Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 07/12/1990 APPROVED MINUM BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTi= THURSDAY, ,JUL,Y 12, 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 , hike Bozonie STAFF PRESENT: Jean Johnson-Planning,Sharon Storholm, Secly BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Anderson (Akemann arrived at 8:15 PM) 1. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. Roll call was taken as noted above. All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. II. MINUTES OF JUNE 14, 1990 Harvey noted that on page 7, the reason for his vote against the request by Northco Corporation should be more clearly stated to say that he felt there was a better way to communicate the objective of trying to show the presence of more than three tenants in the building. Freemyer said that under OLD BUSINESS, on page 13, second paragraph from the bottom, the sentence should end with the word approved. .16 MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board approve the minutes of the June 14, 1990 meeting as amended. Weeks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously with Bozonie and Arockiasamy abstaining. III. VARIANCES A. Recruest 490-19 , submitted by Michael J. Pan for property located at 7982 Island Road, Eden Prairie Minnesota The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11 Section 11.50, Subdivision 6 A to permit a porch addition less than 150 ' from the Ordinary High Water Mark of Mitchell Lake. City Code requires a 150 ' setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark Ilichael J Pan came forward to present the variance request. He noted that the Board had already received the packet and added that they have researched other alternatives (even to extend beyond the existing garage) and these are not cost effective. There is the issue of a non=conforming lot--to build in any other direction is impossible. • 2 Johnson said that the subdivision was approved in 1976. The Shoreland code . became effective in 19,82. This lot was built on in 1988. The two alternatives listed in the packet include: 1. Build across the back 2. Build off to the east end. There had been no communication from the neighbors other than the letter included in the packet. Harvey asked if the building pads were shown on the plats in 1976. Johnson answered that they were not. There was a State requirement of a 50' setback. Arockiasamy asked if there was a plan to do this expansion when Pan bought the property. Pan answered that there was not. He had bought the property quickly. Arockiasamy felt it was a short time since the property had been purchased and wondered if the needs of the family had changed. He felt that Pan should have known the limitations regarding the property when he bought it. Pan said that there are more people in the home now and more space would make sense.. The home is not large. Arockiasamy said this is an extreme variance to justify--he is looking for a hardship. • Pan said when he tries to sell the property in the future, it will be a hardship. He could appeal it at tax time. Arockiasamy asked if Pan felt that because of the lack of the proper size*porch, the property would be worthless. Pan answered yes, almost certainly in today's market. Arockiasamy said he had difficulty in finding a valid basis for justifying the request. Harvey asked if Pan put the deck on when he bought the home. Pan answered that it was part of the purchase agreement. Additional decking was put on. Johnson noted that there may be a slight encroachment with the deck. Freemyer asked if the home was built in 1988. Weeks asked if Pan had worked with the builder and if the fireplace was the only constraint on the east side. Pan answered that it had been built in 1988. He had not worked with the builder. If the porch was to be on the east side, there would be no wall space in the family room. • Weeks asked if there were windows that fronted on the lake already. Pan answered that there were. 3 Weeks asked what the criteria from the DNR was. . . Johnson answered the the DNR gave the city guidelines and they vary on a per lake basis. This is the most restrictive lake with a 150' setback. Pan noted that the north end is considered a marsh and not a lake. Weeks felt that the alternative of placing the porch on the east side should be more fully explored. Pan answered that they had explored that option and the builder felt it was not a good idea. It would be extremely costly--not a viable option. He felt the proposal presented was the best option. Johnson said that there was a 10' setback on the east side. Pan showed a drawing of the family room and explained that if the addition was put on the east wall, there would be only one eight foot wall in the family room. Harvey clarified what the Board was asked to make a decision on at this time. Only the variance in front of the Board should be approved or disapproved at this time. Other locations and alternatives are a different matter. Harvey felt that the home was quite close to the shoreline now. It is hard to identify a hardship. The value of the home is an economic hardship and not a basis for approval. , ' Arockiasamy said he can understand that Pan's request is logical. The uniqueness of the property or conditions beyond his control need to be identified. There are others in similar situations and he is not comfortable in granting this request. Harvey said the house is functional as it exists now. The variance is one of convenience. An economic hardship is the only one that has been identified. Shoreland ordinances were passed for a reason. This property is already encroaching in the shoreland management area. Harvey said that the likelihood of the variance being granted was not good. The three choices that Pan had at this time were: 1. Come back with a different plan in one month. 2. Withdraw the request. 3. Ask for a vote. (Pan chose to ask for a vote) MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board deny variance request 90-19 on the basis that there are no unique circumstances for a hardship and the addition could be done without a variance. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. B. VARIANCE REQUEST 90-20: • No one present to present variance at this time. Moved to later in the agenda. 4 C. Rectuest #90-21 submitted by Bentec Engineering Corporation for property located at 13050 Pioneer Trail Eden Prairie. Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11 Section 11. 03 Subdivision 2 B to Permit a buildinq 18 ' from the front lot line of Highway #169. City Code requires a 35 ' front yard setback in the Office Zoning District Bob Smith of Ron Krueger & Associates came forward to present the variance request for Bentec Corporation. He showed drawings and slides of the site and explained that the request regards the setback from highway 169 which should be 35' . They are asking for a setback variance oT 181 . He pointed out the new right of way for 169 since the condemnation action taken by the state. The vegetation in the area will remain (deciduous and pine trees) Smith felt the hardship demonstrated was the condemnation proceedings through the state. Johnson noted that the remainder of the development meets City requirements. The only variance required is the 18' setback. Smith said that they had already received City Council approval. Because of a change of schedule, they are already one month behind. Arockiasamy asked about the building permit. Smith answered that the Council gave approval two nights ago (the earl grading permit has possibly been obtained). y Harvey asked if the exterior material meet code. Smith answered that the entire front and ends of the building will be brick. It meets the 75% requirement. The landscaping is up to code. Six tenths of an acre had been taken through condemnation. This included 85' of frontage. Freemyer asked about the nature of the building. Smith said it was a residential nature granted an office status. Harold Schaitberger of 12880 Pioneer Trail came forward and said that he owns the home next to the property under discussion. His property is an older home which is serving as a residence for a young family. The land Smith refers to is classified Office-warehouse. He was told that his property would be best used as office warehouse also. He felt this would be a mistake and asked if this decision would mean that his property would be office ware- house also. Harvey said it did not. This would only be the case if Schaitberger applied for that status for his property. • MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board approve Variance Request 90-21 on the basis that the hardship was the condemnation of the right of way for 169. Bozon ie seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 5 D. VARIANCE REQUEST 90-22 E. VARIANCE REQUEST 90-23 MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board continue variance requests 90-22 and 90-23 until the August meeting. Bozonie seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV. OLD BUSINESS Harvey asked about the progress of the home moving in Eden Prairie. Johnson answered that not much had been done at this point. She had received a letter from the Corp of Engineers that stated that the land was suitable for the house. Weeks asked if the Council Members would be- able to meet with the Board. Johnson answered that they did not feel they would have the time this year. Harvey said he would like to renew the request to meet with the City Council when they so choose. Arockiasamy felt it was easy to postpone a general meeting, but it should be routine to communicate why the rulings are overturned. Harvey felt that this message was communicated last time. Arockiasamy said that the Board needed to keep asking. Harvey stated again that if the Council overturns this evenings decision on the Pan variance (or any future variance request that comes before them), the Board wished to know the reasons. Freemyer said he would like to know if Pan is appealing in time so he can arrange to attend. He would like to make a statement on the protection of the shoreline. Johnson said that the Council would get a letter of request for a hearing if Pan appeals the decision. Only if they deckle to hear the request would the Board members need to know when the meeting is held. Freemyer noted that regarding the Touch of Class request, no opportunity was given to the audience to speak on the matter. Arockiasamy said that the Council does not have to open up the discussion to the public, but the members of the Board should let the Council know before the meeting that they wish to speak. Board members can speak only as individuals and not at Board members at the Council meeting. The Board must keep insisting • on feedback after the overturned decisions. 6 Akemann suggested that a one page summary of the nd that the Board reached regarding any denied variances ushould ssion abe preparedons if the variance is brought before the council. He asked when the agenda was set and added that the letter would need to get in before that time. Johnson said that in the past a summary sheet has been given. She also su that the Council or Mayor could be called before the meeting . ggested Harvey said he would like the reasons for Council overturns clearly defined. Arockiasamy suggested that when an appeal comes in, the -Staff should prepare a one page summary on the variance. Harvey said the Board votes as they see the appeals. The job needs to be done within the guidelines that are aet. Arockiasamy answered that the Council says that too, but they feel that they can make decisions different than ours. Freemyer felt that the Board made decisions in the broad sense---if one individual gets the variance request, then others will want it also. The Council, however, looks at it as individual cases. Arockiasamy said that Harris had stated that they have a much broader area to look at and larger scope to consider--not just the ordinances. Freemer said that in the state statutes on metropolitan development itVstates that the criteria used in decision making is to be the same for the Board and the Council. (In cases where there is a Board) In some instances, the Council makes all such decisions and there is no Board of Appeals. VARIANCE REQUEST 90-20 Johnson said that since no one was here to present the variance, possibly a motion should be made to continue it to the next meeting. MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board continue Variance Request 90-20 to the August meeting. Arockiasamy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board adjourn. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:12 PM.