Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 11/08/1990 I i/ APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8 , 1990 7 : 30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS Neil Akemann (Vice Chairperson) , Scott Anderson , William Arockiasamy, Michael Bozonie , John Freemyer , Dwight Harvey (Chairperson) , Arthur Weeks (Secretary) BOARD STAFF : Planner Donald Uram, Recording Secretary Jan Nelson BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Neil Akemann , Scott Anderson CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7 : 34 P .M. All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance and roll call was taken as noted above . I . MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11 MEETING Harvey noted that Mr . Freemyer ' s name appeared as "Freeman" in Item 90-33 of the minutes . Harvey also noted that the references to McShane in Item 90-32 should be changed to Devaan . MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board approve the minutes of the October 11 , 1990 meeting .as submitted , with the corrections to Freemyer ' s name and Devaan ' s name to be included . Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously . II . VARIANCES A. Request #90-28_, submitted by Hampton Inn for property located at 7740 Flying Cloud Drive . Eden Prairie - Minnesota . The request is for a variance from City Code . Chapter- 11 , Section 11 . 70 . Subdivision 4 . B . to permit a free-standing sign of 126 square feet . City Cgde permits 80 square feet maximum. (This item was continued from September 13 , 1990 and October 11 , 1990 . ) Harvey asked Uram if it was correct that this request has been withdrawn . Uram said that was correct and that there is a letter forthcoming officially withdrawing the request . Harvey said there would then be no need for further action . 2 B . Request #90-32 . submitted by Kevin and Mary Devaan for .property located at 15628 Oak Ridize Road , Eden Prairie . Minnesota . The request is for a variance from City Code . Chapter 11 . Section 11 . 03 . Subdivision 3 . C . to Permit _a building addition 30 ' from the front property line . The average existing front yard setback for the legal block is 40+ ' setback . (This item was continued from October 11 , 1990 . ) Mr . Devaan reviewed the issues outstanding from the October 11 meeting: the position of the City relative to the street placed on the right-of-way on the west portion of the lot ; and a further examination of the north option . He displayed a layout of the proposed addition and noted that he had met with the City Engineer to discuss the placement of Oak Ridge Road on the west portion of the property . In reviewing the north option , he said there was a black walnut tree that would have to be removed and that some excavation would be required . Harvey asked Devaan if he was back to get the original variance . Devaan said he was . Uram noted that the City Engineer ' s memo on the road states that the City does not anticipate doing anything to relocate it at this time . He said that the black walnut is included in the City ' s list of trees to be saved . Bozonie asked Devaan to review the original request since he was not present at the October 11 meeting . Devaan reviewed the request . Harvey asked what the diameter of the black walnut is . Devaan said it is 18" . Freemyer said he thought the board can waiver somewhat from the" technicality of the right-of-way because of the feelings of the city on the position of the road . He said , in light of the City ' s tree ordinance , he would hate to see the north option taken because of the loss of the large black walnu"t tree . Harvey asked what the width of the extension on the west end is . Devaan said it is 12 feet . Harvey then asked what the size of the extension to the front is and if it was in the plan presented last month . Devaan said it is four feet and it was included in the October 11 plan . Arockiasamy asked if the north option could be moved any more to the west . Devaan said the access point would have to be a certain distance from the corner . Arockiasamy then asked if the excavation required would cause the north option to cost more . Devaan replied that it would . Weeks asked Devaan how far the north addition is from the elm tree and how big the tree is . Devaan said it is larger than the black walnut tree and would be 18 ' from one corner and 6-9 ' from the other corner . Weeks then asked if the tree limbs would have r .r 3 to be cut back for either addition . Devaan replied that the limbs would not have to be cut back but there is some concern about damage to the roots . Weeks said he would hate to see the walnut tree lost and his feelings were that the west addition is the better solution . Harvey asked how much excavation would be required for the west addition . Devaan said there would be none to speak of . Harvey said he agreed that the alternatives are probably worse than going with the west addition . Bozonie said he agreed that the west addition makes sense but he was wondering if this is a lot that perhaps should not have an addition . Freemyer commented that we can ' t keep him from putting an addition on the house as long as the addition meets the City codes . He stated that Devaan could put in the north addition that would not require a variance but that would result in the tree loss . Uram noted that the tree ordinance is set up to preserve and protect trees ; however , individual homeowners have the right to remove 10% of the tree cover on their lots . There was no one in the audience to address the variance request . Harvey noted that Devaan had looked at a possible addition to the east as well but that the west addition seems to be the best alternative . MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board approve Variance Request 90-32 to allow an expansion off the west end of the house to be no wider than 12 feet , with the findings of hardship based on : ( 1 ) the letter of record from the City Engineer stating that the City does not anticipate the road to the west of the house being moved ; (2 ) the preservation of one or two large trees on the property in line with the City ' s tree preservation policy ; ( 3) the fact that proponent has investigated other possibilities for the addition but has found there are severe restrictions with any other location . Bozonie seconded the motion . Harvey said the fact that there are substantial existing trees on the west side of the property that will provide adequate screening should also be included . Weeks said there should be a stipulation that the proposed addition not extend further than four feet from the front of the house . The amendments suggested by Harvey and Weeks were accepted by Freemyer and Bozonie . 4 Vote on the motion as stated and amended : Notion carried unanimously . Harvey told Devaan that he has one year in which to utilize the variance . C . Request #90-34A , .submitted by Don Hedquist for property located at 12900 Gerard Drive - Eden Prairie , Minnesota . The reguest for a varianfrom ( 1 ) City Code Chapter 12 , Subdivision 12 A. to permit proposed Lots -4 Heda ist Addition without frontage on a public road , City Code requires all lots to have frontage on a Publicly dedicated street . (2 ) City Code Chapter 11_. Section 11 , 03 , Subdivision 2 . B . to permit proposed Lot 5 - Heda isr Addition with a lot frontaize of 34 . 80 feet on a public road . City Code requires 90 ' of frontage on a public road in the R1-22 Zoning District Frank Cardarelle , representing Mr . Don Hedquist , presented the variance . He said the property has gone through the process of negotiations with the neighbors with the result that there is a need for a private road because , of the dedication of approximately one acre of the four acre property to the City and a conservancy easement . Cardarelle reviewed the development proposals for the property since 1983 . He noted that the first proposal in 1983 had six lots on a public street with no variances required ; however , it was not acceptable to the City because it entailed heavy tree loss and extensive grading . Cardarelle said the present proposal enabled them to move the houses off the hill onto natural ground with minimal grading required . He said they are requesting that this be a private road to service the five lots . Uram said he was the project planner for this project and they had been through about every alternative possible with this development . He noted that the current proposal saves the largest amount of significant trees with the least amount of grading required . Harvey noted that the staff report of August 24th indicated a tree loss calculation of 37-38% , based on a public street with flag lots , a 70-foot building pad and approximately 12 . 5 ' flat area behind the pads . Uram said that the plan was approved by the Planning Commission and had a cul-de-sac bubble halfway into the project . Uram said there was serious concern about the ability to build a house on one of the lots in that proposal . Harvey asked if the tree loss is less with the current proposal . Uram said it now is calculated to be 31-32% and noted that there will be less grading required with this plan . Harvey asked how the property to the west will have access to the public street . Uram responded that the Hanson ' s , who own r r 5 the property to the west , have always indicated that they have no plans for the development of their property and are not interested in access to the property through this project . Uram said they have set up Outlot A so that the City has an easement over the property so that the City can take control of the property to provide access from the private road . Cardarelle reviewed the layout of the adjacent properties . Harvey asked if there would be an association to maintain the private road . Cardarelle said that was correct . Harvey then asked Uram what the City ' s experience has been maintaining a private road that provides access to this many homeowners . Uram_ said they have limited experience , but he was not aware of any significant problems . Freemyer said the curves shown on the plans are very tight . Uram said those will be designed to meet engineering requirements . Freemyer said he was concerned about entrance and egress for City fire protection vehicles . Uram said the plans have been reviewed by the Fire Marshall and that detailed drawings will be reviewed again . Harvey asked how long the private road is . Cardarelle responded that is 450 ' and pointed out the location of the fire hydrants in the project area . Weeks asked the distance of the houses from the street . Cardarelle responded that it is 15 feet , the distance required from a private street . Uram noted that the City requires 25 feet from the curb to the garage door ; however , there are no setback requirements for a private street . Weeks asked how much of a problem the lack of a cul-de-sac at the end of the street will be for people coming in and trying to get back out again . Uram said he didn ' t know how much of a problem it would be ; however , the volume of traffic in this area is very low . Cardarelle pointed out that there will be a "Private Road" sign placed at the entrance of the project . Bozonie asked if the purpose of the long leg on lot five was to provide the 22 , 000 ' requirement . Cardarelle said the purpose was to use that piece with the other portion to allow for private ownership and maintenance . Bozonie said he saw a lot of engineering difficulties with the property and it almost seems like a property that isn ' t supposed to be developed . Freemyer said he agreed with Bozonie ' s assessment that it is too much development for the property ; however , the Planning Commission and the City Council have approved it . Uram noted that the current zoning of the property is R1-22 and that the first plan met all City codes . In response to the City ' s concerns , they produced this plan . He also noted that we u 6 will see more of this type of plan as in-fill developments become more common . Harvey asked what the tree loss was in the first plan . Uram said it was in excess of 50% . Harvey said it seems to him that the City doesn ' t have to allow development of every square inch in the city and that each piece of property has its restrictions and should be developed within those restrictions . Don Hedquist , the property owner , said that they could put sit lots on the property and meet the City ordinances but they developed this plan in response to other concerns by the City . Freemyer said he thought a positive consideration was that they are dedicating some 40 , 000 square feet back to the City . Harvey asked for what purpose . Uram responded it will be public open space and park, and then reviewed some of the plans developed for the public space in the area . Harvey noted that the duty of the Board of Appeals is to identify hardships and special circumstances where some public benefit is gained or some hardship is so imposed that the owner can ' t use it for the purpose it was intended . He said in view of that duty he has a difficult time with this proposal . Ken Travilla , a resident living just east of the property, asked if any consideration had been given to providing a sound barrier for the volume of traffic generated by the project . Cardarelle responded that the plan provides for sound screening with trees . Weeks asked if the ravine to the east is open or wooded . Cardarelle said it is heavily wooded . A discussion followed regarding the relative benefit to the City of the land dedicated by this project and the difficulties posed to the project by the constraints of the private road . Arockiasamy said he thought we are putting four properties on a less than desirable street as far as public safety is concerned and asked what are the liabilities for the City in that regard . Uram responded that there are none he is aware of because there is access for fire and public safety and it will be built to City standards . Uram said that about 50 trips per day will be generated by five houses . Uram noted that we routinely approve townhouses and condos on private streets . Arockiasamy said this poses a question of how far do we go to save trees at the expense of reasonable development . Uram said that the City is very supportive of the Tree Preservation Ordinance . Arockiasamy said it looks like those lots are not comparable to other lots as far as quality , and perhaps .the level of development goes down at the expense of trees . Harvey asked if there would be five lots on this development if City code were met . Hedquist responded that they would have six J �r 7 lots . Uram noted that there would be no dedication to the City with the six lots . Cardarelle said they have worked for a year on the plan to satisfy the City and the neighbors at the cost of the development . Freemyer said he thought the nation-wide recommendation regarding cul-de-sacs is that they shouldn ' t be put on streets longer than 500 ' , and here the street is 450 ' without a cul-de- sac . He said he thought the main reason for the recommendation had to do with the safety factors . He asked if the School District would have concerns regarding bus transportation on the . private street and the distance the children would have to walk in this project . Uram noted that buses will not drive down Private streets , nor will snowplow and other non-emergency City vehicles . Freemyer said he would like to have seen a cluster concept on this development so that the street could be shortened by 75- 100 ' and asked if that had been considered . Harvey said that would require a zoning district change which is even more complex an issue . Cardarelle said a cluster would not work as these are 70 ' deep building pads that will accommodate quite large houses . Bozonie said , from the narrow view that we are supposed to take , the small or non-existent frontage on the road doesn ' t match our criteria . A discussion followed regarding the process of approving devel.opments. with private roads . Freemyer reiterated his concerns about access , particularly when backing out of driveways . Cardarelle said such turnaround areas would be considered on the final plans ; however , these are just preliminary designs that will be modified for details such as driveway width . MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board approve Variance Request 90-34A . The mitigating circumstances are that , in working with the City staff , Planning Commission and the City Council, the developer has submitted a plan that saved as much as 40% of the trees that would have been lost with a development plan that did not require a variance . Motion died for lack of a second . Arockiasamy noted that if we cannot approve it , we must also have a valid reason to deny it . Discussion followed regarding whether not finding a hardship was sufficient reason to deny a request . MOTION: Weeks moved that the Board deny Variance Request 90- 34A, finding that while the plan represents significant improvement over previous plans in the saving of trees , 3 adequate study has not been given to the roadway and termination of the roadway in the plan . Arockiasamy asked Weeks to clarify the point regarding a lack of study on the roadway . Weeks said he was not comfortable with the lack of a cul-de-sac for the road and had concerns about the traffic circulation in the project . Weeks said he thought it was an important consideration to cul-de-sac the roadway. Arockiasamy suggested that the motion be amended to add that there were : . ( 1 ) no hardships identified ; and ( 2) the development is not satisfactory as far as the safety issue of a long private road is concerned . Weeks accepted the amendment . Arockiasamy seconded the amended motion . Vote on the motion : Aye : Arockiasamy , Bozonie , Harvey, Weeks Nay : Freemyer Harvey noted that proponents have the right to appeal the decision to the City Council within 15 days . A discussion followed regarding development policies and the development of difficult sites . III . OLD BUSINESS None . IV. NEW BL'STNRS� None . V. ADJOURN�?FNTT MO TON: Bozonie moved and Freemyer seconded that the Board adjourn . Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9 : 21 P .M.