Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 04/17/1980 APPROVED MINUTES • EDEN PRAIRIE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, April 17, 1980 7:30PM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman James Wedlund, Roger Sandvick, and James Dickey MEMBERS ABSENT: Ronald Krueger and Richard Lynch STAFF PRESENT: Carl Jullie, P.E. Director of Public Works and Sharon Gagnon, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL I . Election of Officers. MOTION: Sandvick moved to postpone the election of officers until the next regular meeting. Wedlund seconded; motion carried unanimously. 2. Minutes of March 20, 1980 regular meeting. MOTION: Wedlund moved to postpone the approval of the March 20th minutes • due to a lack of quorum until the next regular scheduled meeting. Dickey seconded" motion carried unanimously. 3. Variance Request #80-9 submitted by the Preserve to allow a rear yard setback less than 50' for Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 Garrison Forest 4th Addition. John Hissink, chairman for the Design Review Committee of the Preserve, explained the history of the lots. He stated that these lots were originally Lots 2 & 3 and Outlot I of Block 3, Garrison Forest 2nd. This is presently being replatted to Lots 1 , 2, and 3, Block 1 , of Garrison 4th Addition. Rear yard variances are needed for Lots 2 and 3 since 50' is required from Anderson Lakes Parkway per the development agreement for Garrison Forest 2nd Add. Jullie noted this would allow a 38' setback for Lot 2, Block 1 and 41 ' setback for Lot 3, Block 1 . These lots are essentially unabuildable with the required 50' setback. Dickey questioned if the three requested items on the agenda are interxel.ated. Hissink said that the items are related because the house moving requests are for two of these lots. Wedlund noted that if the Board should give approval to the rear setback variance it would not indicate that the other items were also approved. John Dougherty, 9260 Garrison Way, explained that his home was on a lot bordering the lots requesting the house moving permits, and presented a petition to the Board. He noted in the second paragraph of the petition that they also opposed the variance from the 50' setback. He stated that he had called Mr. Peterson of the Preserve and was told that the lots -2- Bd. of Appls & Adj. - approved April 17, 1980 were unbuildable. Doughtery stated he did not know if this was a fact but felt the Preserve had created a poor design in the original plat and now want to be bailed out at the expense of the house owners by cramming the houses. Wedlund questioned if the Preserve had any other plans other than moving the houses on these lots. Hissink replied that he was not aware of any at this time. He pointed out that only one house moving request is contingent on this variance approval . Lot 1 does not need a rear yard variance. The replat is moving the lot lines easterly adding to lots 1 and 2, decreasing lot 3 of Garrison 4th. Wedlund asked if the City Council vacated Outlot I. Jullie stated that the Preserve owned Outlot I and it was never donated to the City. Thomas Pooton, 9380 Garrison Way, stated that he had purchased his home over a year ago from Ban-Con because of the concept that all the homes would be built by the same builder. He explained there were problems in the area. One of these was a storm sewer that was staked incorrectly by BRW and later BRW was forced to purchase the lot since it was unbuildable. He stated that he was told a berm would be built high enough to screen the Eden Prairie Center and a traffic light would be installed, both of • which have not been done. He also stated that the Learning Tree Center had wished to purchase these lots but only if the Center met with the approval of the neighbors. The people turned down their request in order to preserve their concept of the area. He said he had looked at the homes at Vo Tech to be moved and felt they would not fit in with the other Ban-Con homes. Wedlund said he had looked at this area and felt the intersection was dangerous. He questioned Jullie in regard to the projection of traffic on Anderson Lakes Parkway. Jullie stated that Anderson Lakes Parkway is a Municipal State Aid road with a projection of 8,000 trips a day. At the present it seems that only minor widening in approximately 5-10 years will become necessary and that will be based on the availability of traffic funds. This may not be for several years if the decrease in the size of the cars and the consumption of gas continues. The ultimate plan would allow for a four lane divided .. road with a median. Dougherty questioned how far were the proposed homes from Anderson Lakes Pkwy. Jullie stated that the rear yard setbacks for Lot 2 is 38' and Lot 3 is 41 ' plus the area that would be the boulevard. Ralph Hanson, 9925 Garrison Way, stated that he had approached the City Council • when Super Valu was being planned because of the traffic problem of not seeing cars coming over the ridge. He was opposed to the project because of a compound of various problems. Hissink stated that he felt the distance problem will be corrected after the -3 April 17, 1980 Bd. of Appls. & Adi. _ approved road is widened and the traffic light installed. He noted that Garrison Forest I was developed first and it is established atuth of Gtheison timeFofethe2n . The platting access to Garrison Forest 2nd was of Garrison Forest I. Later the Preserve discovered that the right of way was 50' instead of 33 because of Anderson Lakes Pkwy. Dickey questioned Dougherty regarding what he was told by the Preserve. Hissink noted that the Preserve could not control the square footage of a home but considered the harmony in design and topography. He presented the Board with a comparison sheet showing the total living area of the homes in the neighborhood and noted that only two other homes have more square feet. He explained that Ban-Con does not build a rambler. Dickey felt that the size was not the issue. Wedlund questioned why this issue was before the Board rather than the Planning Commission. Jullie stated that the City Council had approved the preliminary plat a . couple of weeks aCo. The new plot will shift the lot lines which will decrease Outlo the size of t I, but will make the other lots larger. Sandvick noted this problem goes back to the Preserve unanware of the 50' setback set forth by the City and the additional right of way needed. Jullie stated that federal funds were used for Anderson Lake Park and the City could not take any land for Anderson Lakes Pkwy. The land had to be taken from the south side of the road but the streets and utilities for Garrison Forest 2nd were already in and therefore creating the problem. Sandvick noted that the projected trips on the parkway was 8,000 trips but possibly more could be anticipated. Pooton expressed concern for egress and ingress to the shopping center. MOTION: Wedlund, seconded by Dickey, moved to deny variance request 60-9 since the findings indicate a better solution could be found. Buildinn on Lot 3 of Garrison Forest 4th would increase the danger of the intersection combined with the dip in the road to the west just short of this area. The petition from the neighborhood opposed granting of this request. Also noted was the desire of the neighborhood to keep the openess of the area. without squeezing in additional homes. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION: Hissink noted that two of these lots were larger than any of the other lots in the area. He felt this was the best solution for this area. Wedlund said the design was orininallY bad and should be corrected with more open space. He told .Hissink that he had the option to anneal this before the City Council . -4- Bd. of Appls & Adj - approved Thursday, April 17, 1980 . 4. Building Moving Request #M80-7 submitted by Emmett C. Johnson located at Lot 3, Block 1 Garriion Forest 4th Addition. Wedlund noted that this house moving oermI would be negated due to the denial of variance request #80-9. He suggested Johnson withdraw the request and if the City Council should overrule he may reapply. Johnson stated he would withdraw but added that only depth is the problem since he felt his home was compatible with the other homes and would be spacious around it. 5. Building Moving Request #M80-8 submitted by Lyonell Ostrom located at Lot 1 , Block 1 Garrison Forest 4th Addition. Wedlund questioned if any other variances are needed for this application. Dougherty stated he felt the house was in violation of Ord. 79-34, Section 5, Item G, "if the location to which the building is to be moved is in the City, the building is in substantial variance with either the established or the expected pattern of building development within the neighborhood to which the building is to be moved. Comparative age, bulk, architectural style and quality of construction of both the building to be moved and the buildings existing in the neighborhood shall be considered in determining whether a building is in substantial variance. Dougherty pointed out that the home to be moved is a straight home without any design that would it make it compatible with a Ban-Con Home. • Marjorie Ostrum, wife of Lyonell Ostrom told the Board of her credentials as a building official for Maplewood and a licensed real estate broker. She felt the homes are quality built by the students and must meet all of the State Building Codes. She felt the home was esthetically pleasing with gables, overhangs and partial brick. They planned to live in the home; not turn it over for profit. Pooton said he had visited the Vo Tech schools and admitted he had a hard time visulizing the home with gables etc. and moved on to property. He felt it had a double wide mobile home concept and would not match their neighborhood. Dickey asked if they would be willing to gamble that a better house would be built. He noted the house had 1332 sq. ft. which was more than most of the other homes. Ostrum said the house had seven corners on the front which did not make the house straight. Dickey felt the home was built with quality but could empathize with the people concerned in the neighborhood. Ralph Hanson, 9245 Garrison Way, said he was familiar with the quality of the interior portion which could not be viewed as a passerby. He felt the house was flat. • Wedlund questioned Hissink regarding the approval of the Preserve. Hissink replied that the Design and Architecture Review Committee had no qualms about this home. He added that Ban-Con did not have a house that would fit on the lot. and had moved on to Hillsborough. Bd. of Appls & Adj- approved -5- April 17, 1980 • Wedlund explained that Ban-Con has moved out of this area and the people could not control any other builder building on these lots. Susan Dougherty stated that they paid dues to an association of the Preserve for protection of their rights and felt they were not being represented. Sandvick noted the petition called the homes "cheap mobile homes" and felt some people could have been mislead by the wording. Technically any home could be moved. John Longly, stated that he and his wife had gone to see the proposed homes before reading the petition .and his wife' s first statement was, "They look just like a mobile home". Mrs. Ostrum reiterated the fact that the homes were not built as a mobile home with .the code for them but as a home with the uniform building code. Their intention is to make the home fit in with the area and the neighborhood. They just wished to move to the community of Eden Prairie. Johnson noted that most people could not tell existing Vo Tech homes after they were placed on a lot. Pooton questioned the reason for the signs of the house moving requests. He felt negative feelings were a result of these signs. Wedlund explained that the Ordinance for house moving requests had this • requirement for the protection of the neighborhood. Hissink pointed out that the Ordinance was passed only about six months ago. Wedlund asked if Ostrum had a time limit for moving the house from the Vo Tech school . Ostrum said the deadline was May loth. Sandvick said he felt the home met all the requirements of the Ordinance and felt their was a problem with the accurateness of the wording of the petition and the possibility that not all the people saw the home. Pooton asked Hissink if there was an alternate plan. Hissink stated he was not in a position to say. Mr. Mike Krumpotich, 9550 Garrison Way, stated that this would not directly affect him but just didn' t like the idea of a cramped area. He pointed out the fact a shopping center was already approved and wanted the remaining area preserved. He also didn' t like the idea of a rambler. Sandvick explained that all someone needed to build a house was a building permit. The person could build any style home he wished. • ickey noted that since the lots backed Anderson Lakes Parkway that not everyone would be interested in purchasing the lot. Susan Dougherty felt they did not have time to fight the Preserve. Bd. of Appls & Adj approved -6- April 17, 1980 Sandvick explained that if the Board passed this request they had the option of going before the City Council . Hissink asked if the Preserve could get a copy of the petition. Dougherty remarked that a petition is an emotional response to an issue and reflect their feelings in regard to the houses not conforming. In regard to the adjectives "cheap mobile home" this could be slanted but is no reason to disregard the petition. He felt the Board was substituting their judgment for theirs. Wedlund felt certain stipulations should be added if the request was approved. The exterior of the home, shubbery, and other codes should conform. Ostrum said he had already contracted a company for landscaping. Hissink said the Preserve had approved the floor plans but not the final plan regarding the color and texture of the exterior. This must meet the covenants and the completion time for the yard is 'one year after the growing season. Wedlund questioned Ostrum about the driveway. • Ostrum said he had planned to put in concrete unless the Preserve requested blacktop. MOTION: Dickey moved to approve, seconded by Sandvick, to approve the building moving request submitted by Ostrum for Lot 1 , Block 1 Garrison 4th 'Jith the :conditions that the landscaping be in accordance with the area and installed by the time accorded by the Preserve. The color and texture (brick) of the exterior should be approved by the Preserve Homeowners Asso. A driveway should be installed. The hone would meet the requirements of the Building Department for the foundation, basement, and other conditions. Sandvick added that contrary to the petition the home does conform to Ord. 79-34. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Other Business Jullie pointed out a problem with the next meeting falling on the date of the Award's Banquet. MOTION: Wedlund moved, seconded by Sandvick, to move the May 15th regular meeting to May 22nd. Motion carried unanimously. 7. Adjournment. Sandvick moved, seconded by Dickey, to adjourn at 10:15. Motion carried.