Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 03/10/1988 i APPROVED MINUTES • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS Thursday, March 10 , 1988 7 : 30 P .M. City Hall Council Chambers , 7600 Executive Dr . Eden Prairie ,MN 5.5344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS : Steve Longman (acting chariman) , Hanley Anderson, Lyn Dean, William Arockiasamy, Dwight Harvey, Neil Akemann , Scott Anderson ( tentative ) BOARD STAFF : Zoning Administrator , Steve Durham Recording Secretary: Sharon Swenson ROLL CALL : Longman , Harvey, Arockiasamy, Dean and Akemann (new member) were present at roll call . Anderson arrived at 7 : 35 . I . INSTALLATION OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS Longman stated that the installation of Scott Anderson would postponed because of a misunderstanding at the City Council meeting . Durham installed the new member, Neil Akemann to the Board .• II . ELECTION OF OFFICERS MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board table the election of new officers until the next month' s meeting. Anderson seconded the motion . Passed unanimously. III . MINUTES A. Minutes of February 11 , 1988 MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board accept the minutes of February 11 , 1988 as presented . Arockiasamy seconded the motion . Passed unanimously. IV. VARIANCES A • Request_ #88-05, submitted � Lynn A. Wilde for property located at 591 00 North Lund Road, Eden Prairie Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Subdivision 3, to ermit construction of a ag rage addition - from the front yard lot line. City Code re wires 55' as per the average existing setback of the legal block. Continued from the February 11, 1988 meeting) • Lynn Wilde appeared before the Board to present additional information on the variance he had presented at last month ' s meeting . He showed a video film on the monitor and explained 2 • that the lot surrounding his home was hilly-sloping from east to west . The film showed the location of the retai ing wall and other areas around the home . Wilde pointed out the location of the lot line and showed views of the ba k of the property. Anderson arrived at this time. ( 7 : 35 P .M. ) Wilde explained that he would be adding additional pine trees to the property. He stated that most of the homes in the area had single car tuck under garages and they had been able to add additional area. Longman asked for questions or comments from the Board. He asked if the possibilities of different setbacks had been discussed. Wilde said yes , at the last meeting those possibilities had been brought up--such as a car and a half garage , but he felt that the idea did not add to the value of the neighborhood or the asthetic value of the area . Longman reminded Wilde that the matter had been tabled because the Board had wanted Wilde to consider the possibilities of • other alternatives . Wilde said he felt the home deserved a two car garage. Harvey stated if. Wilde were to add a single car garage , it would make a two car garage for the home . He stated that his position had not changed from the last month. He said that this variance would bring the structure too close to the lot line . It sets a precedent that should not be set . Arockiasamy sympathized with Wilde in the respect that he had a corner lot , but stated that the Board had dealt with this matter before . It was unclear to Arockiasamy exactly why the neighbors supported the idea with their signatures--was it because they were in favor of the variance or did they want primarily to see the retaining wall/fence area cleaned up? Longman stated that he agreed with Wilde ' s idea of improving the value of the property and enhancing the appearance . Still , he felt that the variance was extreme . With an 11 ' setb4ck, the existing garage would be used for storage and still a 2 stall garage would be added. He asked Wilde to clarify if that was indeed what he intended through the variance . Wilde answered that it was true . He would like to use the space • from the existing garage for storage and workshop space . Akemann asked if the present garage were to serve as a workshop, how would Ackeman redo the front to eliminate the garage appearance . 3 Wilde answered that he would install a large window in the • area where the garage door had been. Also , brick veneer would be added to the area . Akemann asked if the driveway was concrete or asphalt . Wilde answered that it was a 30 year old concrete driveway. It needed replacement and could be done at the same time as the rest of the work. The retaining wall could be fixed at the same time , or possibly removed. Anderson asked if there were any other drawings or diagrams . Wilde answered that there were not . Harvey answered that the house already sits out farther than other homes in the area as you look up Creekview and South Lund . He asked about the issue of site lines . Anderson said that the Board had asked for alternative plans and none were presented. Harvey reminded the Board and Wilde that another alternative that had been mentioned at the last meeting was adding additional storage in the back of the home . Had anything changed from the last meeting except that Wilde had presented. the signatures • of the neighbors? He felt that it was a dangerous precedent for the Board to set since such variances have repeatedly been denied to others on similar issues . Longman asked for more comments from the Board . There were none . MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board deny Variance Request 88-05 as it would set a dangerous precedent if it were approved and that there was not enough justification presented to gain such approval . Arockiasamy seconded the motion with the stipulation that all the alternate possibilit ' es had not been exhausted. VARIANCE WAS DENIED B . Request #88-07, submitted by Smith Architects for property located east of Fuller Road and northwest of the Chicago and Northwestern Railway, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The r�egue�st is for a variance from City Code, Chapter _ Section 1 .0� 3, Subdivision 2, B to permit lattin _.of proposed Lot 1 with lot frontage of 56' . City Code requires 2001 . Paul Neilsen appeared before the Board with a plan which depicted the area affected by the variance request . He stated that he works with Smith Architects who represent the owner of the pro- ject . The concept for the area was a Business Center which • would provide office and warehouse space in small units . This facility would meet the needs of small business by reducing over- head , cost , and failure risks . There would be access to clerical and secretarial services provided. The owner had purchased a 4 I • parcel of land with less than 5 acres with an existing; building standing on it . They desire that the site be hezoned from I-Gen to I-2 . In this way they can develop the vacant area of the site . Harvey asked if the area was I-Gen . Durham answered that it was zoned I-Gen in 1977 Harvey asked if the existing business used outside storage . Neilsen answered no . He stated that the existing building would remain. as it is . Parking and landscaping would be provided . Arockiasamy asked if there would be any other variance required . Durham answered that this would be the only variance necessary. Longman asked for additional comments . There were none . MOTION: Dean moved that the - Board approve Variance Request 88-07 with recommendations from the Staff report of February 5 , with the following findings : • a) Planning Commission reviewed and approved the proposed development. City Council reviewed and approved 1st Reading of the development proposal . b) Due to exisiting land configuration and ownership, additional property cannot be added to make both lots meet a 200' lot frontage. c) The proposed development will create new lot lines for Lot 2, thereby, eliminating a non-conforming building setback. d) The rezoning from I-Gen to I-2 will eliminate outside storage. AROCKIASAMY SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT PASSED 6-0 . V . OLD BUSINESS Durham presented a brief update on the NSP matter . He stated that the City Council had hired outside legal help to assess the situation. He said at this point , the City doesn ' t have much to go on and the details are sketchy. He did not feel that the City was in a position to make NSP come back to the • Board . Akemann asked if NSP needed to get all the poles up before the variance was up . , Durham replied that it is subjective as to exactly when the 5 i variance was up. .They have started the work, but not completed it . He felt it might be a court decision whether or not NSP • had taken advantage of the variance . Anderson said he did not know of an instance when a request for an extension had been denied. i Harvey asked if there were any conditions about working with the people whose property would be affected. There were issues of siting to be considered. Durham said that there was nothing in the minutes .A formal permit had not been issued, and that might be the matter through which the attorney will combat the problem. There have not been formal reviews of large towers before. NSP indicated it had worked with several of the neighbors , but Durham had seen no clarification as to where the poles were to be located. Akemann asked Durham if he could explain the differences in pole height . Durham answered that it had to do with the distance between the poles . Harvey asked if the foundations were in the right of way for Highway 5 . • Durham answered that they were in the right of way, but need not be removed. Longman stated that he felt this matter should be handled by a court decision. Durham said that even if the Board got the matter back, it would go on to the City Council . The matter could have been avoided if the pole on Mr . Pauley' s property had been moved to the west as Pauley had asked. NSP had refused, and the problem developed. VI . NEW BUSINESS Longman welcomed Neil Akemann to the Board. Longman also stressed the importance of attendance at the next meeting for the election of officers . VII . ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board adjourn. Arockiasamy seconded the motion. Passed unanimously. . Meeting adjourned at 8 : 10 P.M.