Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 03/09/1989 APPROVED IDl[ M • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS =SDAY, MARCH 9, 1989 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers, 7600 Executive Dr., Eden Prairie, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Dwight Harvey (Acting Chairman), Scott Anderson, John Freemyer, Neil-Akemann STAFF: Don Dram--Planning, Sharon Swenson- Sec'ry. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Arockiasamy, Steve Longman, Michael Bozonie I. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Acting Chairman, Dwight Harvey called the meeting to order at 7:32. Roll Call: Dwight Harvey, Scott Anderson, John Freemyer, Neil Akemann II. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 9, 1989 MOTION: Freemyer moved that the minutes -of the last meeting be approved as submitted. Akemann seconded the motion and it passed 3-0 with Anderson abstaining. • III. INSTALLATION OF NEW MEMBERS MOTION: Harvey moved that the installation of the officers be postponed until the April meeting on the 13th. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV. VARIANCES A. Re uest #89-07, submitted by Sylvia L. Kark and Allan T. Callander for property located at 16165 Hillcrest Lane, Eden Prairie Minnesota. The request is for a variance from , Cit Code, C ter ion 2 I ui �ing addition nAff t 8 from a side lot line. City Code requires a 15' side and setback in the R1-22 Zoning District. This item was continued from February 9, 1989. Harvey explained that Callander had presented the variance at the last meeting and had been asked to come to this months meeting with additional information and/or options. Callander came forward and briefly explained his plans (for any Board Member who may have not been present at the last meeting.) Basically the plan had been to add to the main floor (an area for a family room)and to enlarge the kitchen. He felt that the extra room was needed with 2 small children and would provide direct access to the back yard instead of having to go through the garage as is presently • necessary. If required to conform to existing code, he noted that his hardships would be: 1. No other location on the property Pecause of the topography would suit the addition. 2 • 2. By building parallel to the lot line, an ugly addition would be created. 3. Since they desired to preserve a window on that side of the home, other options were difficult because the window would be lost or moved to a site where less light would be let into the home. Callander went on to explain that the original plan had called for a 8' setback. At the suggestion of the Board, they had come to the conclusion that angling the corner of the addition closest to the NE corner of the lot line would be best. The setback would meet or exceed the 10'request. He presented an old lot survey in the package. He had measured the lot, (but not hadit resurveyed) to determine that the home was put on the lot where it was indicated on the original survey. From his measurements, it had seemed that what the survey indicated was true and the home was placed in the proper position. If the variance were to be granted, he would have the lot line resurveyed. The setback for both sides would exceed 70' . He is presently asking for a 5' relief in the setback variance. The adjacent home to the west is 16' from the lot line and the distance between the homes is 261 . The topography of the area slopes so the neighbors main floor is 10-12' higher than the Callanders. He presented the original photos for the Board's review so they could be made aware of the drastic slope in the lot topography. (slope of 18' in 150 feet of lot line. )They had considered moving the addition over to avoid the lot line problem, but would need at least 7 courses of block. It would also necessitate disturbing the frost line footings for the fireplace. His wish was that the Board would grant the side lot line setback variance of 10' . The reasons for this decision could be based on the following problems: I. Sloped terrain in the area. • 2. Access to the back yard would be provided from the home instead of through the garage. 3. Approval of the neighbors in the area had been received. Harvey asked Uram for any input on the variance request. Uram had no additional comments. Anderson asked if Callander had considered converting the garage into a family room and adding to the front of the home for a garage. Callander said he had considered this possibility, but the front of the home: in the entryway area is already quite closed in. Anderson asked about adding on in the area where is deck is presently located. Callander answered that part of the beauty of the home is the view and they would not like to destroy that feature. _ Freemyer said that he felt there was a relief problem with the lot and also felt that Callander had made an effort to reduce the variance. He felt that he could agree with the variance request on the basis that the topography was a hardship. He would like to add a contingency that the lot line be surveyed and verified that the distance would be no more than 101 . Callander said he would not put on an addition without having the survey done. • Akemann asked if there were any other alternatives. Callander said they had considered moving the window in the downstairs below the kitchen, but light would be diminished considerably. 3 Akemann asked what purpose the room(with the window below the kitchen) was serving at this time. Callander answered that it was used for a spare bedroom. Harvey asked if access to the back yard would be provided the way the addition was presently planned. Callander answered that it would. Harvey asked if there was a pond in the area. Callander answered that there was a pond. With the variance the way he had proposed this evening, more windows could be installed on the back of the home for a better view of the back yard. Harvey asked if there were any additional questions from the Board or audience. There were none. Callander noted that all the neighbors were in favor of the effort. Harvey noted that petitions in favor of a variance are usually considered as neutral information as those neighbors will not always reside there. Petitions do, however, have an impact with the Board if they are against the variance request. • MOTION: Akemann moved that the Board grant variance request 89-07 to permit building 10' from the side yard lot line. The hardships demonstrated were: 1. The sighting of the structure on the property. 2. The topography of the lot. This variance would be granted on the condition that Callander provide a survey draft document prior to construction that verified that the 10' side lot line would be maintained. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. B. Request #89-08, submitted by Dana Larsen and Gedney Tuttle for Propertylocated at 70 Willow Creek Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 31.50, Subdivision 3, B, to permit a permanent dock 1' from the side of I i ne exten e i ntoRryant--ta e.— w e qu o re i res�ie �ck-Eo be setback 20' from the side lot line extended into Bryant Lake and in no case less than 151 . This item was continued from February 9, 1989. Harvey noted that this variance request had been withdrawn and that he had understood that the dock area will be dredged and the dock would be shortened. C. Request_ #89-09-M submitted b Bob's Lawn and Landscaping to be moved to 1-575�ioneer, Trail, by Trai it e,—Tinnesota. a type of • building to be moved is a single stall 4' x 2— ' detached arg age. This item was continued from February 9, 1989. i 4 Since no one was present in the audience to present the variance, Harvey asked • if the variance should be considered withdrawn. Uram felt that this would be inappropriate and it should instead be continued until the next meeting. A letter could be sent that stated that Bob Nagel's attendance would be expected at that meeting or the variance would be considered withdrawn. If the request was considered withdrawn at this meeting, Nagel would need to reapply and pay once again. Harvey noted that the building had already been moved and there was no advantage for Nagel to appear. Anderson felt the mailing of the letter was the best decision. Uram suggested that the letter state the item would be considered for one more month and if no appearance was made at that time, it would be considered withdrawn or denied. At that point the Staff could take steps to rectify the matter. Nagel appeared to present his variance. Harvey asked Nagel to explain why the Board should grant the variance. Nagel said there was not a lot of additional information to add other than what had been outlined in the packet. He would like to move a small garage on the site for additional storage of equipment. Uram had no additional comments. • Harvey asked if Nagel was aware that outside vehicle storage(for vehicles over 3/4 ton)was governed by city ordinance. Nagel answered that he was, but that years before they had come to the City Hall and had sat down with Chris Enger (1977) and had been told what they could do. He noted that he still had the letter received at that time. The only restriction was that they would not be allowed to sell retail, and he had not done that. Harvey asked again about the storage ordinance for vehicles over 3/4 tons. Nagel said they had been granted permission before that ordinance came into effect. Uram noted that the ordinance had been changed in 1982. It stated that all non- conforming uses must comply. Harvey asked Uram if non-conforming users were informed of the change. Uram said that all ordinance changes are published in the newspaper even though notification may have not been made personally to each non-conforming user. Harvey asked if the small white garage was the one that had been moved. Nagel answered that is was. • Harvey asked about the yellow garage on the site. Nagel said it had been there since 1977. 5 Nagel noted that the yellow garage was used for storage of lawn mover and • snow blower equipment. Harvey asked Uram if the non-conforming use changes that had taken place in 1982 had included landscape screening provisivions also. Uram answered that it did include landscaping provisions. Akemann asked if there were 5 vehicles there now. Nagel said yes there were. The buildings were full. Akemann asked if expanding the structure had been considered. Uram explained that that option would be considered expanding a non-conforming use. Once this business is over, the land will go to other uses. Harvey noted that this is a commercial enterprise on a rural site. Freemyer noted that having a non-conforming use does not give the user the right to violate other ordinances such as parking of large equipment. Uram asked Nagel if he had received a letter notifying him that he was in voilation. Nagel said he had received a letter in 1982. He had answered the letter and noted (in his reply ) the earlier letter giving him permission He had never heard back. • Harvey asked if McGraw landscaping was non-conforming. Uram answered that it was non-conforming also. Harvey noted that McGraw had a tremendous amount of landscaping and screening on his site. Anderson said his ideas were that this was a non-conforming use and this variance would be expansion of a non-conforming use. Such a use should not be expanded. Nagel asked about the businesses across the street. Harvey said that Denny's market is the only business across the street. Nagel noted other businesses across the street that have been there for years. Uram noted that the zoning administrator operates on a complaint basis. They had been made aware that the building had been moved on to the site. Nagel had brought up other cases--if he wished to file complaints, that could be done. Freemyer noted that the Board was here to look at this situation. He asked if Planning could review the case more throughly and check with the City Attorney on the matter. He felt the Board was in the dark about promises made in the past. The information was incomplete. • Nagel said he would remove the garage if the Board decided against it. 6 • Akemann felt it was a difficult situation. If Nagel cho ose oose to screen or bring in buildings, he was in violation. There was no easy way out. Harvey responded that moving the structure on site does little to solve the storage problems. Freemyer asked what was stored in the building. Nagel answered mowers and bobcats were stored there. Anderson asked if Nagel had looked at other locations. Nagel said he had thought of it. Business has grown and obviously they are unable to build the building they would want and need. It could be possible that they would move within two years. Anderson asked if Nagel would agree to remove business entirely within two years if this variance were to be granted. Nagel said he could not definitely say that. Anderson said he did not like to hamper growth or put an economic hardship on a small business. The factor that was really hampering Nagel was being at the location where they are. • Nagel noted other businesses in the area, some even selling retail.(similar businesse: Akemann noted the problem of theft that was created by parking away from the roadway. Harvey said this temporary use has lasted 12 years. The property and equipment create an eyesore. Parking areas are not defined. There is on-site dumping of fill without a permit. The building had been moved on site without a permit. The movement of the building on the site is a non-conforming use expansion--it is not permitted. Anderson agreed that the would like to see the area cleaned up, but cannot see an expansion. Harvey told Nagel that he could go through the plannning process to try to have the area rezoned. Uram noted that this piece of property would be developed shortly if it were to be sold. Nagel said he was told his chain es of a zoning change would be slim. Akemann said that he felt there were basically two options: 1. The structure could be approved as it is. • 2. The request could be withdrawn and the building removed from the site. Freemyer said he felt there were 2 possibilities: I. The Board could vote the request down because it was an expansion of a non-conforming use without a hardship. 7 2.Nagel could ask for a continuance and work with Planning and the City • Attorney to review the letters received in the past. Harvey noted that the letter was in 1977 and changes had been made in the ordinance in 1982. Nagel had been informed at that time. Past occurrences were superceded. He continued to say that he would like to deal with the outside storage issue, but the Board had been asked to deal with the moving of the building without a permit. The moving of the building is an expansion of a non-conforming use. MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board deny variance request 88-09M for the following reasons: I. The business is presently operating under a non-conforming use. 2. To bring a building on the site would be expanding a non-conforming use which was not permitted. (* Second to motion below.) Harvey asked that the record show that two letters had been received from surrounding property owners who were in opposition to the placement of the building on the site. Akemann asked Nagel to explain what he felt were the hardships for him in the situation. Nagel answered that he would like to have the additional building there and that they had been originally granted permission--but the law had changed. He could try to get the area rezoned. • tram asked if he should summarize the comments. Harvey asked if there was anyone in the audience who cared to speak on the matter. No one responded. * Anderson seconded the motion. It passed 3-0 , Akemann abstaining. Uram noted that if the Board was concerned with the outside storage issue, the Staff could handle that matter. Harvey told Nagel that he would need to remove the structure. Nagel asked how much time he would be allowed. Harvey suggested that Nagel contact Durham for that information. Freemyer said he would like to note that Nagel has the right to appeal the decision. Harvey told Nagel that he had the option to appeal the decision to the City Council by writing and requesting an appearance. D. Request #89-11, submitted by Bradle D. Lon tin for property located at 918U Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The—request is • ?-or—a variance from City Code, Chapter , Section ll.03, Subdivision� C, to Rermit construction of a home 301 from the front lot line. City Code re wires a 107 foot setback as per the average front yard setback of the legal lock. i 8 Bradley Longtin appeared to present his variance. He noted that the packet pretty well explained the situation.Ib added that a soil test had been done regarding a septic system and they verified that a standard septic system would be acceptable. The home needs to be at a 30' setback to allow for' the septic system guidelines. He said he could go back 35' and had contacted the neighbors and received no complaints. Uram said that after reviewing the staff report and the site, he did not think a setback could be percieved if it were 35' or 37' . Harvey noted that Longtin was asking for fill-how much? Longtin said it depends on the setback. He just wants a legal grade with the existing lot to the north. Anderson asked how many feet the lot would be raised. Longtin answered 7' , parallel to the road. There would be a downgrade near the middle of the house for a walkout. Freemyer asked how the 372'figure had been arrived at. Uram answered that is was the average of the 2 adjacent homes. Anderson asked if 35' was acceptable. • Longtin answered that 35' was acceptable. Harvey asked about possible road improvement in the future. Uram answered it would not be a problem(to the best of his knowledge.) Longtin said there were e no plans for development south of Rd 1 as p far as he knew. Pm Harvey said they did not wish the area to become a 4 lane highway and Longtin (in that case) find his home too close to the road. Freemyer asked questions concerning the right of way--was it 66'? A short recess was taken to allow Uram time to research that figure. Meeting reorganized 10 minutes later. Uram said the right of way was at 66' . Nagel noted that there was one home on Hwy 1 that was granted a 30' variance. Harvey corrected that statement by answering that the figure was 60' and not 30'-- it had been measured. • Anderson asked if #1 would be a 4 lane road eventually. Uram felt it would,iri time,be a four lane road. i 9 Longtin spoke with the airport people and they said they plan to keep the • land near the property and have no intention to give it up. Harvey asked if percolation tests had been done. Longtin said it will be done after the variance is granted. Harvey noted that the average front yard setback is 37%2'--would 35' be O.K. with Longtin. Longtin answered that 35' would be O.K. with him. Freemyer asked if this were not averaged to get the 37%2' figure, what would the set back be? Uram answered it would be 30' . Harvey noted that this is a large legal block. There was no one present in the audience at this time. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve variance request 89-11 and allow a modification to 35' setback. The hardship demonstrated is that the other lots in the neighborhood are much further back (deeper) and this lot is only 129' deep. In an R-122 district, a 30' distance is normal. • Harvey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. V. NEW BUSINESS None VI. OLD BUSINESS None VII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board adjourn . Akemann seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:50 P.M.