Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 09/14/1995 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 7:30 P.M. CITY CENTER 8080 MITCHELL ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: ARTHUR WEEKS, (CHAIR) ; CLIFF DUNHAM, DELAVAN DYE, MATTHEW HANSEN, CORRINE LYNCH, KATHY NELSON, MARY VASALY STAFF PRESENT: STEVE DURHAM, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR; ELINDA BAHLEY, RECORDING SECRETARY BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: DELAVAN DYE CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Weeks called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 P.M. Dye was absent; all other members present. Lynch arrived at 7 :40 P.M. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Nelson moved that the Board approve the Agenda as published. Dunham seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. II. MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 1995 MEETING MOTION: Dunham moved that the Board accept the Minutes of August 10, 1995 as published. Hansen seconded the motion and it passed 4-0- 1 with one abstention by Vasaly. III. VARIANCES Weeks explained the order of the Variance presentation process to those in attendance. A. Reauest #95-28 by Mark C. Hall and Debora M. Garvey for 18554 Tristram Way to permit an 8' x 12, accessory structure 01 from the northeast lot line and 01 from the northwest lot line. Mark Hall, residing at 18554 Tristram way, reviewed his variance request with the Board. He noted that the 1 Minutes • Board of Adjustments & Appeals September 14 , 1995 letter he submitted included incomplete information indicating that there are no utilities along the side lot line where the accessory structure is proposed. It is his understanding that there is a sewer line that runs along the common lot line. He noted that he and his wife moved to Eden Prairie in 1989 and have added a great deal of landscaping to their property. They do things that have curb appeal and are pleasing to their neighbors . He talked with the City and he understood that you don' t need a building permit if the accessory structure is less than 120 square feet. He also talked with Community Development and was told he can build on an easement with the understanding that you do it at your own risk. If the City needs access to it, you have to move it. He spoke to a landscape architect, a carpenter and a master plumber for advice. He bought a prefabricated kit . for an 8' x 12' shed. The paint is going to match the colors of his house, and will be durable and aesthetically pleasing. They decided that the shed will be put down on concrete pads and put down on cinder blocks for durability. The idea was to bring the shed up off the yard so the pre- treated lumber would not be on wet soil . They designed a PVC system underneath for the natural flow and contours of the water. He worked on this for three weekends and then the complaint from his neighbor came. On one corner there is a green ash tree and a couple of pine trees . The land falls away at that corner. There is a level pad in the corner. The yard falls away in either direction. If the variance is not granted, the hardship of that would be that there would be a great deal of leveling the land, and it would require a double or triple row of cinder blocks . In addition to that, he would have to pull up the concrete pads and move it over. If the variance isn' t granted, the green ash tree would have to be moved because a shed would not be able to be put back in that location. The contours of the yard are such that it' s the natural spot for the shed to be put. If there is no variance granted, the shed is going to be closer to his house and more noticeable from his house. 2 Minutes • Board of Adjustments & Appeals September 14 , 1995 Durham noted that he discussed this with the Engineering Department. They recommend the shed not be in the 10' utility easement, but the Board does have the authority to grant the variance including placement of the shed in the utility easement. Staff received one letter from Harold and Patricia Metzger who object to the variance for reasons indicated in the letter dated September 13 , 1995 . Durham reviewed the contents of the staff report dated September 14, 1995 including the recommendation of the Engineering report and maintenance of the shed. Weeks was concerned about whether you can landscape on the utilities easement. Durham replied staff suggests that plant material be placed outside utility easements . Dunham expressed concern about the exact location of the sewer lines and how deep it is . Durham replied that it runs down the center of the lot line between lots 25 and 24 . Matthew Hansen indicated the line is 8+ feet below the surface based on the cross section. • Lynch asked if any consideration was given to putting the shed right at the back of the garage. Hall replied that they have a patio area with a permanent gas grill, and a room addition back there. Nelson asked if the garage is extra small that they need additional storage. Hall replied that it' s a standard two car garage. Their first choice would have been to add a garage stall, but because of the setback and the width of their yard, that made it impossible. Dunham was concerned about other possible locations on the property for the shed. Hall indicated that he looked around the entire yard, and he saw this as the most practical spot. It is physically possible to build this shed a little further down, a little further in, but the yard falls away more rapidly as you go down closer to the house. This is where they want to store the lawn mower and the snow blower. These are items they want tucked away out of sight. Dunham said he noticed extensive landscaping and retaining walls out front on the side. He asked if something like that could be incorporated into the • 3 Minutes • Board of Adjustments & Appeals September 14, 1995 landscape plan to accommodate this shed. Hall replied that he does not think there' s a spot further on down where the retaining walls are that would accommodate this particular 8' x 12, shed. Retaining walls are very expensive, and this would entail moving dirt around and getting a bobcat. The shed costs $600 and this would then add another $1000 . The cost of it is not worth doing. Dunham stated that he feels the Metzger' s concerns are very valid and he agrees with them. He agrees with them in terms of location and he was concerned about the shed blocking some of the light and grass on the neighbor' s side. Vasaly said that it is unfortunate that the work has already been started, but does not feel it' s a good precedent to grant the variance based on a mistake. She feels there are other locations in the yard. She hates to see a tree lost, but neighbors rely on those easements . The problems with neighbors gives more weight • than for the loss of a tree. Hall indicated that he personally counted 47 such accessory sheds on the back or side lot line for other houses in Eden Prairie. He is sure that only a small percentage of them went through the variance presentation like he is . He noted that the only reason he is here is because of the Metzger' s complaint. Nelson stated that lawn mowers and snow blowers are typically kept inside a garage, and that' s what makes this request so unaccommodating. Hall noted that they have a couple of cars and a portable icehouse which folds up. They put this in the garage and each time they open the car door, it' s bumping into that. Because of the way he maintains his property, he also has a large number of lawn tools, rakes, shovels and fertilizer. It' s a matter of convenience that lead them to clearing up the clutter in the garage. To rent off- site storage would cost about $90 a month. • 4 Minutes • Board of Adjustments & Appeals September 14, 1995 Nelson suggested putting the shed on a flatter spot with a little more view to his house but within city code. Hall replied that there is a flat spot at the bottom of the hill, but it would be within 10 feet of the windows of his house blocking his own view. This would also require the removal of three trees . Nelson commented that they are young trees and can still be in the moving stage. Hall replied that digging up those trees in the second year is a risk. Hansen asked what the shed will look like. Hall replied that it' s a wooden shed with plywood sides . It' s 8' x 12' rectangle, and the roof has a two inch overhang. Weeks suggested placing the shed to the side of the room addition within the flat area because there would only have to be one tree removed. Hall replied that there is already an existing patio there and each time they entertain on their patio, they would be looking at the • shed. Weeks commented that there are some other solutions that have not been explored. He has a problem with this request because everything he is hearing is based on economic reasons - in terms of the hardship. Except for very unusual circumstances, as a Board, they can not justify a variance based only on an economic hardship. Zero setback could be a precedent. Hall noted that there is an aesthetic aspect here. By putting the shed on the flat spot in the middle of the yard right near the windows is contradicting everything they have done in their yard to make it a beautiful place to live. Weeks indicated that they can put it in the northeast corner if they relocate the ash tree that' s located there. They can still meet the ordinance and provide a 10 foot setback. Hall noted that they have not just moved in the house and not done anything to it, like their neighbor who added only one tree in five years . They have added a great deal of beauty and a great deal of landscaping to the back and front yard. It' s not only pleasing to them, but • 5 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals September 14, 1995 it' s also pleasing to the neighborhood as a whole. There is an equity factor that goes into this, especially in light of the fact that the part of the hardship that exists is taking out what already has been done because somebody waited three weeks to make the complaint when they were fully aware of what was going on. vasaly said that she respects his coming in to do it the right way. She said that it sounds as if it weren' t for the complaint he also would not have come in, and would have ignored the ordinance. This does not appeal to her very much. Hall said Community Development told him to go ahead and build along the easement as long as he knew it was a risk because of the easement. If the City were to come in and need access, the shed would have to be removed. This is why he talked with a carpenter and landscaper about putting it on cinder blocks . A lot of thought went into this process . . Weeks opened the public hearing. Theresa Nistler, residing at 6513 Leander Circle, noted that her backyard is directly adjacent to the Hall property. The Halls came to them and made sure they had no problem with this . She has no problem with this shed. The relationship may have deteriorated a bit between the Halls and the Metzgers, but no one else has a problem with it or the neighborhood as a whole. Weeks closed the public hearing. Weeks asked if the proponent would be willing to come back to the Board with a continuation to show other potential locations before they take action on this matter. It would help them to see what the shed would look like. They would also like to see either a sketch or drawing of some other alternatives that are acceptable to Mr. Hall, and also to see how other alternatives don' t work. Hall commented that it' s ridiculous to spend $2000 for a bobcat to level out the area for a $500 shed. He is not inclined to take out the trees that are there. He feels this is unfair and unreasonable. • 6 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals September 14 , 1995 Vasaly commented that it' s not a question of granting a variance from the ordinance based on the economic hardship. It' s not their realm as to what is appropriate or not, but it' s part of the law. They can' t do it for that reason. They need to have something more. Weeks commented that he has to demonstrate to the Board that he has exhausted every other possibility, that there is no way he can do this without a variance. Nelson stated that it' s a zero lot line on two different lots . That has potential problems . She generally always objects to any kind of garage placed within three or four feet of a lot line. Hall noted that he would like the Board to take action on this tonight. MOTION: Dunham moved that the Board deny variance request 95-28 because there appears to be other areas on the site that will accommodate the shed, and that is appropriate to the plantings and landscaping of the house, it should not be placed on the easement line of the sewer. Lynch seconded the motion. Vasaly said it is unfortunate if he received the wrong information. Presently, the project is in the infancy stage. Hansen stated that he walked through the yard and he agrees with Mr. Hall that this is the spot for the shed. There may be other flat spots, but none of them make sense because you want a shed in the corner of the yard. He feels bad if the City gave him confusing information. Hansen said that there is room for compromise here. He would not support zero lot line variance. After walking around the property, if you pulled the shed five feet south and five feet east, he thinks that would be a fine spot to put a shed. Since a resident has come here and spoke, he has no reason to disagree with her that the neighborhood is fine with the shed. He would have liked to see the neighbor in objection here this evening. He asked Mr. Dunham to appeal his motion, and Mr. Dunham • 7 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals September 14 , 1995 refused. Hall commented that he disagrees that his construction is in the infancy stage. He has put a lot of time and hard labor into this. He is distressed that the Board sits here and says that economics isn' t a good enough hardship. He said that he would be happy with moving the shed four feet off the two side lines . Vasaly asked if he was aware that there are setback requirements . Hall replied not until he received the letters from Steve. He said that he thought that he is allowed to enter it, but not allowed to build there. Durham noted for the record, information that goes out from the Community Development Department in terms of setbacks for an accessory structure would be 10 feet from the rear and side lot line. To give out information to a resident stating they can build at their own risk would be inappropriate and misleading. Issues such as this one would be more common if residents were told they can build at their own risk closer to a lot line. He could • not guarantee a communication problem did not occur between Mr. Hall and a City Hall Employee. Historically, there are no variance requests granted like this in the 13 .5 zoning district. MOTION: The motion carried 5-1 with one opposition by Hansen. VI. OLD BUSINESS Durham noted that he had discussion with the city attorney and Craig Dawson, the city manager, about adding something to the minutes that occurred after the public hearing was closed. The Board can include in the minutes what was said after the public hearing was closed, and it would be noted as discussion followed after the public hearing. VII. NEW BUSINESS Durham noted that there will be one continued item and three new items on the agenda for October. Nelson suggested having a sheet made up to be given to • 8 a Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals September 14 , 1995 residents stating that setbacks are always 10 feet, and not to think about building there without coming in for approval . Durham replied that they do have sheets made up that they hand out, but a lot of people just call in for the information. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Vasaly moved that the Board adjourn. Lynch seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9 : 10 P.M. barb\jean\boa\9-14-95 • 9