Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 02/08/1990 APPROM MINUTES • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, February 8, 1990 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers, 7600 Executive Dr. , Eden Prairie, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS Steve Longman, Bill Arockiasamy, Dwight Harvey (Acting Chairman), Scott Anderson, John Freemyer, Neil Akemann STAFF PRESENT: Steve Durham-Planning,Sharon Swenson-See'r BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Longman, Bill Arockiasamy i. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Acting Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7:30. All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance and roll call was taken as noted above. II. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 11, 1990 MEETING Harvey noted that regarding Variance Request 90-01, he would like it made clear that there would be potential for three curb cuts within 206' frontage on Roland Road. • MOTION: Akemann moved that the Board approve the minutes of the January 11 meeting with the addition mentioned by Harvey. Freemyer seconded the Motion and it passed 3-0 with Bozonie abstaining. III. VARIANCES A. Request #90-04 , submitted by Terry and Gwen Nelson for property located at 17799 Valley View Road Eden Prairie Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11. 03 , Subdivision 2B, to permit construction of a deck addition 20 ' from the front lot line adjacent to Bren Lane. City Code requires a 30 ' front yard setback. Terry & Gwen Nelson appeared to present their variance request. He explained that they were asking for a variance to construct a 1Z by 18' deck. They had the home built in October of 1988 and were unaware of any zoning restrictions until October of 1989 when they were planting trees on the lot. At that time they had asked for a building permit for the deck and Durham had informed them of the set back re- quirements. Durham said that this restriction had been noted on the survey when the builder came in. A possible hardship may be the three front yards on Valley View, Bren Road, and the cul de sac. Drainage and utility easements also prohibit building • in some areas. The lot is large enough, if the home had been placed in the right spot. Modifications could be made to reduce the amount of the variance. Akemann noted that the builder had placed the structure improperly. Now, the Board is called upon to correct the situation. He said that he would have difficulty with a deck addition of this size, but could possibly vote for a smaller deck. z • Bozonie said he agreed with Akemann and had nothing additional to add at this time. Anderson noted that the home was put on the most inexpensive location on the lot. He asked the Nelsons who the builder had been. Nelson answered that is was Zachman Brothers. Harvey asked the Nelsons if they had contracted for the home or picked the spot. Nelson answered that they had contracted for the home, but had not picked the exact location on the lot. The design was furnished by Zachman Brothers and Nelsons had selected only the interior items. Akemann felt the Building Department should catch problems like this. Nelson said the deck had been optional, and they had decided to wait to construct it until a later time. Harvey asked Nelson if he had inquired if he could put a deck in the area in the future. Nelson noted the the house plans noted "future deck, optional." They had signed the purchase agreement about September 1, 1988. The builder had said he just acquired the lot. Durham said that after the possible problem area had been noted on the survey, it should • have gone back to the builder via Buildirig-Dept. The Builder would have been made aware of the problem. Anderson felt he would deny the request so that the Nelsons would be inclined to go back to Zachman for compensation. Freemyer said he had felt there was a hardship here until he noted the survey where the notation had been made regarding possible problems. A possible hardship could be that Zachman did not represent the home location accurately, however, he would have difficulty in using this as a hardship. Harvey said he sympathized with the Nelson's problem, but the Board needs a hardship. A hardship is defined as a situation that prevents utilization of the property for the use it was intended. A deck is not critical. A 30' set back is required for safety reasons. Although this is not a self inflicted wou.nd, he noted that he could not find justification for granting the variance. He felt that possibly the Nelsons have grounds for compensation from the builder. Nelson said the Board was going against the builder, but being unfair to him. The value of the home will go down. It is difficult to get recourse from the builder. On the plan they have a 10' by 14' deck represented. Bozonie noted that the Council sometimes makes judgements for reasons other than code. The Nelsons have the option of going to the Council. Freemyer said this council seems to feel they have a wider criteria to decide variance requests than the Board of Appeals. • Harvey told Nelsons that they are not the first one for a deck variance, and most have been rejected. Such situations are precedent setting. There must be other hardships demonstrated than economic. 3 • Harvey continued to say that there are options: 1. Nelsons can ask for a decision this evening. 2. A continuance can be requested and a redesign of the deck submitted. 3. If this request is denied this evening, Nelsons can go to the City Council. 4. The request can be withdrawn. Mrs Nelson asked where the Building Inspector for Eden Prairie came into the situation. Anderson said the possible problem had been noted on the survey. Mrs Nelson . asked if there were any responsibility to the buyer. Anderson answered that the builder has a responsibility to the buyer. At the point of this notation on the survey, the City of Eden Prairie was dealing with the builder. Freemyer asked about the back yard set back. Durham answered that it was 20' . Freemyer felt this was a unique situation with the streets bordering this lot. Possibly the City Council could look into this. Akemann said he would like to see Nelsons have their deck, but does not want to establish a precedent. He asked how high free standing decks could go. • Durham answered that anything above ground is considered a structure. Nelson asked about the possibility of a smaller deck, maybe 10' instead of 12: Harvey asked Nelson how he felt about a wrap around deck. Nelson said the deck would then be on Valley View, a busy street. The rear of the home is a private area with little traffic. Anderson said if the deck were to be redesigned, he could possibly consider it. Anderson said he would like a letter of explanation from Zachman Brothers presented with the redesigned deck proposal. Harvey answered that he felt this was asking a lot of the Nelsons. Freemyer said that although Nelson had proposed a 10' deck instead, he felt he would have problems with that too. Harvey explained the process of appealing and reappealing to the Board and City Council and the fees that would be involved. Mrs Nelson said someone had noted that this was the third such situation. What is the responsibility to the people? • Anderson suggested that Nelsons approach the City Council on that question. Nelson suggested that the Board go ahead and vote on the request. 4 • MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board deny Variance Request 90-04 on the grounds that the original owner (Zachman Brothers) was well informed through documents that the proposed deck was not possible. This is not a unique lot/situation and there were options if the home had been placed on the lot correctly. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Harvey noted to the Nelsons that they can appeal the decision. B. Building moving request #90-05 submitted by Leo Hoffmann The residential building is to be moved to 12000 Sunnybrook Road Eden Prairie Minnesota legally described as: Lot 3 Block 3 , Meadow Park 2nd Addition The building's present location is at 6101 Northwood Ridge, Bloomington Minnesota The type of building to be moved is a single family residential structure Dale Hoffman appeared to present the variance request. He explained that the proposal was to move a home from Bloomington to Eden Prairie.He would like to add a fifth level also and have a rear walk out. He submitted pictures of the home. Durham said the Building Inspector reviewed the home and found it to be structurally sound. Harvey asked how long it would take to move the home. Hoffman answered one night. Possibly, if necessary, it would be left one night in • Edina and then continue on the next evening.It depends on the power lines, etc. Durham said that the age and style of the homes in the area is a consideration. Anderson asked if this home would be sold. Hoffman answered that it would be sold. Anderson asked if Hoffman had closed on the lot he was buying. Hoffman said he will close on it if this request is approved tonight.The seller will guarantee the soil, or Hoffman can get his money back. Freemyer asked if there were plans for remodeling the outside of the home. Hoffman answered that the bedroom windows need replacing because of code. The siding m the home is good. It is O.K. in all other areas. Hopefully, the chimney will stay intact, or else it will need to be rebuilt. Harvey asked if the neighbors on Sunny Brook had been contacted. Durham said there had been some inquiries and he had suggested they come in or write a letter in opposition if that was their desire. He had heard nothing. Anderson asked if Hoffman would object to sodding the lawn. Hoffman said that would be O.K. 5 • MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve Variance Request 90-05M with the following conditions: 1. That the driveway be installed as soon as possible. 2. That the sod be installed within the front, side yard, and 20' beyond the rear of the home within 90 days of movement. 3. There will be no further setback variances as a condition of this move. Bozonie seconded the motion and it passed 4-0. C. Building moving request #90-06-M submitted by the City of Eden Prairie The building is to be moved to 13003 Cardinal Creek Road Eden Prairie Minnesota. The building's present location is at 6641 Beach Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota The type of building to be moved is a single family residential structure. This request was withdrawn. D. Request #90-07 , submitted by Public Storage, Inc. for .property located at 9300-9360 County Road #18 , Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The rectuest is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11. 03 , Subdivision 2B, (1) To permit proposed Lots 2 and 3 of Public Storage preliminary plat at 1.09 acres. Neighborhood Commercial • Zoning District requires a 2 . acre minimum lot size, (2) Subdivision 3H to permit a 0' parking lot setback between Lots 2 and 3 . City Code requires a 10 ' parking setback from a side lot line, (3) To permit a driveway 0' from a side lot line._ No one was present to ask for the variance. Freemyer said he would recommend denial. Royal Prevost came forward,as an interested citizen, and said that the traffic flow through Jerry's parking lot was a concern for him as well as development on County Road nearby. The architectural design was questionable. MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board deny Variance Request 90-07 on the grounds that no hardship was demonstrated, the Planning Commission felt it was not suitable in it's present form, and many variances were requested. Akemann seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV. OLD BUSINESS Harvey noted that Cardarelle had been denied and will go to the City Council. A public notice had been published. V. NEW BUSINESS • Draft Code Changes 1. Refuse Akemann noted several small errors in the report and Durham answered that these areas had been amended. 6 2. Building Height Durham explained that the Building Height had been 30' and now was being increased to a maximum of 401 . This change is consistent with the state uniform building code. Discussion took place on this change and the R-1 district. Freemyer said the City has a complicated system on front yard set backs. The issue of building heights should be addressed in that manner also to somehow determine an average height. MOTION: Akemann moved that the Board recommend the approval of the code changes regarding refuse and building height. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 3. Akemann suggested that Staff check out the brightness of several lights in the area and also a temporary sign by the V.F.W. VI. ADJOURNMENT NOTION: Bozonie moved that the Board adjourn the meeting. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. • Meeting adjourned at 9:10 P.M.