Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 12/13/1990 APPROM rm= BOARD OF APPEAIS AND ADJUS'Il=S 1HURSDAy, December 13 , 1990 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers, 7600 Executive Dr. , Eden Prairie, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS HERS Dwight Harvey (Chairman), Arthur Weeks, Bill Arockiasamy, Scott Anderson, John Freemyer, Neil Akemann , I-like Bozonie( 8 : 10 ) STAFF PRESENT: Jean Johnson:-Planning,Sharon Storholm, Sec') BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Scott Anderson 1. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 PM. All present recited the Pleage of Alleginace and roll call was taken as noted above. II . MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 8 MEETING (Akemann arrived 7 : 31 , Bozonie at 7 : 40 ) MOTION: Arockaisamy moved that the Board approve the minutes of the November 8th meeting as submitted. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously with Akemann abstaining. Chairman Harvey explained the variance process to those present. III . VARIANCES A. Request #90-36 submitted by Nicolas Kemp for property located at 9451 Riverview Road Eden Prairie Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11 Section 11. 03 Subdivision 2B (1) to permit a rural lot size of 2 . 67 acres City Code minimum rural lot size is - 10 acres. (2) to permit a rural lot with a lot width less than 3001 . City Code requires a minimum lot width of 300 ' . Nicolas Kemp came forward to present the variance request. He said that Hennepin County had notified them that County Road 18 bridge was approved. The entrance ramp will take their home and they have a date of May 1 to move from the home. They are asking for two variances : To build on a rural lot of less than 10 acres and secondly, to permit a lot width of less than 300 ' . They will not be increasing the density. Johnson said that the two lots are 4 . 3 and 1 . 3 acres . The county will take part of the easterly lot. The- rest will be combined for a total of 2 . 67 acres . The lots in the area range from one acre to twenty plus .acres . There should be no Problem. with septic systems . Freemyer, Arockiasamy and Weeks had no questions . Akemann asked if this were to be granted for one year, will the new home be done within that time? !• 2 Kemp answered that construction is set to begin about January 1 . Larry Fr anceen, 9901 Riverview Rd, came forward and said he owned 55 acres west of the property. This is rural zoning. Ten acres is the minimun lot size. The staff report states that the surrounding property may develop in R-1 . This is contrary to what he heard. There is no sewer and water and no plans for it. What is the zoning here? Is it changing or being left the same? Johnson said that the comprehensive plan shows this area as undesignated. It could be residential ( low density) in the future. Sewer and water has been difficult to plan for this corner. It has been discussed with Bloomington, but does not seem feasible. There is water and sewer a short distance to the east, and it could be put in here, but lift stations would be needed. It could be done, but would be expensive. Harvey noted that Kemp was not here on a zoning change request. He is asking a lot size reduction. The State has taken a part of his lot and he would like to put a house on the remainder. Franceen asked if it was reasonable to build a a lot that is smaller yet. Does this allow other to do the same? Harvey said that other landowners can approach the Board to build on smaller lots , but that Staff would not encourage that. This lot was non-conforming in the first place. At one time, it probably was conforming. Franceen said that there is another non-conforming lot in the area. Johnson said that Staff can meet with Franceen if he wishes to clarify his concerns . Franceen said that he appreciated that. He added that he was not against Kemp' s request. Freemyer said that if someone would want to parcel off 2� acres and build a new home, he would vote against it. This is a different matter. MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board approve variance request 90-36 noting the following unique circumstances : The variance is not created by the applicant, but is created by the upgrading of County Road #18. Hennepin County will be acquiring the property for a larger right-of-way for County #18. The site is within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area sanitary sewer line (MUSA). The site is guided for low density residential development. Eventually, this site and surrounding rural properties may develop in the R1 Zoning District. The new home proposed will meet the Rural Zoning District setbacks. By combining the two lots the parcels becomes "less non-conforming." No additional building sites for more than one dwelling unit is created. 3 The density will be the same and by this change, the property will become less non-conforming. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Request #90-37. submitted by Edward Flaherty for property located at 8776 Deer Path B• Eden Prairie. Minnesota The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11 Section 11.03 Subdivision 2B to permit a building 27.8' from a front lot line. Cit Code minimum front yard setback is 30' Tom Heiberg of Landsake came forward and said he was here to represent Mr. Flaherty. He is also a builder who is interested in that lot. There is a plan for the proposed construction in the packet. The lot was platted about 10 years ago. They have considered the topography in the placement of the structure and also the style of the home. There is a demand for porches now in housing and they have tried to design one to fit the site. The platting of the lots has been a restriction. If the lot lines were to be changed, they would run into infringements on other lots . He is asking for a 2 ' 2" variance to allow for a corner on the proposed porch. The elevation over Basswood Road is 12 ' . The porch would look over most vehicles on the road. If there were no variance, the porch could only be 7 ' wide. This would create a hardship. If it were to be on the back side, a variance would be required on the rear yard.So, he is requesting a variance for a screen porch on the east side. Harvey asked if the lot was elevated on Basswood Road. Heiber said the porch would look over it. There is a fieldstone retaining wall and a heavily vegetated hillside. Johnson said that this is a small subdivision with four single family lots and five duplex lots . It is unusual that a 0 lot line was created. It has been in existence since 1981 with a 0 lot line in place. There has been a 25 ' setback granted for corner lots (in single family lots ) . Two letters have been received in favor of the request, both dated Decmember 5th. Weeks asked if this can be constructed without a variance. Johnson said if it were moved, it would create a setback on the northern side. Possibly a different unit could be built there, but it would not be very wide. Weeks asked how long the porch would be. Heiberg answered it would be 12 ' long. Weeks asked why it was not extended to the end of the house. Heiberg answered that it could be, but the real problem is the width. He would like to reduce the amount of variance requested, but still create a structure as practical as possible. 4 Arockiasamy asked if the minimum requirement was 30 ' on the south side. Johnson answered yes , it was on either street frontage. Arockiasamy asked why a 0 lot line was established. Johnson said that perhaps they had some models in mind at that time that would fit the lot. It was done by the owner or developer. Arockiasamy said he recognized that it was a small variance and he is in favor of it. Akemann asked what the unique circumstances were. They are trying to place a large structure on a small lot. Heiber asked Akemann if he had visited the site. Akemann answered no, he had not. Heiberg said that as you walk south off Deerpath, the rear of the lot has a severe increase in elevation ( 18 ' ) . As you look to the east, it goes up to meet the high hill in back. If they were to build a structure with the bedrooms up and the living room down, the residents would be looking out at the hill from the living room. They have tried to turn the house so it would be looking out the side towards Basswood Road. These are the problems , but there is a chance that they can develop the property. They could use a patio instead, but the proposed situation would be pleasant and a nice three season porch setting could be created. The market today likes three season porches . He knows that the code require- ments are for a reason. From the three season porch to the road is 12 ' elevation difference. This would not impact the road. They would try to keep it as natural as possible so it will not be offensive. Because of the circumstances , they are trying to create a nice enviroment for the buyer. Akemann said they cannot use "marketing" or"aesthetics"as reasons for hardships to justify variances . There are ways to mitigate or eliminate the variance. He is looking for something unique. Heiberg said he felt the 0 lot line was unique. All the lots are narrow and difficult to accomodate. It would be possible to build without the variance, they would like to put the property to positive economic use. It has not been developed because of the small size and restrictions . Now, they have a plan. Freemyer asked if Heiberg could define the constnuction of the porch. Will it be on legs or have a cinder block base? Heiber answered that it will have post footings , not full frost footings . The height would be 1-2 feet over grade or at grade, according to the slope of the land under it at that point. • 5 Heiberg said it could be screened or an enclosed porch. Freemyer said the hardest variance to grant is for strictly new construction because of the need to cite hardship. While it has not been common to preplat lots in Eden Prairie with 0 lot lines, 1981 was not that far back as far as styles of construction. This style was suggested by the developer at that time and was approved by the Planning Commission then too. This lot was envisioned as buildable then. Maybe this is a little more construction than this lot should have. Harvey asked how many lots were in the subdivision. Johnson answered four single family lots and 5 duplex lots. There was granted a 25 ' setback for single family lots, but not for the duplex lots . Harvey said that the duplexes did not get waivers on corner setbacks , only the single family lots . * Bozonie arrived at 8 : 10 . Harvey said he is looking for mitigating circumstances . If single family homesreceived the waivers to 25 ' at front yards, maybe the duplex lots should have had the same consideration. If the Board were to allow 27 ' 8" , they would not be changing the character of the neighborhood. Lot 14 has a curvature to the lot. If that were square, the 212" would not be a problem. Freemyer felt the single family setback was a mitigating circum- stance. Harvey felt this was a small percentage of a variance. Arockiasamy asked if this type of home is consistent with the area. Johnson said that there were other twin homes , most of a single story nature. The residents that have called concerning the request did not want the square footage reduced. This size would be compatible with the area. Arockiasamy asked if the builder were forced to reduce the size, will it still be compatible? Johnson said that the required lot size is 13 , 000 ft. for two halves . One lot is 6 , 300 square ft. and the other is7 , 500 sq. ft. Arockiasamy said that he agreed with Harvey that the curvature has effect on the location of the house. If the porch is to be on posts , will it be open underneath? 6 Heiberg answered yes, it would be open underneath. Arockiasamy said he felt that the hardship was that the property should be developed compatible with the surrounding area. Freemyer said that single family lots in this area were allowed 25 ' set back--was his understanding on this correct? Johnson answered that was correct. The lot was in a PUD. The Board does not deal with new PUD' s, only returning ones . Freemyer said there was not a clear definition of hardship here other than economic. But, there are clear mitigating cir- cumstances & that it is a small variance. He c(ould . vote in favor of it. Bozonie said that he would rather not enter into the discussion as he was late and did not hear the entire presentation. Mr. Hoisington of 8748 Deer Path came forward and said that he was the first home to the north. Most of the homes in the area are 1800 to 1900 square feet an two levels . The neighbors have been concerned with the homes that would be built on these lots-concerned they may be rather small. When this was proposed, they were very pleased. The neighbors support it. The lot lines cannot be changed and that is a hardship. A smaller home would not fit into the neighborhood. A thirty foot side yard setback recognizes that one has access from the street--this is not the case here. It is too steep. The neighbors are support- ive of this proposal. Akemann said this this is new construction and he has a difficult time with it when it can be eliminated by downsizing.. He is concerned with a precedent for others . Weeks said that 2 ' 2" is a small amount. But, if it is taken out of the footage of the house, is there a perceived loss of value? He does not see unique circumstances or hardship. Hei.berg-thenanswered that if the area were to be taken out of the home, it would need to come out of the master bedroom and would cut down the access or closet area. This invades the use and function of the property. No doubt, this is new construction, but there are unuque circumstances involved. He showed conceptual ideas and drawings . Harvey felt that there were mitigating circumstances. When this was plated under PUD, the twin home developers did not think to ask for it--they did not think ahead. Now, this builder is here to ask for this. It should have been the same consideration given to twin homes as single family homes . ' 7 Harvey continued to say that a 2 ' 2" variance would not change the characteristic of the neighborhood. It would not encroach any more than other homes in the area. Arockiasamy felt that strict enforcement of code would force the developer to downsize the construction which would change the characteristic and intent of the neighborhood. Weeks did not feel that would be the case if two feet was the figure being discussed. Freemyer felt the porch could be left off all together. He doubted that the square footage of the porch had been factored into the home. Arockiasamy said that if it were decided to have the porch and adjust the house accordingly, it would affect the house. Bozonie asked if the option of a patio or detached patio have been discussed. Akemann said that porches and decks have been notched before to maintain code. He believes that is the way to do this . Harvey said that the problem is the NE corner of the porch. He suggested an angle cut or possibly eliminate the corner. Discussion of options took place between the applicant and the Board members . Harvey asked if the proponent would be willing to alter the porch. Heiberg asked if this opinion was passed to the City Council. Johnson answered that if the Board were to deny the request, it can be appealed to the Council . Harvey said there was an option for continuance if Heiberg wished to study redesigning the porch. said he would like an opinion from the Board this evening, but he would study options . Freemyer said the Board should not attempt to design another porchfor the applicant. MOTION: Weeks moved that the Board deny Variance Request 90-37 citing no unique circumstances, no hardship, and that there are other ways to design the porch within the setbacks . Akemann seconded the motion. *Vote next page. Freemyer asked Weeks about the statement regarding no unique circumstances--he cited the single family setback and the PUD. 8 Weeks answered that there were mitigating circumstances, but not unique ones . Akemann asked what the difference was between circumstances and hardships . Weeks said that one unit could be modified to meet code. * Motion passed 3-2 with Harvey and Arockiasamy opposed and Bozonie abstaining. Motion was denied. 0. Request#90-38. submitted by A plebee's (Edward Flaherty) for property located at 8421 Joiner Way, Eden Prairie Minnesota The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11, Section 11 03 Subdivision 2B to permit an accessory structure 0' from the lot line. City Code requires a 10' setback for accessory structures Jean Osip ., general manager of Applebees came forward to present the variance request. She said that the building had been built in 1989 . Now, they wish to recycle bottles and card- board and it is necessary to build an area outside of the restaurant for this purpose. It will need to be located next to the driveway as there is no other area. It will be an enclosed area. Johnson said that other centers have inside/outside storage areas or combinations . All the storage units have to be rolled outside of the building to be loaded. They had tried to find a location where no variance would be necessary. The only workable location was shown on the map. There is a sketch of the refuse collector in the packet. It will be one foot from the property line if it is approved. They have met with adjoining property owners . One owner whose property is for sale was concerned about future grading. He was informed that it should pose no problem. It is not permissible to leave the recyclable materials outside. There may be similar proposals from other commercial establishments . Akemann asked if this would be a permanent structure. Osip said it would be permanent/temporary. Harvey said that the variance would be conditional . Bozonie suggested using one parking stall for the structure. Osip answered that they were below code now and they are short of parking area. Bozonie said he would be in favor of the request. 9 Arockiasamy asked about the location near the electrical box. Olson said that was near Just For Kids . Arockiasamy asked if the request could be amended from 0 ' to 11 . Johnson said it could be amended like that. Weeks felt it was a good idea. Freemyer said it would be more favorable if it were brick. It would be neater and the grading question brought up by the neighbor would not be a concern. Why was wood chosen? It is more prone to rodents . Olson said that Applebees was paying for the construction. They would like it up as soon as possible. Johnson said that Staff is reviewing a trash recycling ordinance. They prefer brick for outside areas. Freemyer said it could be amended for brick. Akemann said that Applebees is just a tenant--it may not be needed in the future. Olson said it is storage for holding containers. It will only be held in this area for 2-3 days at a time. Harvey said he commended Applebees for this effort. MOTION: Akemann moved that the Board approve Variance request 90-38 as submitted finding that the recycling bin beneifts the public and that the bin is located in an area of the site which is not visible from public roads or parking lots . Freemyer added amendments to specify that the structure be placed 1 ' from the rear yard lot line and that this variance be subjective to any future city ordinances related to recycling. Bozonie seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. D• Request #90-39 submitted by Transtar Inc for property located west of Bennett Place South of Creekridae Drive Eden Prairie Minnesota The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11 Section 11.03 Subdivision 2B to P ermit ro osed Lots 7 and 8 Block 1 of the Burnett Addition with lot fronta es on a public street of 10' City Code requires 55' of lot frontage on a cud-de-sac This variance request is an extension of Variance Request #89-49 10 Tom Gambuchi of Transtar came forward and said that this request was for an extension. He had come in before with blueprints of the area and Planning had chosen to go with 2 flag lots and a cul de sac going to 'lots 8 and 9 . Bozonie had no questions . Freemyer had no questions . Arockiasamy asked why this had not been utilized within the one year period. Gambuchi answered that there had not been time. Presently they are in the process of grading. Arockiasamy asked if alternatives had been looked at. Gambuchi answered that there was no other way. Harvey asked why this had not been plated. Gambuchi answered that it was for tax reasons. Arockiasamy had no further questions . Akemann had no questions . Harvey had no questions , but noted that the reasons for the request were the same as the first time it was presented. MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board approve variance request 90-39 based on the previous findings and conditions approved thruogh variance 89-49 . The plat has not changed in design. Arockiasamy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV. OLD BUSINESS Harvey asked about the Headquist variance request. Johnson answered that it had gone before the City Council. Harvey noted that the Board a ain requests that the Council please explain to the Board why decisions are overturned. The Board realizes that the Council can do this , but wants to know the reasons for those decisions . Harvey noted that nominations were open for the Martin Luther King award. � r " 11 Harvey had questions about signs going up at Prairie Village Mall that were questionable. Weeks said that the color was not complied with as approved by the Board. Arockiasamy asked about the time limit for Touch of Class . Was it two years? Harvey felt it may possibly be five years .He noted a rental sign in front of the property. Johnson said they had been leasing property for 4 years . Arockiasamy asked that the time period be checked. The City Council members had assured the Board that they would look at the matter at the end of the time period and he will be waiting for that review. V. NEW BUSINESS Johnson noted that there will be discussion on Chapter 9 of the code at the next meeting. Two parties would like to have 20 HP motors on Mitchell Lake--it is presently limited to 10 HP. Johnson said that another item regarding an accessory building will be on the agenda. Freemyer asked about expiration of terms for Board Members . Johnson answered that it would be in March--the Board members will receive a letter on the subject. VI . ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board adjourn. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9 : 20 .