Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 06/10/1999 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS THURSDAY,JUNE 10, 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: Roger and Vicki Windfeldt, 6621 Golden Ridge Drive; Steve Westmark, 15200 Knobb Hill Curve, Minnetonka CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairperson Dunham called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL—PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Cliff Dunham, William Ford(arrived at 8:00 p.m.), Louis Giglio, Ismail Ismail, Michael O'Leary and Mary Vasaly Absent: Kathy Nelson I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion/Second: Vasaly/Giglio, to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried, 5-0. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of May 13, 1999 Motion/Second: Ismail/O'Leary, to approve the May 13 minutes as presented. Motion carried 5-0. III: VARIANCES A. Request#99-10 by Roger and Vicki Windfeldt for 6621 Golden Ridge Drive for approval to Construct a double garage on the south side of the house 18-feet from the front property line(City Code requires a 30-foot setback). Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals June 10, 1999 • Roger Windfeldt, 6621 Golden Ridge Drive explained that they are requesting the variance to build a double garage on the south side of the house 18 feet from the front property line. The garage will be placed at a slight angle to the house toward the street because of the location of an existing oak tree that is approximately 28 inches to 30 inches in diameter. Also, the topography of the lot requires the placement of the garage as proposed. To build the garage at any other location would be cost prohibitive. Mr. Windfeldt pointed out that the existing house is approximately 24 feet from the street. In response to Mr. Ismail's question, Mr. Windfeldt explained that theirs is the only house on the block that has a single-car garage. Mr. Windfeldt stated the garage is part of a major remodeling project. The existing garage is located on the left side of the house and will be converted into a master bedroom. The existing driveway will be removed. Ms. Vasaly asked the applicant if he would meet City Code if he brought the driveway straight in rather than at a curve. Mr. Windfeldt explained that because of the location of the tree and the severe drop off, they wish to curve the driveway in. Ms. Vasaly asked the applicant if they had looked at any other alternative locations for the garage and/or driveway. Mr. Windfeldt responded that they have but in order to save the main tree in the front yard and to work around the topography of the lot, they have developed this plan. Ms. Vasaly asked if the applicant had discussed these plans with their neighbors. Mrs. Windfeldt responded that they have and no neighbors have • objected. Mrs. Windfeldt pointed out the advantage to having the driveway as proposed is that it will not be directly opposite the neighbor's driveway across the street. Also, the structure of the house will not change except for the garage. Mr. Dunham pointed out that the staff report asks that the driveway be kept at least 10 feet from the 24-inch oak at the front property line. He asked if the applicant would have a problem with that. Mr. Windfeldt said they should be able to work within those requirements. Ms. Johnson presented her staff report stating that the applicant is requesting a 24-foot by 24-foot double garage that will be setback approximately 18 feet from the front property line. The area is zoned R1-22. Staff did not receive any comments in opposition to the proposed plan. Following discussion, Mr. Dunham opened the public hearing. Having no one wishing to speak,Mr. Dunham closed the public hearing. Motion/Second: Giglio/Ismail, to approve Variance request#99-10 based on the fact that hardship was created by the topography of the lot and the desire to save an existing oak tree. Approval is also based on the condition that construction and the driveway are kept at least 10-feet from the 24-inch oak at the front property line and protective fencing is required prior to commencement of construction. Motion carried, • 5-0. 2 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals June 10, 1999 B. Request#99-11 by Oppidan, Steve Westmark—Counselor Realty, Inc. for 7500 Office Ridge Circle to allow outdoor storage of a vehicle over 3/4 ton in an Office District. Steve Westmark, 15200 Knobb Hill Curve, Minnetonka, explained that he is asking for a variance to allow him to park his Isuzu company van at an office building located at 7500 Office Ridge Circle in which he will be leasing office space. Mr. Westmark stated that he sells real estate and has a van he uses for deliveries and as a courtesy van. Mr. Westmark said he would like to be able to park the van in a space adjacent to a high bermed area in the southwest corner of the parking lot. The owner of the office building has no objection to his parking the van in the lot. Mr. Westmark presented photographs from different angles of the van parked in the lot. He explained that the van is ten feet high and does fit into a single stall space. The general manager of the Range Rover Dealership did submit a letter to the Board expressing some concern with the van being parked in the lot. Mr. Westmark explained that he needs to have the van parked at his office location. His staff uses the vehicle on a regular basis and needs easy access to it. Customers also use it on a regular basis and the van would be used about 50%to 60%of the time. Mr. O'Leary asked what Mr. Westmark's options would be should this Board deny his request. Mr. Westmark explained that he would have to lease office space in Minnetonka where he would be allowed to park his vehicle. There may be other • options such as leasing space for the van, however, this does not meet his needs and would not allow him to operate his business effectively. Ms. Vasaly asked Mr. Westmark if he has looked at alternate parking spaces in the area for this vehicle. Mr. Westmark responded that he has not. Ms. Vasaly pointed out that this Board is unable to grant a variance unless there is a stated hardship. Mr. Westmark said the hardship would be the lack of his staff being able to readily access his van. Mr. Giglio suggested that the office-building owner consider doing additional screening for this vehicle. Ms. Johnson pointed out that the screening requirements would need to be done from the adjacent streets and it would be difficult to screen when there are multiple story buildings. Mr. Ismail asked if there was any way Mr. Westmark could subdue the van,perhaps by removing the picture covering the sides . Mr. Westmark said it would be possible to remove the signage from the van. In response to a question on his pending lease, Mr. Westmark stated he intends to lease 2,000 square feet in the building. Following discussion,Ms. Johnson presented her staff report stating that the applicant is requesting the outdoor storage of a vehicle over 3/4 ton in an Office District. Presently, Code does allow smaller vehicles in commercial districts. This location is zoned Office and is located adjacent to a hotel, a Land Rover dealership and Valley View Road. The office building is 39,000 square feet in size and is near completion. Ms. Johnson explained that some of the options reviewed with the applicant were to lease space off-site where it is a permitted use. Staff also suggested that the applicant • replace the existing vehicle with smaller units that could be stored in the underground parking. Ms. Johnson said should the Board approve this request, Staff recommends 3 r Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals June 10, 1999 that certain conditions be placed on the approval which would p give specific location g for the parking of the vehicle, additional screening be added and a two-year limit be placed on the approval. Mr. Giglio asked the applicant how long his lease would be for this office space. Mr. Westmark stated it would be a five-year lease. Following discussion,Mr. Dunham opened the public hearing. No one appeared before the Board, therefore, Mr. Dunham closed the public hearing. Ms. Vasaly explained that this request appears to be a request to do something that is specifically prohibited by the City Code and there does not appear to be any hardship. She said she understands the applicant's desire to have the truck parked at the office location, however, Codes does not permit this use and because there is no extenuating circumstances she feels it would not be appropriate for this Board to grant the variance under any conditions. Mr. Giglio said should they decide to grant this variance, it would be difficult for this Board to place a condition of additional screening on the approval since the owner of the building is not present. The vehicle is an integral part of the business and is a good idea, however, it is not like a delivery company that has to have a truck of this size. Mr. Giglio said he would like to vote approval of this request,however, the Code is reasonable and he would have to vote against it. Motion/Second: Vasaly/Giglio, to deny Variance#99-11 based on the fact that there • has not been any hardship shown. The Code specifically prohibits parking trucks over 3/4 ton outside. Vote was called with Dunham, Vasaly and Giglio voting aye and Ford, Ismail and O'Leary abstaining. The motion carried, 3-0-3. IV. OLD BUSINESS Ms. Johnson reported that Variance Request#99-08 by James Perkins has been appealed and will be heard by the City Council on July 6. V. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Johnson reported that the Board will have one or two items to consider at their next meeting on July.8. Mr. Giglio, Ms. Vasaly and Mr. Ford indicated that they would not be present at that meeting. Ms. Johnson said she would check into rescheduling that meeting to July 15. VI. ADJOURNMENT Motion/Second: Ford/Vasaly, to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Motion carried, 6-0. • 4