Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 09/12/1991 •a APPROVED MffN[Tffi BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAy September 12, 1991 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers, 7600 Executive Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS S: Harvey (chairman)., Freemyer, Wilkus , Akemann, 'Anderson, Weeks, Arockiasamy STAFF PRESENT: Sean Johnson, Planning Sharon Storholm, Recording Secr', BOARD MROERS ABSENT Arockiasamy, Akemann I. CALL TO ORDER--;;OLL CALL--PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 P.M. Roll call was taken as noted above. All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance II . MINUTES OF AUGUST 8 , 1991 MEETING MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve the minutes of the August 8 , 1991 meeting as presented. Weeks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously with Freemyer abstaining. III. VARIANCES Chairman Harvey explained the process for the presentation of the variance requests . A. Request #91-023, submitted by Steve Theis for property located at 16432 South Manor Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chanter 11, Section 11 03 Subdivision 2 B. to permit a deck addition 10' from the rear lot line. City Code requires a 20' rear yard setback Steve Theis appeared to present the variance request. He noted that Staff did a good job of explaining the problem. He would like a deck in the rear . When they bought the home there were sliding glass doors there. The home was built in 1986 and at that time, he did not realize that a variance was required for a deck by the sliding glass doors . If code were strictly enforced in this situation, the deck would need to be placed in another spot that would affect the neighbors more. Johnson said that alternatives were included in the packet. If the 2 e door was relocated to another side of the home, this would not require a variance. The other two alternatives would require variances: landing or wrap around system. There have been no objections from surrounding neighbors . The lot is small compared to to other lots in the area. The front yard set back is 30 ' . The back of the home is at the rear yard set back. Theis said that he had bought the home during construction. The builder had built the home for him there. Freemyer asked Theis if he had reviewed Staff alternatives . Theis answered that tie had done that. Alternative Bl (moving deck to the SW side) would require moving the door and would impact the neighbors living quarters as much or more than the suggested request. The deck would face the roadway if alternative B1 were implemented. Alternative B2 would make the house look odd from the street. This is not preferred by the neighbors . Alternative B3 deals with a landing area. He needs a larger space than that. Weeks asked if Theis authorized any changes to the house design that had been presented by the builder. Theis answered that he had not. • Weeks asked if Theis had received an "as built" survey. Theis answered that he had not received one. Anderson asked if the builder had mentioned the deck. Theis answered no. He had told the builder that he was not going to construct the deck right away anyway. Harvey noted that the survey showed the setback and the placement of the house. There is room behind the garage for the deck. The double doors could be moved there. Wilkus noted that this is the bedroom side of the home. Harvey asked why there were two sets of patio doors . Theis answered that there is a possibility of a patio off the lower set of doors . Harvey said that there are other homes in the neighborhood with wrap around type decks . Theis said that this style of deck was not the preference of the neighbors . Harvey said that half of the open space will be taken if this is granted. 3 i Theis said it was not his intention when he bought the home. Harvey said he realized that, but that is what this proposed deck would do. There are lots of possibilities with wrap around decks . Theis again said that this is not the preference of the neighbors . Harvey said that the wrap around option would not invade the open space. Theis said that open space will be taken either way. There will probably be -more open space preserved if the deck is on the back. Freemyer asked if Theis has the house plans from when he decided to build. Theis said that the Mortgage Company has those. Johnson said that the City only keeps copies of plans for three years . Freemyer felt that if the planslthe City had indicated a deck in that area, they should have alerted Theis or the builder that a variance would be necessary. • Johnson said these instances are flagged if noticed on the plans . A number of changes are made after the plans are submitted. Freemyer agreed with Theis regarding the impact of the side versus the rear deck. Theis said that the neighbors favored the back yard location for the deck. They felt that the home would look better that way--it is a function of perception and expectations . He said with either location, he would use screening. Harvey said that whether the deck was on the side or the back, it would have the same impact on the neighbors . It would be no less obvious . Weeks felt it was difficult to identify the hardships . There are alternatives by using screening and landscaping. Wilkus said a possible hardship would be that Theis was led to believe a deck could be placed on the site in question. Usually when there is a patio door, one expects to be able to walk through it. Windows are for light, and doors are for access . Freemyer said he was more in favor of the back yard concept. Wilkus said that this was only a 10 by 12 foot deck. Theis said his concern was the impact on the neighbors . What do they want? 4 Weeks asked Theis to state why the neighbors favored the back yard location. Theis said they felt it would look better and would impact them the least. They had expected it in that location. Harvey noted that when the neighbors built in this area, they expected a 5 ' setback on the sides and a 20 ' setback in the rear. This would be taking away their expectations . He has not heard a hardship. Weeks said that neighbors expect to have ample utilization of front and back yard setbacks . Side yard areas are not usually utilized. He added that Theis will not be the owner forever. He is still looking for a hardship, although he understand that things were not made clear for Theis when the home was purchased. Theis said that obviously this is not the right home for this lot-- what hardship is the Board looking for? Weeks answered physical and economic hardships . Theis answered that it certainly is a major hardship to tear out the door and move it. Harvey defined hardship as being if the use of the property ( for which it was intended) is denied by not granting the variance. Topography is another hardship. A deck is not a required addition to a home. It is not a God given right to have a deck. Tom Lofquist ( from the audience) asked how much space was being cut in half by the addition of this proposed deck. How much of an impact would this really have as far as real world terms? Johnson answered that it would be about 50 ' from house to house. Freemyer said that he believed that the deck on the rear would have the least impact on the neighbors . Anderson said she agreed with Freemyer. Weeks felt that alternative Bl could be implemented. The impact of the deck would be about the same in either location. Anderson said she felt it was an issue of when a builder puts a sliding door on a plan ( and in a home ) , most people expect a deck. MOTION: Wilkus moved that the Board approve the request for a 10 by 12 foot deck that would be 10 ' from the rear lot line. The hardsip is that the City issued a permit for a plan with a sliding glass door and Theis was led to believe he had reasonable use of the space outside that door. He would suggest the deck be limited to 10 by 12 feet. 5 Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed 3-2 with Harvey and Weeks voting nay. B. Reguest #91-024, submitted by Tom Lofquist for property located at 9166 Staring Lane, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11. Section 11.03, Subdivision 3 C to permit construction of a home on proposed Lot 1. Block 1 Starring Highlands 2nd Addition with a 30' front yard setback. The average existing front yard setback is 44'. Tom Lofquist came forward to present the variance request. He said that the fee owner for the property is Brian Oman, his partner. They would like to split a one acre parcel into two half acre parcels . They are asking for a 30 ' setback. They were not aware of this code section. The average front yard setback in the area is 44 ' . This average is thrown off by two homes that have 120 ' and 165 ' setbacks. There are several others that violate the setback. The hardships demonstrated are: 1. If they have to adhere to the setback, the 14 ' of fill required would cost 3, 500 dollars . 2 . It would essentially eliminate a back yard if this were done. 3 . It would make a marked improvement to the neighborhood. The lot is now a sinkhole. Johnson said that the request reduces the grading amount and will create soma back yard. The two homes to the north are about 30 ' from the stree- also. No comments have been received from the neighbors . Harvey said that this will satisfy the 30 ' sethack requirement in this neighborhood. There is some precedent in this area. Anderson asked why a variance was required. Johnson answered that code states that if 40% or more of homes are built, then new homes must meet the average setback. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve Variance Request 91-024 as submitted finding: 1 . The front yard setback is not inconsistent .with the R1-22 zoning district or existing homes at 30 ' or closer. 2 . The variance will reduce the amount of fill required on the lot. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV OLD BUSINESS A. BEACH ROAD HOUSE Johnson had photos of the home and noted that it is now attached to the foundation and they are putting siding on. V. NEW BUSINESS Johnson noted that there are two variances for next. month. One is ✓' 6 for a rear yard setback in Creekwood Addition and the other is for a variance from tower height to 2001 . She noted that variances had been granted for KMSP and CPA towers . Harvey suggested that Johnson check the banner .being used next door to Funko Land. Johnson said that banners are allowed for a 10 day period for the Grand Opening. Harvey noted that Durham will be staying on as an employee of the City of Eden Prairie. Weeks asked about the proposed City Council meeting with the Board. Harvey answered that the City Council is not interested in having such a meeting this year. VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Weeks moved that the Board adjourn. Wilkus seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8 : 45 PM. •