning Commission did ask that soil borings be completed now to determine if there is any contamination. They did do this testing and found minute contamination, all within EPA standards. Mr. Strodel said he is aware that they are requesting an unusually high number of variances. However, they do not intend to change the lot but plan to demolish the existing building and build a new building to be used as an office. The existing site is in an ideal location, close to the freeway. The existing building has no sewer or water and their goal is to improve the site. Mr. Strodel explained that they have agreed to put up a wooden fence in front of the building and to plant some trees in that area. Once this is accomplished the actual vehicles will not be visible from the street. Mr. Strodel said he is more than willing to upgrade this site. He indicated that he would like to construct this building and to continue operation at this location until the area is redeveloped. Mr. Ismail asked if the applicant uses the lot across the street and if he owns this lot. Mr. Strodel responded that he leases that lot on a year-to-year basis. Mr. Ismail asked if Mr. Strodel would continue to use this lot if this proposal is approved. Mr. Strodel said he does intend to. He has to be off of his property in Minnetonka by September 1. He does have a trailer that they are using as an office on the Hopkins lot. However, his clients would have to go to Hopkins first to complete their paperwork and then go to Eden Prairie to pick up their vehicles. It would be much more convenient to have an office located at the Eden Prairie site. Mr. Ismail said he is concerned about the • appearance of the lot across the street. Mr. Strodel said he would not be opposed to constructing a fence in the front of that lot. 5 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 12, 1999 Ms. Vasaly asked if Mr. Strodel has reviewed this plan with the DNR. Mr. Strodel said he has and they did come out and look at the site. Ms. Vasaly asked if the DNR recommended any soil testing on a regular basis. Mr. Strodel explained that they did not, however, he did just complete soil borings and they do meet MPA environmental limits. Ms. Nelson said she feels this site needs a lot of work to improve its appearance. Mr. Strodel explained that once the building is constructed and the plantings on the design are implemented, you would not see the stored vehicles from the front. Robert Hinck, 1820 Colfax Avenue South, architect for the project, reviewed the proposed landscaping for the front of the building. They will be providing additional planting along the front of the street. Ms. Nelson wanted to be assured that the upgrading of the front happens because the site as it looks today is unacceptable. Ms. Johnson presented the staff report explaining that a solid wood fence will screen the view of the vehicles from the street. Because of the different land uses, screening on the sides of the property are not as important. Staff has requested more plantings on the creek side area. Ms. Johnson explained that this site is in the old industrial part of . the City. Many of the lots are small and do not meet the Code requirements. There may be some upgrading taking place in another ten years. Ms. Johnson pointed out that the Board did receive the Planning Commission staff report and minutes. The Planning Commission did approve the project without any specific conditions. The options to be considered would include a modified plan or the applicant could utilize this site for office use and limited storage of vehicles and locate an additional storage lot elsewhere or he could pursue acquiring property from the north and develop a site plan minimizing the variances requested. Ms. Vasaly referred to copies of letters to Mr. Strodel from Michael Franzen, City Planner. These letters included several suggestions of items that should be implemented to approve the plan. Ms. Vasaly asked what the status was of those suggestions. Ms. Johnson explained that most of those items have been worked out. Mr. Ismail asked the reason for the garage door and if this building would be used for storage. Mr. Strodel said the building would be used for repair of his trucks. Ms. Nelson asked if the applicant would have any problem with adding plantings to the existing line of the creek bed. Mr. Strodel said this would not be a problem. Following discussion, Ms.Nelson opened the public hearing. Having no one appear, Ms. Nelson closed the public hearing. • Mr. O'Leary said the variances are being created because the applicant wants to tear down an unsightly building and replace it with a nicer looking facility. Additional 6 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals August 12, 1999 shrubbery should be required along the south line and along the creek as well as additional screening on the lot across the street. This is a use that is needed in the City and this appears to be the perfect location for this operation. Ms. Vasaly said after this evening's discussion, it seems to her the most appropriate action would be for the applicant to go with the modified plan proposed by staff. This plan would minimize the variances requested. Mr. Strodel said he has no problem with going 10 feet from the lot line on the north side, however, an additional setback towards the railroad tracks would be a problem. This would result in his losing 19 to 20 parking spaces, which he cannot afford to do. Ms. Vasaly asked if the applicant has considered constructing a smaller building. Mr. Strodel said he has but he needs the size proposed so he is able to get his trucks in for servicing. Mr. Strodel said he is also opposed to the variance being granted for a five-year period. He is investing a large sum of money into this project and he wants to be assured that he can operate his business for a period longer than five years. He said he was not opposed to rehab of the area. Mr. Ford said he couldn't support the variances. The reason for the variances is because the applicant wants to expand his building but at the same time does not want to meet the requirements because he needs all of the spaces for the vehicles. Mr. Ford said it appears to him that the hardship is because of economics. Given the number of variances and the fact that there are shoreline variances involved, Mr. Ford said in the past his stance has been against shoreline variances and he cannot support the variances being requested. Ms. Vasaly said she is still puzzled by the size of the building. She said she can understand the convenience for the people to go to the office where the vehicles are stored but she cannot understand why the building has to be the size proposed. Mr. Strodel explained that the building would be used for servicing his trucks. Ms. Vasaly asked why he could not have a small office at this site and a service area at another site. Mr. Strodel said he has looked into this and has approached 19 different facilities that want nothing to do with towing of vehicles. Mr. O'Leary said he disagrees that this is an economic issue. Right now there is an existing building at this site. The vehicles could be towed to this lot. Building this new building will require additional screening, soil testing and will result in less parking space than what now exist. By allowing this building to be constructed, the City has more control over the site and can clean the area up. The only reason for the variances is because the applicant is changing the old structure for a new structure and is not changing how the site is being used. Ms. Nelson recommended that they change the requirement that the variance be • granted for five-years to the variance being granted for a five-year period unless the operation is continued as a City impound lot. Ms. Johnson pointed out that the five- 7 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 12, 1999 • year time limit is more of an application to the outside storage of vehicles and does not impact the building or site improvements. If the site is no longer used for impounding, the building could be used for office/industrial use and associated parking. Ms. Nelson said she clearly wants to see thicker screening along the existing screening. Mr. Ford asked if it would be appropriate to require the applicant to have soil borings every five years. Mr. Strodel said he would not have a problem with this. Mr. Strodel noted that when and if the area is redeveloped, this impound lot would most likely be gone. Motion/Second: O'Leary/Vasaly, to approve Variance request#99-14 with the hardship being the existing size of the property and constraints on two sides of the property;the railroad property along the northwest side and a branch of Nine Mile Creek along the southwest side and because of the need for an impound lot as a City service and with the following conditions: 1. Require additional plantings indigenous to the creek bank, i.e. along the creek and within grass strip between the front property line and the front parking; 2. Require a screening fence along the street frontage per the applicant's drawing presented this evening; 3. Soil bore testing be done every five years and be submitted to the City Engineering Department and Environmental staff; 4. Wood fencing be constructed along the street frontage of the property located across the street from 6282 Industrial Drive; and 5. The variance be granted for a five-year period unless the applicant continues to operate as a City impound lot or until redevelopment of the area occurs. Vote was called on the motion with all members present voting aye except Mr. Ford who voted nay. The motion carried, 4-1. IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Johnson reported that three people have inquired about applying for variances, however, as of this date, they have only received one application which was from Best Buy for a sign variance on their building located at Crosstown and 169. Ms. Nelson said she has been asked to attend a special meeting on Tuesday evening where the City Council will be looking at the uses of the various committees. Ms. Nelson said she would report back to the Board at next month's meeting. VI. ADJOURNMENT • Motion/Second: Vasaly/Ford, to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Motion carried, 5-0. 8