Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 02/21/1980 APPROVED • MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, Feb. 21 , 1980 7:30 PM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman James Wedlund, James Cardinal (arrived 7:40) , Roger Sandvick, Richard Lynch, and Ronald Krueger MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Carl Jullie, P.E. Director of Public Works and Sharon Gagnon, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL I . Minutes of January 17, 1980 regular meeting. MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Sandvick, to approve the minutes of January 17, 1980 regular meeting. Wedlund and Krueger voted "aye". Motion carried. 2. Variance Request #80-_3 (this has been changed to #80-1 Building Moving • Re ues_t) submitted by Orin Johnston to move an existing home to Lot 5, Block 2 Duck Lake Vista. Mr. Orin B. Johnston, owner of the existing home, explained that his home located presently in Edina was condemned in order to allow a street to go through his property. There are four levels but he would be moving only two. Tim Pierce found a lot for them and they have a mover hired that is familiar with the problems. Wally Johnson inspected the home and found minor things which Johnston has contracted to be done. Wedlund questioned if the proposed changes are listed in the Febuary 19, 1980 letter. Johnston answered yes and presented the Board with a )icture of the house with revised grading, landscaping-and lower- roof Tine. It also depicts', the roof as gray rather than blue. Wedlund questioned the letter dated October 8, 1979 in reference to $245,000.00 in settlement for Johnston's property. Johnston said that was the payment but that his property was worth twice that much. Wedlund asked if this was a condemnation price. Johnston answered yes. • Wedlund asked if the mover will be able to get into the property. Johnston replied that if the weather permits it would be Monday. 41 Bd. of Appls & Adj -2- Feb. 21 , 1980 • Wedlund expressed concern over damages to utilities and streets. Cardinal pointed out that the City had protection in Ord. 79-34 for such damages.. Mr. Grant Sutliff 7070 Eden Prairie Rd. , expressed his concern about the rear elevation of Johnston's house since his property would abut to the back of Johnston's lot. Sutliff noted the elevations of the home and pointed out that the back view would consist of 13' of exposed concrete block that he and his mother-in-law at 7080 Eden Prairie Rd. would view. He felt the house was nice but wrong for this lot. Cardinal noted that the depth of the Johnston's lot was 229' and there was approximately 150' from the rear of Johnston's home to the lot line. He questioned Sutcliff about the distance from his home to the lot line. Sutcliff answered approximately 150' . Cardinal noted that this was almost 300' between homes. Jullie noted that he had just received a revised survey set at lower elevations. He gave a copy to Sutliff to study. Johnston explained that the house would be 4' lower than the original survey which would place the deck only 8' above the ground and the • extension of the garage would be level with the lot. Don Sorenson, attorney representing Steve and Patty McCullough whom are purchasing a lot in this development, asked if this request was a variance from Ordinance 79-34. Wedlund answered that if a house is more than ten years older than the surrounding homes a variance is needed. Jullie read Section 5, " If the building to be moved is more than ten years older than the oldest building situated on the lands abutting the land to which the building is to be moved, such fact shall be evidence that the building to be moved is in substantial variance. However the oldest home abutting this property was built in 1.965 and the Johnston's home was built in 1956 - a difference of only nine years. Sorenson felt that this is a peculiar situation since the Ordinance was written to a reaction to a home moved into Hidden Ponds. However, in this case only part of a home would be moved creating additional problems not addressed in the Ordinance. The McCulloughs concern lies in the fact that this situation would not be regulated. The building code requirements would have to be met but the Ordinance does not secure requirements on how the rest of the building would be regulated. He noted Wally Johnson's memo and the building dates of homes in the surrounding area. He referred to Section 5 Item G and felt that you can't determine the age, bulk, • architectural style and quality of construction by an isolated home or two next to a ten acre tract. Since this land is subdivided, the Ordinance should state itself to what is to be expected in the future - 1980 - 1981 & 1982 vintage from a 1956 house. He said he had discussed this with Roger Pauly, City Attorney, in working out something in the form of Bd. of Appls & Adj -3- Feb. 21 , 1980 • a Contractors Bond or Completion Bond. Sorenson felt this was a reasonable request in these undertakings. Lynch noted that the McCullough's lot was approximately one block from the Johnston's. Cardinal questioned Tim Pierce, the developer of the area, to his feelings in regard to this issue. Pierce felt that this house was like any other two level house and would fit in the neighborhood nicely. It also would fit in with the lot to the northwest because of the tuck—under garage. Some means of controlling these situations would also be alright with him. Johnston stated that if a bond is required of him it should be of every house to be built in Eden Prairie., Sorenson would agree to everyone in this particular situation having to guarantee to finish the work because of the age of the home to be moved but felt that a new home is not the same situation. Lynch questioned Johnston's concern over the bond or other intentions. Johnston said he couldn' t understand the difference. This was just a personal opinion that if something was required by one it should be by all . Wedlund noted that the letter of January 29, 1980 states what Johnston would • propose if the plan is approved. The building department could see to it that certain conditions are met. The probability of something happening to Johnston and the project not completed is the same for any home. Jullie said the building department will review the house and have all the inspections but the color of the paint is not part of those inspections. Johnston said he listed everything to be done in the February 21st letter. Sorenson reiterated his feelings in regard to purchasing a bond. Krueger questioned who would be the judge in approving the project. Jullie pointed out that it could be possible to have the improvements listed and post a letter of credit. The City building department would check off items as they were finished and reduce the deposit until completed. Sorenson stated that the Johnstons could comply with the building code but could alter the plan since there are no specifications secured. Krueger noted that this home is partial because two floors were basement levels and cannot be moved. This is the top part of the home. i Pierce noted that Kramer, a builder owning Lot 4 in the development will not have to gurantee that he will finish his home. • Lynch felt it would be good to establish some kind of bonding procedures for the future since other occasions in the community might be controversial . Moving a home is different than building a new one. Bd. of Appls & Adj -4- Feb. 21 , 1980 Cardinal stated that he felt that the building permit could be issued with certain conditions attached to it. He pointed out that the Board has approved • variances numerous times in this way and haven't had any problems in the last five years that he was aware of. Jullie felt that the Board did not have the legal authority in which to impose a bond unless Johnston would be willing. Lynch challenged Jul..lie's statement since he felt that if he wished to make a motion with the condition of a bond that it would be possible. He questioned the problem of a figure for a bond such as 10% of the total . Cardinal pointed out that a really old house can look really bad and cause a legitimate concern. Pierce stated that McCullough had not closed on the contract for the lot and if he did not wish to complete the agreement that he may do so. Wedlund questioned if there was to be any multiple dwellings in the area. Pierce stated that the development was for only single family homes. Cardinal noted that in the letter dated October 8, 1979 from N.L. Newhall attorney for Orrin Johnston, that a, cottage was to be moved also. He questioned Johnston if his intentions were to move the cottage into Eden Prairie. Johnston said he would be moving the cottage to a location other than Eden Prairie. • MOTION: Cardinal moved, seconded by Wedlund, to approve the request on the conditions that all the stipulations of letters dated January 29th and February 19th be fulfilled. The move and the construction would comply with the Ord and bldg. codes. The final product would conform to the revised illustration (Exhibit A) from the applicant which the City received. By complying with these stipulations we will eliminate any concerns of lot owners in the development. Assuming compliance and the usual other findings, granting of this request would not be detrimental to the health and welfare of the community. DISCUSSION: Sutliff discussed the change of the elevation of the home and the effects on the grade of the driveway and the wetlands in the back. He felt the house was not condusive to the lot. Jullie explained that the driveway should be at 15 or 16% grade level . Krueger explained the effects of the revised elevations in relation to the pond. Lynch questioned Johnston in relation to the completion date of Exhibit A. Johnston said the contract did not have a completion date but the contractor knew he wanted it done as soon as possible. He wishes to be in by June 1st but no.: later than July 1st. • Sorenson noted that Section 6, Item j , that all remodeling shall be completed within 90 days. Sandvick questioned the consequences. Bd. of Appls & Adj -5- Feb. 21 , 1980 Sorenson pointed out Section 13 regulating the penalties. • Cardinal noted that in the motion that he must comply with the Ordinance and the Building Code. The Board discussed their concern over setting the precedance for conditions of future homes to be moved. They felt that each case was unique with circumstances that could be regulated by personal taste. ROLL CALL VOTE: Wedlund, Sandvick, and Cardinal voted "aye" , Krueger and Lynch abstained. Motion carried. Wedlund noted that normally a year a variance request is valid, however, in this case the permit would be according to the Ord. for 90 days. He also pointed out that an appeal can be brought before the City Council . 3. Other Business None 4. Adjournment Wedlund moved, seconded by Krueger, to adjourn at 9:25PM. Motion carried unanimously. •