Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 02/11/1988 1 • APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND AJUSTMENTS I Thursday, February 11 , 1988 7 : 30 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers , 7600 Executive Dr . , Eden Prairie , MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Steve Longman, Hanley Anderson , Roger Sandvick, Lyn Dean, William Arockiasamy, Dwight Harvey. BOARD STAFF: Zoning Administrator, Steve Durham Recording Secretary: Sharon Swenson ROLL CALL: Longman, Krueger, Harvey & Arockiasamy were present at roll call and Anderson arrived at 7 :40 . 1 . MINUTES : A. Minutes of January 14, 1988. MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve the minutes to the January 14 meeting with the addition of the information: that the motion had been seconded by Arockiasamy and had passed unanimously. (Var . 88-01 ) Arockiasamy seconded that the motion be passed as amended. Motion to approved minutes passed unanimously. II . VARIANCES A• �Request #88-05, submitted by Lynn A. Wilde for property located at 15900 North Lund Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, -Chapter 11, Section 11 7, ubdivision� C� to ermit construction of a ag rage ad iition 1�rom the front yard lot line. City Code requires 5 1as per the average existing setback of the legal block. z Lynn A. Wilde .appeared before the council to present his appeal for a garage addition. He stated that he would like to build a 2 car attached garage, as the house was too small for their present needs . He would use the present one for storage . It would be best to build the additional garage on the west side of the house for landscaping purposes . Krueger asked if Wilde had considered any of the alternatives . • Wilde answered that he had, but the single car garage would not give enough storage space . He felt that based on the average-=setback, he would end up loosing much of the lot . He felt the variance he was proposing would add to the value i i of the property. • Krueger asked how much boulevard was involved. Durham answered 15 ' Krueger asked if there would be room to park the car! outside the garage . Durham answered that there would be . a:- Krueger asked if i-t were Wilde ' s intention to get rid of the wood fence. Wilde answered that he would get rid of the fence and also a retaining wall and cement slab. He felt it would open up the corner for better viewing of the stop sign. Durham said that the driveway would probably angle . Harvey asked how long Wilde had lived in this home Wilde replied since 1983 . Harvey stated that Wilde would essentially have 3 garages . He felt that he could not go for a 2 car addition and that the fourth alternative was the most acceptable . Krueger asked if there was a storage shed in the back yard. Wilde answered that there was . Harvey mentioned that the- Board had run into this corner lot problem before . Krueger asked Wilde if a one car garage would work. Wilde answered that it would not work cost wise as his builder had advised him that a 2 car garage costs about the same as a one car garage . Longman and Anderson stated that they felt that was hard to understand as additicnal concrete, shingles , doors, etc. , all add to the cost . Discussin took place on the location of the property and layout . Anderson asked how the house across the street would be affected. Durham answered that the house across.--the street had a minimum setback. Longman suggested the possibility of a single stall and some • additional space . (Maybe 6 ' more of storage area) Perhaps a -stall could be added to the existing garage . Even the possibility of making the garage deeper could be workable . i Arockiasamy stated that the addition would come out quite a ways . • Longman added that there would be a,. limit to what could be done in the back of the house , but also felt that at least 6 ' could be added to the side to make it worth while . i Durham said that 12 ' stall and 6 ' storage would make a 17 ' setback. Arockiasamy asked about the front'-yard setback. Durham stated that one goes by the average existing setback. 30 ' is the minimum setback. Longman agreed and commended the idea of improving the property but stated that this was an extreme setback. He suggested that Wilde explore the alternatives . Wilde said that he could get a good price with an early commitment . The problem of a 55 ' setback bothered him to the extent that if his house burned down, he would be unable to rebuild 54% of his home again. Harvey answered that situations just as that are the reason the Board is here- To help in -those instances . • Krueger said that allowances for the future must be made . Wilde stated that he felt that corner lots were penalized an additional 151 . Harvey answered that this- type of problem had occured many times before and probably would again. Wilde said that his home was one of the original homes in the area and he would like to see himself as a member of the community, but if he can't get his housing needs full- filled, he would possibly need to look elsewhere . Longman added that Wilde was not the first to point out the seeming unfairness of the corner lots property. He felt that a happy medium was needed.He felt that Wilde ' s property would probably be the closest to the street in Eden Prairie if the variance was granted. Wilde asked the Board what they would consider a fair variance . Krueger suggested 20 ' -possibly a single car garage and storage area . Longman replied that he could go with 20 ' • Krueger asked for any input from the audience . Jim Petric came forward (a neighbor of -W lde) to voice his support-- for the addition of a 2 car garage . He lived to the west of the property and felt it would be an improvement to the neighborhood. Longman asked if the existing garage was used for storage . • Wilde said that it wouldbe if the variance d. He would put a window in instead of a door and sremove ethe asphalt . I Petric suggested that the Board look at the situation before turning the variance down. Wilde and Petric explained more about the visual appearance of the neighborhood and how it would be affected . Harvey stated that he could not support the 3rd alternative. Anderson felt that Wilde should show the Board more detailed Pictures and drawings to strengthen his case . Krueger said that the Board had basically two alternatives : 1 . To approve a single stall garage 2 . To table the matter and wait for more information & pictures . Longman reminded Wilde to have alternatives in waiting just in case the Board did not grant the variance even after reviewing the additional materials . Durham said that the board could wait and table the matter • or act now. Harvey noted that the retaining wall was falling apart . Durham asked about the tw9 pine trees on the property. Wilde said he would like to keep them. Durham stated that he had received a call from a neighbor that felt it important that they be kept . Arockiasamy asked if there would be a single stall garage, could the same driveway be used. Wilde said that it was showing wear and needed to be redone He added that he would prefer to table the matter for now and -come back at a later date . Durham said that could be March 10, 1988 . Longman reminded the Board that the code states a 50 ' set- back and the Board had said that they:-may go to 201 . MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the variance be continued to the next meeting. Longman seconded the motion. • Motion passed unanimously. I B. Request #88-06, submitted �y TCR _ Eden Prairie, Welter Ltd. Partnership for property located on proposed Lots 4- 2, Block 2. Welters Purgatory Acres 3rd Addition, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The • request is for a variance from City Code, Cha ter , Section rl.T3. Subdivision 2, 6' to permit a front yarda setback of 25' for proposed Lots 4-1-2-Block Block 2, Welters Turgatory Acres_Trd Addition. City Code requires a 30' front yard setback. Jim Ostenson represented TCR for this variance request. He handed out photocopies of the plat to the board members . He explained that the plat shows-the relationship of the lots to the pond. -The normal setback is 30 ' . He would like one for 251 .The identical situation had come up several months ago. The pond is controlled by DNR. He stated that they did not want to encroach on the pond. They would rather keep lots for larger homes and save some trees . They have eliminated one lot allowing for expansion of the width of the lots . The proposed variance would not affect the street at all. All would be uniform on one side of the street . Longman had a question about a sentence in the conclusion of the staff report concerning proposed homes not being consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Ostenson replied that it referred to the size of the building pad. Normal is 45-50 and with variance it would be 40-45 . DNR contrals the pond and TCR cannot encroach on the pond. • With the normal building pad used, it would do that. TCR felt that a variance would be needed. Longman asked if the 25 ' setbacks would save the trees . Ostenson replied that a few on lot 4 & 5 and 1- & 11 would be saved. Longman stated that in the past 25 ' setbacks have been granted when the lots drop off sharply or trees would be saved. Ostenson added that in the instance several months ago, they had shifted the path of the street, but would be unable to do that this time . Longman answered that in the past these variances have been granted to help Eden Prairie, and asked Ostenson how he felt" Eden Prairie would be helped. Ostenson answered that the trees would be saved and that prese-rving the pond area was important . Longman asked if the TCR Co. would ever think of compromising the pond, whatever the Board decided.- Ostenson answered that they could go to the DNR, but would rather settle it with the Board of Appeals . He added that they had already taken out one lot on- block 2 reducing the total t=o 16 . i Harvey asked if there were storm sewers . • Ostenson answered that there were. Longman felt that a 5 ' difference was hardly noticab�le to the eye . He also stated that he could not identify a) hardship. It was an economic variance. Harvey stated that he had two problems with the issue : 1 . That he felt the original plan was to build large homes and then come to the board fora variance . 2 . He could not identify hardship. Harvey said he felt if a 50' building pad was the original intent , it would have been part of the plan. Ostenson said that the project had been developed as if they would not get the variance, and it can be done without it . Longman said that he felt equally in favor of both sides of the issue-to grant it , or to go by the book. Krueger thought the outcome would be better with the variance . Ostenson said that the farther away from the pond they could stay, the more backyard would be made livable. It allows a larger home to be built in the upper bracket neighborhood. • Longman asked what TCR would do if it were not granted. Ostenson said that in some cases the decks would go right to the pond. Krueger asked about the road right of way. Ostenson said that it was 50 ' . The neighborhood will appear uniform. The benefits are to the neighborhood, not so much to the developer . Krueger asked if a 25 ' variance was granted, would all the houses be that? Ostenson replied that he would require that they be so . Harvey asked if an owner would be required to build with a 25 ' setback even if the home were smaller. ? Longman stated that a 5 ' setback was minimal and that the pondi;s a viable point . He tended to support the variance. Arockiasamy agreed but asked what we could do in the future . Durham stated that they could direct the staff that 35 ' pads are not enough. Harvey comended Ostenson:_ on the fine job-- that had been done in developing the area.- He did however , have a problem with the process followed. i MOTION: Krueger moved that the- Board approve the Variance • request 88-06 as submitted with the following findings" a) The drainage and utility easements create create constraints to building area for Lots 4-12, Block 2, Welter ' s Purgaroty Acres 3rd Addition. b) Grading and erosion control limits be adhered to . That the pond and property around be preserved. Arockiasamy seconded the motion and it passed 4-1 . Harvey voted nay. III . OLD BUSINESS None IV NEW BUSINESS Durham reported to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments that the City Council reviewed the front yard setbacks for corner lots and upheld the current code requiring 30 ' front yard setback. • Durham stated that the City Council also found that the Eden Prairie City Code front yard setbacks in residential districts are consistent with those in Plymouth, Bloomington, Edina and Minnetonka. Longman thanked Ron Krueger for his years of service on the Board of Appeals. All members agreed he had provided a valuable contribution to the City of Eden Prairie . V. ADJOURNMENT Harvey moved that the Board adjourn Longman seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimous Y. Adjournment at 8 :40.