Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 11/19/1981 • APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1981 7:30 PM, CITY HALL BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman James Wedlund, Richard Lynch, Ron Krueger, Roger Sandvick and James Dickey BOARD STAFF: Wayne Sanders, Building Official and Sharon Gagnon, Recording Secretary ROLL CALL: Sandvick was absent. I. MINUTES A. Minutes of August 20, 1981 , regular meeting. MOTION: Krueger moved, seconded by Lynch, to approve the minutes of August 20, 1981 . Motion carried with Dickey abstaining. B. Minutes of October 15, 1981 , regular meeting. MOTION: Dickey moved, seconded by Wedlund, to approve the minutes of • October 15, 1981 . Motion carried with Lynch abstaining. C. Minutes of October 21 , 1981 , regular meeting. MOTION: Kruger moved, seconded by Dickey, to approve the minutes of October 21 , 1981. Motion carried with Lynch abstaining. II. VARIANCES A. Variance Request #81-33 submitted by Marty Jessen, located at 16101 i op . regues ing a variance om ix iVU-6 encroachment to the front setback. Wedlund asked if any residents were present for this variance request and none were present. Marty Jessen presented plans of his home improvements to the back of his home as well as the proposed vestibule to the front of the home. Jessen explained that by adding a 13' X 6' space to the front they could eliminate the small landing inside the front door and have a large walk in closet. For energy reasons, they would be changing the position of the door to open to the east instead of the north and replacing the walls with 6" wall construction and insulation. He said the existing setbacks in the neighborhood varied a great amount and pointed out that he is presently 70' from the property line. The residents across the street are closer to the street because the street is not centered. He added • that because of the topography of the land, the homes approximately 1/8 mile away are 125' or more but are not visible to his home. He told the Board that he had received no opposition from his neighbors when he presented his plans to them. -2- Nov. 19, 1981 Dickey asked if the Staff had received any comments. • Sanders replied none. He added that the unusual setbacks were created by the original home owners building on the ridge for a view of the land. After 40% of the block is established, it is necessary to follow the average existing setback of the block although R-22 requires only 30' . Lynch questioned the size of the lots in the area and noted that the address 16201 had a 60' front setback. Jessen replied that the lots were 100' wide and at least 225' deep. The reason the 16201 address had a 60' setback was because they are located on the corner and the street shifted as years went on from the traffic. Dickey asked if Jessen had discussed this with Jim Nelson at 16301 and his adjacent neighbors. Jessen replied negative to Jim Nelson but positive to the adjacent neighbors. MOTION: Wedlund moved, seconded by Dickey, to approve variance request #81-33, with the findings that there appears to be no neighborhood opposition and to deny this request would deny Jessen the full use of the rights of his land. The openess and vast amount of space would not create any problems for the health and welfare of the citizens of Eden Prairie. Motion carrried unanimously. B. Variance Request #81-34 submitted by I.F.C. Construction for property • located at 7425 and 7435 Scot Terrace from Ord. #135 to allow a lot division with less than the required 6,500 sq. ft. Tom Brudos explained that he was with I .F.C. Construction but is now only the real estate broker for these units. Wedlund informed him that they have granted three lot divisions in Stewart Highlands recently and added stipulationsto them for proper firewalls separating the two units and easements to be granted for sewer/water problems that could need excavating in the future. Brudos said he was not the builder so he could not report if a firewall existed. Sanders said the Building Department would enforce any stipulations the Board would request before sending the division to the Engineering Department. A filing fee of $25.00 would be necessary for the administrative land division before it would be sent to Hennepin County if the Board approved this variance request. He added that the loan couldn't be closed until all this would be completed. Lynch noted that the uniform building code does not require the fire wall through the attic if there is only one owner of a double dwelling, however, if there are two owners with a zero lot line between, it is necessary to have the fire wall through the attic. • Wedlund felt the code should be changed so that this was required for all units that are adjoined since our economic conditions are forcing the sales to be sold as individual units. -3- Nov. 19, 1981 • Krueger pointed out to the unusual shape of the lots in this area. In this case it was not possible to have 6,500 sq. ft. to meet the Ordinance requirement unless you had a unbalanced lot line. Brudos said the back yard was not usable and had to be tiered with railroad ties. If the lot was divided to meet the requirements of 6,500 sq. ft. , one owner would be responsible for most of these ties which was not fair. He felt a straight line from the center of the double would be most beneficial to both parties since the back yard was not usable. Wedlund asked if Brudoswas selling both sides. 3rudos stated he had sold the west side which has the smallest lot to Mr. Blackwood and had discussed the problem with him. Mr. Blackwood wants the lot line as presented to the Board. He was not concerned with the square footage of the lot and purchased this side for the view and felt the back yard was not good for any purpose. He had not sold the other unit. MOTION: Krueger moved, seconded by Lynch, to approve Variance Request #81-34. This is a reasonable request and it makes sense to split the lot this way. He added that stipulations of a fire wall be constructed through the attic and an easement be granted from one unit to the other for utilties in case they must be dug up. Motion carried unanimously. III. OTHER BUSINESS. • Sanders advised the Board that Don Opheim was not going to pursue the Schendel house moving. Dickey said he was still getting phone calls asking if occupancy could be prevented. He did note that some improvements have added to the appearance of the home; however, he said he could not believe a photo again. Lynch felt the homes that had been moved in received as much opposition but all seven turned out very exceptable. Krueger stated it is very difficult to find a lot suitable for a pre-built home plus the age factor. He felt that more details should be given the Board to help them in making their decisions. Wedlund pointed out that there could not be restrictions placed on a home that is proposed to be built so the Board is somewhat limited in their approach to placing conditions such as siding, color, landscaping etc. Lynch said restrictions bringing the home up to the current Building Code have been done in the past and should continue. The Board discussed the fact that more information will be needed in the future for an adequent decision. • IV. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Krueger, to adjourn at 8:30 PM. Motion carried unanimously. DECEMBER APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1981 7:30 PM', CITY HALL BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman James Wedlund, Richard Lynch, Ron Krueger, Roger Sandvick and James Dickey BOARD STAFF: Wayne Sanders, Building Official and Barbara Anderson, Recording Secretary ROLL CALL: All were present. I. MINUTES A. Minutes of November 19, 1981, regular meeting. MOTION: Dickey moved, seconded by Krueger to approve the Minutes of November 19, 1980, Motion carried with Sandvick abstaining. II. VARIANCES A. Variance Request #81-36 submitted by Northern Telecom, Inc. 10125 Crosstown Circle, requesting a variance from Ordinance #261 for a second sign of 50 sq. ft. to be located on the back of the building. . Wedlund stated that since no one was present for this petition they would move to the second petition before the Board, Item B. B. Variance Request #81-37, submitted by Suburban National Bank, located at 9593 Anderson Lakes Parkway, requesting a variance from Ordinance #261 for an additional sign. Wedlund noted that there were no residents present for this variance request. Mr. Keith Steinhoff, 7335 Franklin Circle, was present representing Suburban National Bank. He stated that they are requesting a sign on the pylon because the owner of the building objects to them putting a sign on the outside of the building as was approved by the Planning Commission. Wedlund asked if this request were denied what would they do. Mr. Steinhoff responded that they would be in a jam, as they had to get approval from the City for the sign before they could apply for a variance. Sanders stated that the sign on the face of the building is provided for in the Ordinance. Wedlund asked how many businesses would be in the building; Mr. Steinhoff responded he did not know. Discussion ensued among the Board members regarding the businesses currently located in the center and the nature of those businesses. Wedlund asked about the "Change Copy" portion of the pylon sign. Mr. Steinhoff responded he did not know what those would be; he had only been informed about the portion of the sign relative to the variance request. The Board discussed the area of the sign and the Ordinance requirements regarding such pylon signs. Wedlund inquired BOARD OI -APPEALS_=AND ADJUSTMENTS November 19, 1981 how many square feet would be in the area of the sign. Mr. Steinhoff replied about 1,100 square feet. Mr. Steinhoff stated that the developer doesn't want any more signage on the building and they feel they need some type of sign for identification. Wedlund commented that he was aware of their need for a sign, and yet he feels that there must be limitations on this if it is approved. Dickey inquired about their plans for the future of the bank. Mr. Steinhoff responded that they would move to another location in the same area into a free standing facility at some point in the future. Dickey commented that if the sign is approved it would always be there, as they cannot force it's removal . Sanders commented that they have 80 square feet allowed for signage; Suburban National Bank should have part of that sign and then have the copy below it. Dickey commented that he would like the Suburban National Bank portion of the sign handled separately from the rest of the sign. If they are acting on the entire sign he feels they are over the limits for area. Discussion ensued regarding why they could not have the sign on the wall . Some possibilities raised were covenants on the building, and a restrictive clause in the lease. Other signage in the City was discussed in relation to the present situation. Lynch inquired whether Mr. Steinhoff was really prepared to make a presentation to the Board. Mr. Steinhoff responded negatively, and stated that he had returned from vacation to make the presentation. Lynch asked whether he would have any objection to tabling the petition until the next meeting in January to enable them to make a better pre- sentation to the Board. Mr. Steinhoff stated that he would prefer that action. MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Wedlund, to table Variance Request #81-37 for Suburban National Bank until the next meeting in January, 1982. Motion carried unanimously. Wedlund stated that no one had arrived at the meeting to represent Northern Telecom. Krueger stated that he would like to see the petition deferred to the next meeting to give them a fair chance. Wedlund concurred and stated that the petition for Northern Telecom, Inc. was deferred until the meeting in January, 1982. III . OTHER BUSINESS. There was no other business before the Board. IV. ADJOURNMENT. MOTION: Sandvick moved, seconded by Krueger to adjourn at 8:00 P.M. Motion carried unanimously.