Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 08/20/1981 s BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS APPROVED MINUTES Thursday August 20,1981 7:30 PM City Hall BOARD MEMBERS: James Wedlund, Chairman STAFF: Wayne Sanders Richard Lynch Building Offical Ronald Krueger Betty Shaughnessy Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL 1. Minutes for May 21, 1981. MOTION: Moved by Krueger, seconded by Lynch, to approve the minutes of May 21, 1981 regular muting. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Minutes for June 18, 1981, regular meeting. MOTION: Moved by Lynch, seconded by Wedlund, to approve the minutes for • June 18,1981. Notion carried unanimously. 3. Minutes for July 20, 1981,reschoduled meeting. r MOTION: Moved by Wedlund, seconded by Krueger, to approve the minutes for July 20, 1981, rescheduled meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Variance request # 81-23 submitted by Ten-Red Construction requesting a_ variance from Ord.# 135 Sec. 2. 1re uirin 6500 sq. ft. per lot. Also re- questing for a side yard setback to zero lot line. Located at 7505 & 75t5 Scot Terrace. Mr. Wedlund asked if the two variances could be acted upon as one or did they need to be separate request's? Mr. Sanders stated that they should be separate variances. Mr. Steve Hindbach was present to represent Ten-Red. He stated that he was with Bermel Smaby Realtors. He also stated that the original plan was for Ten-Red to sell the doubles to one buyer, but with market condition the way they are now that was not feasible and they would have to sell to individual owners. Wedlund asked if this was in no', way a variation of a normal lot in that area. Sanders replied no, but the pro]iolem is that as individual lots they would • not be evenly divided. As in this case of the split, the 1300sq. ft. that is required for a double one side would be 5400ft, and the other would be 7600 ft. and this area has been'' zoned R.M. 6.5 which requires 6500 sq.ft. per lot. Sanders showed a transparent survey of the property in question to the board members explaininglthe different set back requirements. ✓ III (2) . Cont. Min. 8/20/81 • Cont. variance request #81-23. Krueger stated that most all of the doubles in that area were owned by individuals and if this request for a variance didl,not come from the builder it would eventually be made by the owner. Hindbach stated that the way the market is now, most of these would be split and sold to individuals. DISCUSSION: There was a further discussion by the board as to other requests for this same type of variance and what should be done to get this_right_before_any__- building is done. It was also discussid by the board and Wayne Sanders that fire walls. should be built on these doubles so if they were sold as individual homes rather then doubles these requirements would already be installed, rather than &t a later time. Hindbach was asked.,.by Sanders why the dwellings were set on the lot at the angle they were rather then in the middle of'', the lot. Hindbach stated that the grade on the blot would not allow the house to be in the middle and still meet the set back requirements. Wedlund brought up the subject of the side porches ( stoops) on the properties and --questioned-if these were all within the requirements or would they also need a variance. It was discussed with the board and the staff, and decided that the stoops were all . within the requirements. Hindbach showed a picture of the property and explained the location of the dwell- ings to the board. Wedlund asked if the buyer on the smaller side of the property would pav_the same amount for the house as the buyer on the aarger lot would pay? Hindbach replied in the affirmative. Krueger, stated that he did'nt feel that by granting the variance it would be a hardship to the residents of Eden Prairie and it would create a financial hardship to the builders. MOTION: Moved by Krueger, seconded by Lynch to approve variance #81-23 submitted by Ten-Red. Requesting a variance from Ord. #135 Sec. 2, requiring 6500 sq. ft. per lot. Also requesting for a side yard setback to zero lot line. Located at 7505 & 7515 Scot Terrace. Motion carried unanimously. Wayne Sanders pointed out, at this time, that at the staff meeting the other day a point was brought up by attorney Roger Pauly, that the Ord. required that app- licants have to wait forty five days before any decision would be final. He explained that this is a chance for the city or the council to review the Board of Appeals decision. - - iKrueger asked if this applied to all variance requests. Sanders replied,that he suspected that it did. (3) Cont. Minutes 8/20/81 • 5. Variance request #81-24 submitted by Ten-Red Construction, requesting a variance from Ord. # 135 Sec. 2, requiring 6500 sq. ft. per lot, also requesting for a side yard setback from 10' to zero lot line. Located at 7206 & 7212 Stewart Dr. Sanders explained, what the code tells you if you were to build according to zero line, also the procedure of having a one hour fire wall. DISCUSSION: It was further discussed by the board and Sanders about the fire wall and the safety codes of doubles vs single family homes. Lynch stated, that he was concerned about the safety of the buyer. If the fire wall was done at the time of construction and corrected before a'permit was issued, there would be no need for a variance. Krueger stated, that the builder has gone out of his way to build the necessary fire walls etc., and also he thought that in this situation it would be a financial hardship for the party, if the variance was not granted. MOTION: Krueger moved to approve variance #81-24 submitted by Ten-Red Const.. requesting a variance from Ord. #135 Sec. 2, requiring 6500 sq.ft. per lot, also requesting for a side yard setback from 10' to zero lot line. Located at 7206 & 7212 Stewart Dr. Seconded by Wedlund. Motion approved unanimously. • OTHER BUSINESS: Wedlund asked if anything had been checked out with other cities as to the fees being charged for variance requests. Sanders said, no, we did'nt get a report to see what they were getting. DISCUSSION: There was a discussion between the board and staff on different variance requirements from other cities. Wedlund suggested that one of the staff take time and check with other cities as to what is being charged. Sanders confirmed that he would do this. It was also discussed about putting a time limit on the applicants presentions. ADJOURNMENT: Wedlund moved to adjourn, seconded by Krueger. The meeting adjouned at 8:45.PM.