Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 05/09/1985 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1985 7:30 PM, ADMNINISTRATION BLDG. , SCHOOL BOARD ROOM, 8100 SCHOOL ROAD BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Richard Lynch Roger Sandvick, James Dickey and Hanley Anderson BOARD STAFF: Assistant Planner, Steve Durham and Recording Secretary, Lynda Diede ROLL CALL: All Board members were present. I. MINUTES A. Minutes of April 11 , 1985. MOTION: Dickey moved, seconded by Lynch to approve the minutes of April 11 , 1985. Motion carried unanimously. II. VARIANCES A. Request#85-07, submitted by Richard Miller Homes, Inc. for property located at 7990, 7992, 7994, & 7996 Timber Lake Drive. The request is for a variance from Cit Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, for a side yard setback of 20 feet, Code requires 25 feet in RM-2.5 zoning district) . This variance request was continued from the April 11 , 1985 meeting. Terry Lamb, representing Richard Miller Homes Inc. , reviewed the proposal with the Board. At the April 11 , 1985 meeting Lamb indicated that he would like to utilize Variance Request #84-62 (approved Dec- ember 11 , 1984) , or #85-07, depending on which building plan a per- spective client chooses. Durham noted that according to the City Attorney, a new variance overrides previous variances. However, if Variance Request #85-07 is not utilized, Variance Request #84-62 would still be effective, according to its final order and conditions. The Board could grant Variance Request #85-07 with the provision that #84-62 also remain in effect. There were no comments from the audience. Dickey asked if the revised landscape plan had been turned in. Lamb stated that they had the plan for Variance Request #84-62, but not for Variance Request #85-07. Dickey asked what the earliest date would be for construction, Lamb replied two months. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - May 9, 1985 Sandvick asked if the potential buyer from the April 11 , 1985 meeting had financing available. Lamb stated that the buyer was unable to get financing. Sandvick was not comfortable with approving two variances for one parcel . Krueger asked how many sites had flexibility. Lamb said that each unit would require a setback variance due to the nature of the de- velopment. Lamb stated that the reason for the setback problems is because of the placement of the property lines between the units. Financing cannot be received by Richard Miller Homes Inc. unless the homes are 50% pre-sold. Eight units must be sold before the buildings can be built. Krueger asked if it was a PUD. Durham said yes; there are two phases. The North Bay 1st Addition was first, and was given blanket variances for the setback of 8 buildings. This project originally had 119 units scaled down to two units . Anderson inquired if there was a real need to sell the units with the two plans. Lamb said that there is a need to offer the two units, Dickey asked how the City felt about the request. Durham said that there is no problem with the approved plan or the requested plan. Sandvick stated that in his 8 years on the Board, it is the first time that a variance has been granted for one piece of property and another variance granted for the same piece of property. It will set a precedent. Krueger asked what the smallest setback was. Durham said 20 feet. Krueger said that the lot lines were drawn arbitrarily and consider- ation was given to the location of the two units proposed on the site. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request ,#85-07 submitted by Richard Miller Homes Inc. with the followin� find- ings: i 1 ) Should Variance Request #85-07 not be utilized, Variance Request #84-62 will be in effect according to the pro- visions of final order dated 12-13-84. Variance Request #84-62 will not be in effect after 12-13-85. 2) A revised landscape plan for Variance Request #85-07 be submitted to the Planning Department for approval pri,or to building permit issuance. 3) Variance Request #85-07 be utilized within one year. Dickey seconded the motion. Motion carried--4-1-0. Sandvick voted nay. B. Request #85-11-H submitted by Jerry Rodberg. The petition is to review and consider a building moving request. The house is to be moved to 11818 Dunhill Road from 6580 Rowland Road. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - May 9, 1985 Jerry Rodberg, proponent, spoke to the request. In September of 1983, the Board of Appeals and Adjustments granted a variance and 0 moving permit #83-26-M. Rodberg planned to move his house to a 5 acre site that he optioned to purchase from Uherkas . Rodberg traded his option to buy the Uherka property to Hans Hagen Inc. for Lots 5 and 6, in Block 1 , and Lot 8, Block 2, of the Carmel Addition. The home must be removed from Hennepin County property before October 1 , 1985. The house must be repurchased before June 1 , 1985. Bill Slaven, 11732 Boulder Bay, is the property owner of Lot 20, Carmel . Their new home is in the $200,000 range. They are con- cerned about the evaluation that may occur if the variance is granted. Photos were displayed. Slaven felt that the Rodberg home does not meet with the architecture of the community. The Slavens would like to have the Rodbergs as neighbors, but would like the Rodbergs to build a home of equal value or meet the arch- itectural standards of the development. The Code states that if the building to be moved is more than 10 years older than the oldest. building situated on the land abutting the land to which the build- ing is to be moved, a substantial variance is evident. Rodberg's home was built in 1969. There is a 16 year difference in the homes. The law was written to protect homeowners. Another concern is the fact that Rodberg is operating a business out of his home. Photos were displayed showing the storage area. Slaven noted that his home would lose $10,000-$15,000 in value if the Rodberg home were moved in. • Rodberg said that no business would be operated out of that location. He intends to repair the home, add new carpet, a deck, and concrete. The shrubs will be mature. Rodberg's home consists of 2,400 square feet and is in the $180,000-$190,000 range. Rodberg noted that the home of the next door neighbor, Ed Sieber, 11792 Dunhill Road, is worth $160,000. There are two, eighty year old houses in the develop- ment valued in the $60,000 range. They are dilapitated and not up to the architectural standards of the community. Sandvick asked the number of the lot. Rodberg said that it was Lot 8, located on the first cul-de-sac. Slaven stated that according to Hans Hagen, the older home was sold on a contract, which is in default. As soon as there is foreclosure, Hagan will demolish the house. Actually, the two older homes are not even visible because of a slope. Dickey felt that we should drop the reasoning regarding the two older homes. Krueger asked if Hans Hagen was dealing with the Rodbergs. Rodberg said that there was a verbal agreement. Hagen told Rodberg that he would not oppose moving the house, but he wasn't for it. Durham read a letter written April 15, 1985, from Hans Hagen, stating • that the Rodberg home would not fit in aesthetically with the new homes being built in Carmel . Tom Rossman, 11779 Boulder Bay Road, owns Lot 17, behind the proposed house moving. Rossman stated that the two older homes are on the outskirts of the development. The Rodberg home will sit on a new Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - May 9, 1985 1 street in the middle of the development. • Eddie Slaven, 11732 Boulder Bay, noted that the two older homes aren't the issue. Slaven referred to the 10 year age difference in the homes. Dickey questioned if there was an alternate piece of property to move the house to. Rodberg said no. Krueger inquired about the improvements. Rodberg stated that they will be improving the front, making a veranda, adding brickwork to the front and anew deck. There are some mature trees that can be moved. They don't intend to degrade the neighborhood. Krueger asked if there was a full set of architectural plans. Rodberg said no. Krueger said that we need at least exterior elevations. Without any plans the neighbors do not know what is being proposed. Bill Slaven noted that Rodberg did not anticipate any structural changes. Rodberg said that he did not intend to tear out any walls , but he would make add-ons once the house was moved. Dave Knutzen , 11801 Boulder Bay Road, owns the 4th home in the develop- ment on Lot 16. The position of the Rodberg home would make it very visible. Regardless of improvements made, the Rodberg home would stand out. Anderson said that he would tend to deny the variance unless the home • would be made to appear in the context of the existing homes. An architectural design is needed. Lynch felt that there was no conceivable way that the Rodberg house could fit in. A plan must be brought in that is acceptable to the neighbors. The neighbors have legitimate concerns. Dickey noted that the lot is worth $33,000 and the property $91 ,000. Consideration must be made regarding the age, architectural style, similarity to the other homes, and dollar quality of the home. Rodberg stated that he would like to table the variance request until the next scheduled meeting, June 13, 1985. MOTION: Anderson made a motion to continue Variance Request #85-11-M, submitted by Jerry Rodberg, to June 13, 1985, to allow proponent time to obtain additional information. Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried--4-1-0. (Dickey voted nay.) C. Request #85-12, submitted by Dale & Patricia Ellingson for property located at 12217 Cartway Curve The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2, B, to permit the construction of a deck within 5'6" of the side lot line, Code requires a 10 foot minimum, • Dale Ellingson, 12217 Cartway Curve, reviewed his request with the Board. The existing home was built in 1983 with the intention of adding a deck onto the dining room. Sliding glass doors were installed, Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - May 9, 1985 but plans did not indicate a deck. There is 15'6" from the lot • line to the house. At the time of4re ilding, the proponents and builder were not aware that decks included in the side yard setbacks. Krueger asked if the deck could be constructed 5' in width at the sliding glass door. Ellingson stated that it would be no problem. Anderson asked if neighbors had signed a statement. Ellingson said that a statement approving the variance was signed by: Ranae Noble, 12207 Cartway Curve, Pamela Boston, 12194 Cartway Curve and Joan A. Lefavor, 12227 Cartway Curve. A neighbor from across the street stated that he was in favor of the variance request. MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-12, submitted by Dale & Patricia Ellingson with the follow- ing findings: 1 ) There is evidence that the request is done in good faith. 2) It will be for the health &! welfare of the citizens of Eden Prairie. Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. • D. Request #85-13, submitted by Beverly M. Ahmann & Fred Katter for property located at 9290 Overlook Trail . The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter ll , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2 B, to permit the construction of a house 5' from the property line. Code requires 15 feet. Joe Sahli, Nostaglic Homes Inc. , builder for Beverly M. Ahmann and Fred Katter, presented the proposal to the Board. The variance has been de- creased from 9.5 feet to 2.5 feet. The variance is to permit con- struction of a house 12.5 feet from the north property line. Krueger asked the difference between the old and the new garage plans. Sahli said that the garage is the same depth and width. Two feet was taken out of the center of the house to accommodate the garage plans. The garage is 24 feet wide and 22 feet deep. Beverly Ahmann stated that they showed plans to the neighbors and they were in agreement. Connie and Cal Dinham, 9310 Overlook Trail , stated by letter that, they have no problem with the variance request. MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-13, submitted by Beverly M. Ahmann & Fred Katter with the following findings: Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - May 9, 1985 1 ) There is no opposition from the neighbors. • 2) Variance be approved with a side lot line variance from the north property line of 12' 5" Dickey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. E. Request #85-14, submitted by Boto Design for property located at 9025 Flying Cloud Drive. The request is for a variance from City Code: 1 ) Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2 B, to permit construct- ion of a building addition with a floor area ratio of .32 (Code permits .30) . 2) Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 3, H, 5, b, to permit parking 7 feet from a side lot line, (Code requires 10 feet) . 3) Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2 B, to permit construc- ion of a building 23 feet from the north property line. (Code requires 50 feet minimum. ) Bret Thoeny, architect with Boto Design, representing Moultrie Complex, (P.R.N. Productions) reviewed the request with the Board. Plans were resubmitted as the design was changed. The building on the site was removed. • Krueger asked how the variance differs from the original . Durham said that the variance requests are the same as the first time that they were submitted. Thoeny said that they are not asking for a 6 foot fence. Gerald Carroll , attorney representing Robert Williams , stated that they had three concerns: 1 ) The increase in the hard cover (parking lot). 2) Drainage of water. 3) Height of the wall on Williams ' property. Durham stated that the Code says the fence must not be over 6 feet. Carroll noted that the ground level will be changing on Williams ' side of the property. Sandvick stated that the property owner can raise the grade and put a wall on top of that if he desires. Anderson noted that the wall will not exceed 6 feet on Williams ' prop- erty. Dickey asked if the catch basin could handle all of the water that • would come off the parking lot. Durham said that Bob Obermeyer of the Watershed District felt that the retention pond to the north is sufficient area to hold the run-off. The plans have been approved Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 7 - May 9, 1985 by the Watershed District, but not by the City of Eden Prairie. John Bosshard, construction manager for P.R.N. , said that the overall drainage plan of the project has not been changed. Bosshard said that in working with the Watershed District, they have changed the roof drainage of the building to the north as opposed to the south, away from Williams ' property. The property to the north would be a retention pond. Krueger inquired as to the capacity for the storm sewer. Bosshard felt that it was designed for a 100 year rain storm. Carroll felt that the overflow would drain on the Williams property. Krueger said that water would be stored and the overflow would take care of the rest. Carroll wondered if the retention pond would get filled up. Robert Williams , 7404 West Shore Drive, Edina, adjoining property owner, was concerned that a road might go in. Bosshard said that the neighbors to the north have indicated that they don't plan on filling in. Anderson noted that the plan for the wall is above 6 feet in locations. Durham said that from the south side of the property, when you have a retaining wall , it will be higher. The retaining wall gives it the effect of 10 feet, although it is not all fence. Carroll requested a copy of the drawings and plans done by Schoell and Madson Engineering. Bosshard suggested that he also contact the Water- shed District. Bosshard said that he would get a copy of plans from the Watershed District for Carroll . Williams felt that there could be a wall of water on his property. Bosshard said that there is a potential problem now, but they are intercepting it and draining it. The drainage flow has actually been improved on Williams ' property. Carroll asked why the trees on the plan were between the P.R.N. wall and Williams ' property and not on P.R.N. 's side. Carroll felt that they would encroach on Williams' property. Thoeny stated that they do not want to build straight walls. Durham stated that the Building and Engineering Departments need to approve the plans. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-14, submitted by Boto Design with the following findings: 1 ) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape per- formance bond be submitted to the City. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 8 - May 9, 1985 2) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, exterior building materials be approved by the Planning Depart- ment, including metal framed panels and aggregate concrete panels . 3) The variance is granted based on the,.noise assessment per- ,formed by Marshal Long Acoustics included in the original Variance Request #84-65. Should the noise levels of the recording studio, in the future become objectionable to the surrounding land use/or exceed current nighttime levels of 40 dBA, the present owner, or future owners, shall mitigate the noise level with noise limiting sound insulation. This applies to noise, beat, or vibration, heard or felt off any portion of the property. 4) The Riley-Purgatory Creek Bluff-Watershed District grading and land alteration plan be adhered to. 5) A mechanical screening plan showing the location of mech- anical equipment and screening proposed be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to building permit issuance. 6) The drive land adjacent to the garage on the north property line be revised to maintain a five-foot setback. 7) Proponent will change access to the site from the north and south property lines, eliminating access to Highway 169, upon construction of public roads to the north and south of the site. 8) Landscape plan be revised as recommended in Staff Report, dated April 30, 1985, and Attachment H. This includes : a) Construction of a 15-foot high screening wall along east elevation or eight, 14-foot pine trees along the east property line. b) Two, 8-foot pine trees to replace arborvitae on northeast corner of property to screen loading door. c) The sugar maple, ash, and oak, on north property line be placed at 24-foot on center rather than 35-40 feet on center. The addition of six trees. 9) Detailed plans for the fence and materials to be used be submitted to the Planning Department prior to building permit issuance. 10) The connection of sanitary sewer and water is required. 11 ) The grading and drainage plan be approved by the City 10 Engineering Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 9 - May 9, 1985 12) Variance Request #85-14 be utilized within one year. Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. III, OLD BUSINESS None IV. NEW BUSINESS None. V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Sandvick to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 PM. Motion carried unanimously. •