Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 03/08/1990 APPROVED MINUTES • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, lurch 8, 1990 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers, 7600 Executive Dr., Eden Prairie, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS Dwight Harvey (Chairman), Arthur Weeks, Bill Arockiasamy, Scott Anderson, John Freemyer, Neil Akemann, Puke Bozonie STAFF PRESENT: Steve Durham-Planning, Sharon Storholm Recording Secretary BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Scott Anderson, Mike 3ozonie i. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Acting Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7:35 R-1. All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance and roll call was taken as noted above. II. INSTALLATION OF 104 MEMBERS Durhan installed Dwight Harvey and Arthur Weeks as members of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. •III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS MOTION: Akemann moved that this agenda item be moved to the end of the agenda for the evening. Arockiasamy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV. 11INUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 1990 Akemann noted that page 3, the name "Mrs Anderson" should be changed to Mrs. Nelson. 140TION: Akemann moved that the Board approve the minutes of the February 8, 1990 meeting. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Weeks and Arockiasamy abstained. V. VARIA110ES: A, Rectuest #90-08 , submitted by Phillips 66 for property located at 8009 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11, Section 11, Subdivision 3H, (1) To permit a driveway width of 331 . City Code maximum driveway width is 301 . (2) To permit two driveways 8 ' and 2 ' from the side lot lines. City Code requires 10 ' . (3) To permit parking 8 ' from the north side lot line. City Code requires a 10 ' parking setback. John Baccus came forward to present the variance request for Phillips 66 Station. • 2 • He stated that the Council and Planning Commission had reviewed and recommended approval of the site plan. The Council had also approved the first reading of the development proposal. The driveways currently are in existence and he said that they are asking for a variance for the driveway on 169 to be 33' wide. (code states 301 ). Also, to permit two driveways 8' and 2' from the side lot lines (code states 10' ). The existing driveways were constructed by MN DOT. All other accesses are restricted by MN DOT, so the two existing driveways must be used. This variance will not alter the character of the locality. He is also requesting parking by the north property line 8' from the north side lot line (code states 10' ). There are some existing mature spruce trees and plans are made for a solid row on the north property line. Customers will not be able to see a nearby church from the parking area because of the spruce trees-there is good screening. Durham noted that the Planning Commission had approved this item on January 22 and the Council had approved it on Feb 21. The variances that have been created were inherited with the property. Freemyer asked if any more variances would be necessary. Baccus answered no. Arockiasamy asked how many parking spots would be created by this plan. • Baccus answered 6 parking spots, including one handicapped spot. Arockiasamy asked if sone stalls would protrude into the driveway. Was the north driveway 33' and the south driveway 30 in width? Baccus answered that it would be parallel parking. He confirmed that those were the measurements of the driveways. Akemann asked if the curb could jog on the north side and thus eliminate the variance request. Baccus said it could be done, but nay cause a space problem. He would be willing to do that if necessary, but cannot cure the other two problems. Weeks asked what the landscaping material on the north side would be, and what would be planted on the east side. Baccus answered that spruce would be planted on the north and low level junipers would be planted on the east. Weeks asked (regarding the existing driveways) : How far back does the curb cut e:I-tend? Durham answered it would be about 301 . Arockiasamy asked what would really be achieved by the jogging of the curb. It would create an inconvenience, whereas otherwise it would be clean and straight. He felt that 2' was too small a distance to necessitate the jog. 3 • Baccus said he would prefer to have it as it is. Harvey said that by including the jog, a little more green space is gained. Arockiasamy still felt the straight line was better. Freemyer reminded the Board of the Statute on variances: They must be a condition that was not created by the applicant. He went on to say that regarding this request there were three points to consider: 1. MN/DOT has placed the driveways. 2. The site selected for the placement of the parking spaces was chosen in order to preserve mature trees at another site, per suggestion of Planning Department. 3. 8' versus 10' is not a significant amount. He added that he would rather see a straight curb. Akemann felt it may cause problems with snow plowing if the curb were to be jogged. 140TION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board approve variance request 90-08 on the grounds that most variances were not created by the proponent. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. B. Request #90-09 , submitted by James Bergin for property located at 7690 Corporate Way, Eden Prairie Minnesota The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11 Section 11 03 Subdivision 2B to permit platting of an Industrial zoned property with a lot width of 166. 121 . City Code requires 200 ' lot width. James Bergin came forward to present the variance request. He said the building was built in 1985. The request is for a variance for the width of an industrial zone property to be 166.12" instead of the required 200' . Durham stated that the property was originally platted into smaller properties. Many variances were eliminated, but this one was not. Staff and Planning Commission have no problem with this request. Weeks had questions on the lot width and plans for the second phase. Bergin answered that the width will stay the same. The second phase is an addition to the building, but the width of the building will stay the same. Akemann asked if there will be any more variances on this property. Durham answered that possibly there would on outlot A Arockiasamy, Freemyer, and Harvey had pothing additional to add. • MOTION: Akemann moved that the Board approve variance request 90-09 as submitted with the following findings: The proposed plat is consistent with the original plat approval and variance granted in 1985 through Variance request 85-02. 4 C. Recruest #90-10, submitted by Dean Swanson for property located at 15130 Ridge Road Eden Prairie Minnesota The request is for a variance fro m city P Code Chapter 11 Section 11.03 Subdivision 2B, (1) To permit proposed Lot 1 Block 1 Swanson Addition at 20. 400 square feet in the R1-22 Zonina District City Code requires 22 000 square feet (2) To permit the proposed structure on proposed Lot 1 with a 30 ' front yard setback. The average existing front yard setback is 44 ' Frank Cardarelle came forward to present the variance request. He explained that this is a two lot subdivision. The proposed builder and buyer are here and have the plans. There is not enough land for a 22,000 square foot lot. He explained the layout of the lots on the map. He felt that this plan fit in well with the existing homes on the block as far as setback. Durham said that eventually these areas could be serviced by City sewer and water. The Planning Commission felt that this subdivision preserves the character of the large lot single family home. There is a 25' rear yard set back-decks could be a problem. There are significant trees on the site, and the less fill that is added, the more they will be preserved. If the home is placed back further, the steeper slopes will become. He felt that the 30' setback may have merit. Discussion took place on the drain field. • Akockiasamy and Akemann had no further questions. Weeks noted that quite a few of the trees were close to the road and this helps to establish a focal point. He asked if there was an intention to subdivide the lot that was 44,6001 . Cardarelle answered it is a possibility. Freemyer and Harvey had no further questions. MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board approve the Variance Request 90-10 on the grounds that there is no solution to the problem through any other viable usage of the property. There is a topography hardship in the setback requirements, and more damage would be done by adhering to code. Akemann seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS (Moved from earlier in the agenda) A. Position of Secretary: MOTION: Freemyer nominated Arthur [leeks for the position of secretary. Weeks consented and the motion passed unanimously with Weeks abstaining. • 5 B. Position of Vice-Chairman: MOTION: Freeman nominated Akemann for the position of secretary. Akemann consented and the motion passed unanimously with Akemann abstaining. C. Position of Chairman: MOTION: Arockiasamy nominated Harvey for the position of Chairman. Harvey consented and the motion passed unanimously with Harvey abstaining. IV. OLD BUSINESS Harvey noted that the Board had denied the Farber Variance with a tie (3-3) vote. The proponent has since gone to the Council and was successful in his appeal. In addition, the Nelsons have appealed to the Council regarding the deck addition that the Board denied. Freemyer said he had voted to deny the Farber variance on the grounds that it was an over use of the land. Since that time he attended the Council meeting and listened to the brief proceedings. The Board takes it's position seriously • and tries to find reasons for approval or denial of requests. The Council defined no hardship in the Farber issue. He felt that the Board was overturned on the basis that the Council had approved the first reading. Harvey noted that the Council had stated at a previous meeting that they would define the hardship in the future, for the information of the Board. Arockiasamy noted that the Council had indicated they would communicate with the Board on the reasons the decisions were overturned. In one instance, the Council had sent a correspondence, but it only stated that the decision was overturned and stated no reasons. Freemyer cited the state statute that says the City Council can act as a Board of Appeals itself. If it does establish a separate Board of Appeals, it cannot by-pass the Board of Appeals except in PUD issues. Harvey said that the Board of Appeals is a decision making Board, not just advisory. Weeks felt that the Council looked at details, but also a concept plan. He asked what percentage of variances that go- to the Council have been granted. Akemann answered that half of the denials go to the Council, and half of those are granted. Akemann said that if the Council decides to listen to the appeal, then usually it will be granted. • Freemyer said that the Council has no broader base to deciding issues than the Board. There is no different criteria--both need to look at the same issues. Arockiasamy felt more action should be taken to get more feedback from the Council on overturned decisions. Harvey said the Council's criteria is no different than the Boards. He would like Council to explain what they define as hardships when decisions are overturned. Durham said the Planning Commission and the Council give some direction for the Board of Appeals. They provide direction for the Planning Staff. Harvey asked that the Council please justify the reasons for overturned decisions. Durham noted that he could send a memo to Council or mention it to Chris to intercede for reasons. He added that variance requests for the Board of Appeals are less now, although there are lots of requests for PUD's, which the Board does not see. VI. NEW BUSINESS • Durham noted that there are two variance requests next month: One from Target and the second on a Lake Reilly house addition. VII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board adjourn. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:40 PM.