HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 05/14/1984 - Special APPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
MONDAY, MAY 14, 1984 5:30 PM, LUNCH ROOM
CITY HALL
BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Richard Lynch,
Roger Sandvick, James Dickey and
Hanley Anderson
BOARD STAFF: Zoning Administrator Jean Johnson,
City Research Planner Steve Durham
and Recording Secretary Lynda Diede
ROLL CALL: Dickey was absent.
I. VARIANCE
A. Request #84-27, submitted by Mr. Joe Elder for property located
at 10100 Buckingham Drive, legally described as Lot 28, Block 1_,
Prairie East Fourth Addition. The request is for a variance from
City Code, Section 11 .03, Subd. 3, C. , to approve placement of the
residence 30 feet from the front property line instead of equal to
or greater than the average existing setbacks of homes on the
block.
Joe Elder proponent, was present. This item was continued from
the May 10, 1984 meeting to allow time for Staff to gather infor-
mation from the City Attorney regarding definition of a block.
Sandvick read part of a letter written by City Attorney Roger
Pauly, "As you know, the Staff has adopted the definition of
block contained in Chapter 12 in connection with applying Subd.
3, C. This appears to be the preferable choice, however, in my
opinion, the choice of either definition is not without some
doubt. Under such circumstances, I believe the Board of Appeals
is the proper body to make such a decision. " (See attached. )
Sandvick stated that maybe we should render an opinion on this
variance under Chapter 12 as it applies to Subd. 3, C.
Lynch remarked that the fact is, the variance is .32 from a
30' variance.
Krueger wondered if something could be done with landscaping to
lessen the impact of the house. (Ex. Plant a tree between the
corner of the house and site line. )
Sandvick pointed out that we are placing a hardship on Elder if
the variance is passed with a restriction.
• Vivian Ess, 10075 Buckingham Drive, inquired if the Board had
looked at the block. Krueger stated that he had driven out there.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - May 14, 1984
Johnson explained that there are not different definitions in the
Code, but the one definition can be interpreted two different ways.
Clarifying the definition so that there isn't the ambiguity would
be beneficial .
Lynch remarked that planting trees is not a logical solution.
MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to approve Variance Request
#84-27, submitted by Joe Elder with the following
findings:
1 ) Regarding Roger Pauly, City Attorney's memo
dated May 11 , 1984, "As you know, the Staff
has adopted the definition of block contained
in Chapter 12 in connection with applying Subd.
3, C. This appears to be the preferable choice,
however, in my opinion, the choice of either
definition is not without some doubt. Under
such circumstances, I believe the Board of
Appeals is the proper body to make such a
decision. "
2) That the variance under the block subdivision
is .32 and that the variance is within the ele-
ment of the Board's passing.
Lynch seconded the motion, adding that the house
iexists and it seems unreasonable to have it re-
moved. Anderson voted nay. Motion carried. 3:1
II. OLD BUSINESS
None
III. NEW BUSINESS
Sandvick suggested that at the next meeting June 14, 1984, the Board
of Appeals discuss and prepare a definition of what a block is for the
City Council .
Johnson added that research has been done on other communities and it
can be brought to the June meeting.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
Sandvick made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:00 PM. Anderson
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
145.121 338-0763
LAW Q F F 1 C C B
LANGi , PAULY & GREGERSON , LTD.
41EI D IDS CENTER
1. LANS3 MINNEAPOLIS, MlNN^90TA '.�--402
FcO EIERT
;ER A. PAULY
ID H, GREGER&RN
(CHARD F. ROBLTW '1 (�
MARK J. JOHNBON May 11, 1984
JOBEPH A. NILAN
JOHN W. LANG 4..
Ms. Jean Johnson
Eden Prairie City Offices
8950 Eder. Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Dear Ms. Johnson:
You have indicated that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
has requested my opinion relative to the definition of the word
"block" as that term is used in Chapter 11, Sec. 11. 03, Subd. 3 C
providing that a setback shall he equal to the average existing
setback where 40% or more of a block is developed. I understand
the question has arisen because an individual is building a house
on a setback of 30 feet and a few inches. The house is being built
in- an area which has been platted into two blocks having a common
line not intersected by a street. The two blocks in question are,
however, bordered by streets on those lines which are not c.ornmon.
• Thus, the question arises: Does the term "block" as used in Subd.
3 C refer to a platted block or that portion of land lying between
two streets (in this instance, two platted blocks) . If the former,
it is my understanding that the appropriate setback under Subd.
3 C would be 30 feet and, if the latter, it would be 36 . 6 feet.
In reviewing Chapter 11, we find no definition of the term
block. However, Chapter 12 of the City Code contains the following
definition:
11 1 Block' - An area of land within a sub--
division _that is entirely bounded by
streets, or by streets and the exterior
boundary or boundaries of the subdivision,
or a combination of the above with a river
or lake, or outlot. 11
An argument can be made that the definition of block contained
in Chapter 1.2 should apply to that term as used .in Chapter ll . In
that event, a block would be that area between two streets even
though it may consist o1_ two platted blocks. On the other hand, an
i
j.:
y"
Ms Jean Johnson
Page Two
May 11, 1984
argument can certainly be made that the definition of block contained
in Chapter 12 applies only to that chapter which relates to platting
and has no effect as to the use of the term in Chapter 11. It can
also be argued that the use of the term block in Chapter 11 can be
Literally interpreted to mean that portion of land described as a
block in a plat. There may be ambiguity in the present Code. A�J
you know, the staff has adopted the definition of block contained
in Chapter 12 in connection with applying Subd. 3 C. This appears
to be the preferable choice, however, in my opinion the choice of
either definition is not without some doubt. Under such circum-
stances, I believe the Board of Appeals is the proper body to make
such a decision.
In this specific instance, if the term block in Subd. 3 C is
meant to refer to a platted block, the individual building the
house would not need a variance. On the other hand, if the term
block is as set forth in Chapter 12 ,� .a variance would be required.
If the Board of Appeals believes that the building of the house in
the location chosen is proper, then it should address the issue by
considering the granting of the variance as requested.
At the same time, it is my recommendation that one or the
other definition of block should be chosen or any alternative accept-
able' definition and a recommendation should be made to the. Council
to amend the Code to reflect the acceptable definition in order to
eliminate any possible ambiguity.
Sincerely,
/71
:3
l
g y
RAP:st
r