Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 09/17/1981 BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS APPROVED MINUTES Thursday Sept. 17, 1981 City Hall 7:30 pm BOARD MEMBERS: Ronald Krueger, Acting Chairman STAFF: Wayne Sanders James Dickey Building Official Richard Lynch Betty Shaughnessy Roger Sandvick Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER- ROLL CALL 1. Minutes for August•20, 1981 MOTION: Moved by Krueger to approve the minutes for Aug. 20,1981, Sandvick abstained stating that he was not present at the meeting and did not know the contents of the minutes. Sandvick made a motion that the approval of the minutes be postoned until next months meeting, Dickey seconded. Motion carried unanimously. DECISION: The minutes of Aug. 20,1981 meeting will be presented at the Oct. 15, 1981 meeting. 2. Variance request # 81-27 submitted by Waldamer Walz, located at 8335 Sheridan Lane. Requesting a variance from Ord. #135 sub sec. 2 (c) requesting to extend .a_garage. The new garage would be approximately 28ft. from lot line or 45'4" from curb. Mr. & Mrs. Walz were present, there were no other residents present on the request. Mr. Walz presented the board with a survey of his lot with the proposed garage extention. Krueger asked what the average setback was on the street? The board and Sanders discussed the proportions of the garage as to how it was situtated on the property. The zoning of this lot is RI-22. Ordinance #135 call for a 30ft. front setback in a newly developed area. This ordiance also (sub 2.2 c) requires that where 40% or more of a block is developed,, the required setback shall be equal to the average existing setback. The addition of the garage would still allow approx- imately a 28ft. distance to the lot line on Sheridan Lane. This is actually a larger distance than the setback of the house at the north end of the block facing Scenic Heights Road. The house at 8335 Sheridan Lane faces south and the driveway is on Sheridan Lane. This driveway and garage sets lower that those to the north and would therefore cut off very little of the neighbors view. Sanders showed the board pictures of a house in the neighborhood that had the same garage extention • done to it. Dickey asked if they had talked to the neighbor to the north side of them? Mrs. Walz stated that she had talked to the neighbor and that they had no object- tions as to the garage extention. (2) Variance #81-27 cont. Dickey asked if they had plans to add additional landscaping? • Mr. Walz stated that there were large trees there now and that they had planned to plant more trees and shrubs, also they plan to extent the wall along the drive- way. Sandvick asked what percent does the variance work out to. He's asking for a 28ft variance. Sanders said we are looking at an average setback of 56ft. which is approximately 9.3% Lynch stated that the request is not unreasonable, there was no neighborhood reaction either for or against the requested variance. The request is not determental to the health and welfare of the residents of Eden Prairie and I feel that this improve- ment will make the area more pleasant. MOTION: Moved by Lynch to approve Variance #81-27 requesting a variance from Ord. # 135 to extend a garage to approximately 28ft. from lot line. Seconded by Sandvick, Approved unanimously. Krueger stated the applicant had one year to comply with the boards decision. Sanders stated that the applicant had to wait 30 days so the 8cuncil could review the variance boards decision. • Krueger replied that they had talked about the waiting period and asked when the the applicant would be able to get his permit. Would he have to wait thirty days? Sanders replied, he believed that they would. Krueger stated that there is a thirty day period in which somebody who didn't show up for the meeting could object to the boards decision. The risk in that would be, if suddenly your neighbor decided that they didn't want you to build this then. they could proceed to the council and the council could over ride the findings of the board of appeals. 3. Variance request #81-28 submitted by Stephanie K. Ross, located at 15576 & 15578 Garfield Circle. Requesting for a variance from Ord. #135 requesting a lot division resulting in a zero lot line setback for both properties. Stephanie Ross was present, representing her variance request. She stated that she wanted the lot division in order that she may sell one side of the double Krueger asked if the building meets all setback requirements with exception of the zero lot line? Lynch asked, if the building did or did not have the correct fire walls installed? Sanders replied that he asked the building inspector who had inspected the building • about the fire wall, and he thought that they had not been installed. Dickey asked what else would the building need besides the fire wall.? Sanders stated they needed protection because of a zero lot line. He also suggested that an easement be granted because the sewer and water were both located on one side of the property. y (3) • Variance request #81-28 con't. Lynch suggested that a easement contract could be written up by their attorney and be included in the sales contract. He also stated that he felt that the problem with the fire walls is a hazard to the owner and it should be dealt with at the time that the building permit is applied for rather than a later date. Sanders commented that the board would have to make a judgment as to whether fire travel could be the problem, the code says that with a zero lot line it does need a one hour wall. The board and Sanders discussed what it would take to build a one hour fire wall in this building. Dickey asked if there was a finding made here, how would you word it? or could it be left up to the building inspector? Sanders stated if the house were build new, a zero property line would require two one hour fire walls, that would be a wood wall with a 5/8th dry wall on each wall of each wall with another wall built just the same, probably an inch apart. I think I would leave it up to you gentlemen with the idea that any thing is better than no wall at all. Dickey stated that he was not trying to create a financial hardship on Ross but since they will be going to split the house and they will be selling one half of it to • someone else he thought that the board should try and stay within the code. Sanders asked if there was access to the attic thru the garage? Ross stated no, there was only one access which is located in the house. MOTION: Sandvick moved that variance #81-28 be approved with the contingency that a one hour fire wall be constructed and be inspected by the building dept. He asked that one of the other board members could add the contingency about the easements. Lynch asked, If he might make a addition to the request, that an easement be granted or agreed upon by both parties or basically that sewer and water be accessible ta:=the owner of parcel B. MOTION: Krueger moved that variance #81-28 •submitted by Stephanie Ross be approved with the stipulation that a one hour fire wall is built between the units in the attic area. And an agreement be made with the buyer and filed with the city to the effectthat an easement be made available to parcel B. from parcel A's owner. Dickey seconded the motion and added three findings. 1. No one was present with objections to the variance. 2. No problem as far as zero lot lines and setbacks. 3. Mrs. Ross has made efforts to meet the requirements of zoning R-6.5, and it does meet the requirement. Dickey stated, here is a duplex • structure that is trying to meet the requirement for a single -family ownership. The reason I added that is I don't want to set a presidence for a number of owners coming in here. Listening to Mr. Lynch tonight we could have a number of requests and we don't want to make undo hard- ship on people like Mrs. Ross, but we do want to meet the requirements for keeping Eden Prairie a healthy and safer place. (4) Cont. minutes for Sept. 17,1981. Sanders stated to clarify, are you speaking of a one hour wall centered on the present two walls that they have? The answer was affirmative. Sandvick replied, that it is also to be inspected by the building inspector. Sanders stated, that he wanted the stipulation on the easement clarified. Krueger replied that the sale of the unit on parcel B is subject to easement on parcel A for sewer and water. The easement should be filed with the city. Motion approved unanimously. Krueger informed Mrs. Ross that they had one year in which to exercise this request. OTHER BUSINESS: Lynch made a motion that the staff should take the nessesary steps to raise the variance fee from $25.00 to $50.00 based on the findings of the staffs survey. Dickey seconded, Notion approved. ADJOURNMENT: Sandvick moved to adjourn. Krueger seconded. Approved unanimously.