Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 01/25/1993 - Special APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS SPECIAL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 25, 1993 7:30 P.M. , NORTH CONFERENCE ROOM, EDEN PRAIRIE CITY HALL 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: HARVEY(Chairman) , WEEKS, FREEMYER, WILRUS, LYNCH, ARGUE, ANDERSON STAFF PRESENT: JEAN JOHNSON, PLANNING SHARON STORHOLM, SECRETARY BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: ANDERSON, ARGUE I. CALL TO ORDER -- ROLL CALL Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7: 30 and roll call was taken as noted above. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA iMOTION: Weeks moved that the Board approve the agenda of the meeting as presented. Wilkus seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. III. VARIANCES A. Request #93-04 by Robert and Carrie Claus of 12491 Sunnybrook Road for permission to construct a 10' x 12' addition off the back of the house that has side setbacks of 45' and 67' for a combined setback of 112' (150' combined required) . Robert and Carrie Claus appeared to present the variance request. Robert explained that in June of 1992 they had moved to Eden Prairie. Their home has no dining room. The only place they have to eat if there are more than three people is the living room. They would like to put a 10' by 12' addition off the south side of the home to be used as a dining area. The present kitchen is suitable only for about two people as it is long and narrow and the table is against one wall. Carrie Claus said that the home was small, and the addition • will also be small. It will not be an eyesore. Johnson noted that this property is zoned rural and the lots are 1/2 to 6 acres in size. Sewer and water are not ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 1 installed in the area yet. The area is has characteristics comparable to R1-22 sites. She said that there was a drawing attached of the proposed addition. Two calls had been received in support of the request. Lynch felt it may raise the property values in the area. Harvey asked if the lot was one half acre and if it was non conforming. Johnson answered yes, that was true. Freemyer asked about the well and septic locations. Carrie Claus answered that the septic tank is behind the house about 7' from the breezeway. The well is located on the west side of the house. Freemyer asked if there could be any damage caused to either the well or the septic tank by heavy equipment or footings. Carrie Claus answered that when the got the bids, they were told that neither would be a problem. The building will be constructed on stilts. Freemyer then noted that the footings would be minimal in this case. He asked what the Claus's felt the hardship would be. Carrie Claus answered that the hardship was a lack of space for more than three to eat a meal in the kitchen. Robert Claus said they are unable to have friends over to eat unless they use TV trays. Freemyer said that he felt that this was a non-imposing proposal. He was in favor of the request, but a hardship needed to be defined. Lynch asked if the lot was non conforming anyway. Harvey answered that it was non conforming. Lynch said that the addition is to the back of the home and there is no problem with a rear set back in this instance. Lynch said that this is a pre-existing condition. Weeks asked the Claus's to clarify the deck location. Robert Claus answered that the deck would be 8 by 10' and would be located off the addition. • Claus answered that they had finished off a bedroom in the basement area. ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 2 Weeks felt that this was a pre-existing condition and a non conforming use. Wilkus asked if sanitary sewer were installed, would the area be rezoned? Johnson said it could be rezoned. It could be five years or more. Harvey felt that a pre-existing condition was the hardship. There are circumstances unique to this lot. It is in a rural district and the setbacks of a rural lot cannot be met. MOTION: Lynch moved that the Board approve Variance Request 93-04 as presented with the hardship being a pre-existing condition. The property would qualify for R1-22 except for the fact that there is no sewer and water. The addition will enhance the value of this property and the property around it. Weeks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. B. Request #93-05 by Dennis and Holly Rakocy of 7250 Green Ridge Drive for permission to construct a two story addition over the garage which will be 18" 4" from the side lot line (20 feet required) . Dennis Rakocy and his Builder appeared to present the variance request. Rakocy said that they had applied for a building permit and already ordered the material and building supplies, when they found out that there was a problem with approval of the permit. If they had to move the second story back to comply, they would loose about 10% of the space, but only 1% of the cost. All the neighbors have given their approval. He felt if the 2nd story is cut back to meet the 20' setback it would be 1.5' from chimney and appear odd. Johnson said that in the 1970's PUD's were approved with modified versions of setbacks: 5' for garages, 20' for two story homes. The applicant is 118" off from meeting the setback requirement. It does meet R1-13.5 setback standards. Harvey asked how large the lot was. Rakocy answered that the lot was 100' by 1351 . Weeks asked for clarification of the location of the garage. He said that he had no problem with the request. Rakocy answered that the front of the garage is 16' from the lot line. The addition is 18' from the lot line. Wilkus asked about the side yard setback and if there were windows on the north. ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 3 Johnson answered that the side yard set back is 201 , Rakocy stated there are no windows on the north. Freemyer said that he had no problem with the request, but felt that it should be clarified that they would not be granting a variance to a covenant. He quoted from a letter in the packet that had statements dealing with covenant setbacks. Any variance granted would only be to City code. Lynch and Harvey had no problem with the request. Neighbors from the north of the property came forward and said that they had no objections to the request and were there to express their approval. NOTION: Lynch moved that the Board approve the Variance Request 93- 05 because of pre-existing conditions affect the property. It is reasonable to allow the owner to develop the property in the best possible way. This variance will be granted to City code and not to covenants. Wilkus seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. STAFF REPORT ON DECK PERKITSZVARIANCES Harvey noted the research paper submitted by Staff regarding deck permits in Eden Prairie. There were 700 deck permits issued in 1991-1992. Only eight variance requests came to the Board. Of those, four were granted, two appealed and two were withdrawn. He did not feel there was a need to change code. Freemyer said he agreed with that statement. Johnson said the issue had come up when the Council heard the Shavlik appeal. Then Council had directed Staff to research deck requests to see if the code needed to be changed. Freemyer said that this is a low percentage of variances. Freemyer said that he felt that some people are honestly ignorant about zoning laws. However, ignorance of the law is no defense. Lynch agreed. Johnson said that she felt that code has served us well. Freemyer felt that this Board should go on record stating that they oppose changing code. He did not feel there was a . need for change. Lynch said that she supports Staff recommendation that there is no need to change code. ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 4 f Johnson said that Council thinks the Code is too restrictive on corner lots. Weeks said that cluster homes are built on a certain set of conditions and setbacks. People bought them with that understanding. How is that changed without violating rights? It would be changing a pre-existing condition. It is the charge of this Board to look at specific unique cases. If we start to change code on a broad basis, more unique circumstances may be created. Wilkus said such changes may affect adjoining lots that are not cluster homes. Harvey said that cluster homes were originated to create more affordable housing. This would not make them more affordable. Weeks said the requests seen in the last year or two have been cases where the proponent did not know what he/she was getting. It has been a product of misunderstanding between the builder and the proponent. We cannot change State Building Code. But, it would be good to clarify the procedures. Harvey said that approximately 692 out of 700 requests were fine. It shows that code is not that restrictive. Weeks asked if the request from Council was driven more by the politics of trying to be fair to the general public rather than specifics. MOTION: Lynch moved that the Board recommend that no amendments be made to the Code. The present code deals adequately with the situation. Only a small percentage of the 700 requests (8 out of 700) asked for variances. Weeks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. V. NEW BUSINESS A. FEBRUARY VARIANCE REQUESTS Johnson noted that in February there will be five variance requests. B. SHAVLICR APPEAL Johnson noted that the Shavlik appeal will be heard by Council next Tuesday. ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 5 a VI. AWOURNMENT MOTION: Wilkus moved that the Board adjourn. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:20 P.M. ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 6