Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 07/10/1986 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1986 7:30 PM, ADMINISTRATION BLDG. , SCHOOL BOARDROOM 8100 SCHOOL ROAD BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Richard Lynch, Roger Sandvick, Hanley Anderson, William Arockiasamy, Lyn Dean and Steve Longman BOARD STAFF: Assistant Planner, Steve Durham and Recording Secretary, Lynda Diede ROLL CALL: All Board members were present, I. MINUTES A. Minutes of June 12, 1986. MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Arockiasamy, to approve the minutes of June 12, 1986 with the following corrections: P. 1 , I. MINUTES, change seconded by Arockiasamy to seconded by Lynch and June 12, 1986, to May 8, 1986. Motion carried, Sandvick abstained. II. VARIANCES A. Request #86-20, submitted by Nathan Harrison for property located at 6287 Chatham Way, The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 ,03, Subd, 2, B, to ermit construction of a garage 25.5 feet from the front propi requires 30 feet). This variance request was continued from the June 12, 1986 meeting to allow proponent time to submit additional information. Nathan Harrison, 6287 Chatham Way, requested a continuation of his variance request until August 14, 1986, to allow additional time for preparation. Durham stated that a phone call was made to City Hall in opposition of the variance request by Marcel Kulas, 6260 Harborough Court, Eden Prairie, Minnesota.. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to continue Variance Request #86-20 to August 14, 1986. Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. B. Request #86-26, submitted by Kate and Craig Halverson for property located at 10280 County Road #18. The request is for a variance C from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2, B, to permit an accessory structure with a side yard setback at 5' , (City Code re- quires 10' , and Section 11 .03, Subd. 3, H, 7, C, to permit a driveway zero feet from the south pro ert line Cit Code re uires 10' . Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - July 10, 1986 Kate Halverson, 10280 County Road #18, was present for the meeting. Durham stated that the Halversons are requesting an accessory structure to be 5 feet from a side lot line and the driveway to be moved to a zero lot line. Last month, the 5 foot side yard setback was discussed. A portion of the front of the existing accessory structure is to be removed for the driveway. This compensated for the side yard setback of 5 feet. The zero lot line for the driveway is requested mainly for safety reasons while assessing County Road #18. Hennepin County wrote a letter in support of the request for the zero lot line for the driveway entrance to County Road #18. MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request #86-26 with the following findings: 1 ) This variance request must be utilized within one year. Longman seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. C. Request #86-27, submitted by Hoyt.Development for property located at 15105 Technology Drive. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 12, Section 12.30, Subd. 12, A, which requires all newly created lots to have frontage on apublicly dedicated street. The proposed lot does not have front a a on a ublicl dedicated street). Bradley Hoyt, representing Hoyt Development, reviewed the request with the Board. Hoyt stated that the City held a feasibility study of the property owned by Hoyt and 13 of the property owners on Wallace Road. The 13 property owners on Wallace Road were opposed .to the extension of Technology Drive to Wallace Road. Technology Drive extension was abandoned. It was decided to extend a private drive across the frontage of the Hoyt Roberts I phase site to the Hoyt II site. The Hoyt II site is the last piece of land to be serviced in the area. Hoyt said that without a variance, the site west of Hoyt first phase development was not developable. Hoyt stated that the access easement has been recorded and filed. Durham reviewed for the Board the situation surrounding the abandon- ment of Technology Drive. Durham noted that the Engineering Depart- ment reviewed the proposed easement and was not opposed to site access. Lynch asked who maintained the private drive. Hoyt said that the two owners/occupants did. They have an association agreement. It is a private drive. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #86-27, submitted by Hoyt Development with the following findings: 1 ) The applicant must secure easements from the adjacent property to the east. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - July 10, 1986 2) It is not detrimental to the health and welfare of the citizens of Eden Prairie. 3) This variance request must be utilized within one year. Arockiasamy seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. D. Request #86-28, submitted by Candace L. Kuwitz for property located at 14204 Towers Lane. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2, B, to permit the construction of a deck 22' from the front yard property line. (City Code requires a 30' front yard setback). Joe Klatke, sales associate for Century 21 , representing Candace L. Kuwitz, submitted the request to the Board. The request is to build a deck on the street side which is the side of the townhouse next to the dining area. A variance was granted in 1984 at 14258 Towers Lane to permit a deck 22 feet from the front yard property line. Durham said that in the motion approving the variance in 1984, the Board stated that no other units in the subdivision would be granted a variance for decks into the front yard setback. Klatke stated that construction of the home has been delayed pending the outcome of the Board's decision. Klatke said that the townhouse association has been contacted and there is no conflict with the request. Durham stated that when the original development proposal was submitted, the decks were proposed off of the living room. The design could have been made for decks off of the dining room. Durham said that a precedent could be set by granting this variance, The 30 foot setback would then be lost in the subdivision. Klatke remarked that most of the decks in the subdivision are completed. Kuwitz said that her plans were to have the deck off the dining room. The model home had a deck off of the dining room. After her plans were made, she found out that a variance was required. There were no comments from the audience. Lynch had a problem granting a variance where there is no obvious hard- ship. It is a convenience type request. Arockiasamy said that the deck would not look right. It would stick out like one obvious variation. Consideration had been given in the planning stage. Also, a precedent could be set. It is an extreme variance. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to deny Variance Request #86-28, submitted by Candace L. Kuwitz with the following findings: Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - July 10, 1986 1 ) By granting the variance, without a unique hardship, sets a precedent for other quadraminium owners in a similar situation to apply for variances from the front yard setback. 2) No unique circumstances to this property has been identified in support of this variance request. 3) A deck can be constructed and meet City Code. Longman seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Krueger stated that the request may be appealed to the City Council . E. Request #86-29, submitted by Kathleen Stenehjem for property located north of Craig Drive and east of Duck Lake Road. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2, B, ,to n permit platting of proposed Lot 2, Stenehjem Additio , witfi a minimum width of 55' City Code requires 85' Sandy Russen, daughter of Kathleen Stenehjem, was present. Durham stated that it was a five acre subdivision that was being platted on 3.4 acres. Because of the lay of the land, one of the lots will be serviced from Craig Drive. It is not touching the cul-de-sac, but the frontage will be 55 feet. The 55 feet is to allow access to the back portion of the site which meets the minimum requirements. The Planning Commission approved the site plan. The City Council approved lst Reading C� of the development. Longman asked if a variance was necessary for the building itself. Durham replied no. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Arockiasamy made a motion to approve Variance Request #86-29, submitted by Kathleen Stenehjem with the following findings: 1 ) The preliminary plat has unique design limitations due to the tract of property being developed. Longman seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. F. Request #86-30 submitted by Thomas til&-and James Mrazla for property located at 7661-7665 Bittersweet Drive. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. _2 B, to permit a lot size of 5,2001 square eet in a RM-6 Zoning sh c Ui ty Gode requires b,bUU square feet. ) James Mrazla, 7665 Bittersweet Drive, reviewed the request with the Board. The request is to subdivide the property for the twin home. The lot at 7661 Bittersweet Drive is only 5,200 square feet and does not meet the minimum lot size of 6,500 square feet. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - July 10, 1986 Arockiasamy inquired about the reasoning for the subdivision. Djurham said that the property was never subdivided. Originally, the ownerlip �. could place a home wherever they chose to on the lot. The home orig- inally met all the sideyard setbacks. Durham stated that the City Engineer doesn't like lot line deviations in a duplex situation for administrative splits. Krueger asked if both sides would be homesteaded. Mrazla replied yes. Durham noted that parcel "B" won't be subdivided in the future because it won't meet requirements for frontage on a public road. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #86-30 submitted by Thomas Kotila and James Mrazla with the following findings: 1 ) The lot split as proposed is the most efficient and appropriate lot split for the duplex situation. 2) Proposed parcel "B" in Exhibit H will not be further subdivided in the future. 3) It is similar to other duplex subdivisions in the past. 4) This variance request must be utilized within one year. Longman seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. G. Request #86-31 , submitted by Land'Sake, Inc. , for property located west of Highway #169 and north of Eden Road. The re uest is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , 1 Section 11 ,03, Subd. 3, H, 5, d, to permit parking 17.5' from the front and property line, (City Code requires 35 feet). 2 Chapter 11 , Section 11 .50, Sub . 6, C, to permit construction of an office buildin 30' from the Ordinar Hi h Water Mark City Code requires 150 feet), 3 Chapter 11 , Section 11 .50, Subd, 8, D, to permit a parking lot 30' from the Normal Ordinary High Water Mark, Code requires 50 . 4 Chapter 11 , Section 11 .50, Su d. 7, B, to permit a building hei ht of 32' next to Lake Idlewild City Code max- imum for a building adjacent to a shoreland is 30'T. Tom Heiberg, representing Land'Sake, Inc. , reviewed the request with the Board. Plans were displayed. Heiberg said that the site is quite narrow. When Eden Road was installed it was not installed a great distance away from Lake Idlewild. Eden Road was at one time a county road and was upgraded as development occurred. A two story building of 14,000 square feet is proposed. The topography of the site falls toward the lake to the north. There will be an entrance at the upper level and an entrance at the lower level . There will be a staircase within the building and no elevator. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - July 10, 1986 Heiberg stated that the variance request was consistent with the development occurring in the K. Charles Development, Food Fair property and the Idlewild Development PUD. Lynch inquired about the elevations from the High Water Mark to the end of the parking lot. Heiberg said that the building is set at 868' and the Ordinary High Water Mark is 858' . Lynch asked if there was, an overflow for the water. Krueger said that it goes into the ditch and into Purgatory Creek. Heiberg said that the over- flow was put in five years ago. Durham noted that the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and the City Council has had lst Reading. Heiberg said that they are connected to the proposed walking and jogging trails across the lake. There were no comments from the audience. Arockiasamy inquired about the property west of the site. Durham said that the homes would stay at this time. As development occurs, the homes would be removed. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #86-31 with the following findings: 1 ) The property is unique. 2) Anything built on the property would require a variance. 3) These variances are similar to other variances for property on the lake. 4) This variance request must be utilized within one year. Arockiasamy seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0-1 . Krueger abstained. H. Request #86-32, submitted by Michael L. Wonson for property located at 14007 Holly Road. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2, B, to permit construction of a garage 11 ' from the front yard property line City Code requires 30' . Mitch Wonson, 14007 Holly Road, presented the request to the Board. Photos were displayed. Wonson stated that variances have been granted by the City of Eden Prairie for the construction of double garages in the past. The request is in character with the neighborhood. Surrounding neighbors have been spoken to regarding the request. They all wished him luck. I Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 7 - July 10, 1986 Wonson said .that there is a topographical hardship in complying :with the terms of the ordinance. The garage could not be located anywhere else on the site. Wonson stated that the access to Holly Road will continue to be from the private driveway so there would be no safety concern. Also, the garage addition will not be extremely visible. Roughly 2/3 of the viewpoints would not be seen. It will be screened by topography and vegetation. Wonson stated that he is requesting a 65% variance which might be the largest front yard setback variance granted. Wonson didn't feel that the variance would establish a significant precedence unl.ess other similar circumstances were met. Wonson said that the Staff Report referred to the home as a "non- conforming use. " The use per se is conforming. The existing garage setback is non-conforming. The house itself does meet the 30' front yard setback. It is 35' from the property. Sandvick inquired if the existing garage would be updated with an architectural compatibility with the house. Wonson said that it is his intent to retain the flat roof. Sandvick asked if there were other flat roofs in the neighborhood. Wonson said that he was not sure. Wonson's intent was that a flat roof would be less visible. Sandvick said that the flat roof is seen from Holly Road, Putting another flat roof on doesn't enhance the other existing garages in the neighborhood. Anderson felt that a "gable" roof would be better matched in the neighborhood than a flat roof. Anderson also had concern that a deck could be put on top of a flat roof in a year or two. Krueger noted that the home could be sold to someone in the future who could add a deck on the roof. Anderson asked what would happen if the common driveway was dedicated to the City. Durham said it would be a corner lot with two front yards. Sandvick felt that the property would be improved if a traditional garage with a gable roof is put in rather than a block type. There might be less problems with leakage. Wonson stated that they have a deck on the south side of their house and do not have a need for a deck on top of the garage. Wonson agreed that from the front of the property, the gable roof would look better. There would be additional cost to build a gable roof i and Wonson had not checked into it. Wonson would prefer not to build a gable roof, but if there were a stipulation for one, he could live with it. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 8 - July 10, 1986 Anderson would like to see plans for the finished garage. ` Krueger asked about the time constraint. Wonson said that he would like to see construction start in September. Lynch would like to see detailed plans of the garage. Long said that even though the variance is extreme, by submitting a drawing, a positive impact on the area of the architecture of the garage would be made. It would not only add to the value of the property, but also to the attractiveness. Wonson agreed to work on some plans for the garage. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to continue Variance Request #86-32 to August 14, 1986, to allow proponent time to work on plans for the garage. Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. III. OLD BUSINESS None IV. NEW BUSINESS None V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Long, to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 PM. Motion carried unanimously. II