HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 12/08/1988 APPROVED M N=
• BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
i
Thursday, December 8th, 1988 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council
Chambers, 7600 Executive Dr.,
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Bill Arockiasamy, (Chairman), Hanley
Anderson, Lyn Dean, Steve Longman,
Dwight Harvey, Scott Anderson, John
Freemyer, Michael Bozonie, Neil Akemann.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Scott Anderson, Michael Bozonie, Lyn
Dean, Steve Longman
I. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Meeting was called to order at 8:05 by Bill Arockiasamy, Chairman.
Roll Call: Bill Arockiasamy, Dwight Harvey, Neil Akemann, Hanley Anderson
John Freemyer
All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance
II. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER LOTH MEETING
• Arockiasamy noted that the spelling of (Josie Kleap) of 7642 Island Rd be
verified and changed. He was not sure it was correct in the minutes and
Johnson said she would check on that item.
Harvey noted that in the second paragraph under item 4, the Co. Rd. mentioned
should be 4 and not 42.
MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve the minutes as presented
with the above amendments. Akemann seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously.
III. VARIANCES
A. Request #88-47, submitted by American Family Insurance for property
located ati0200 Yellow Circle Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The
re'guest is for a variance from City Code, Chia ter 11,--Section 11.7�
u5 bdivision� D, to permit a wall sign o-f��scL.. ft. City C�
permits one wall si gn of- sq ft.
MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board continue Variance Request 88-47
to the February 9th meeting as requested in the letter recieved
from Opus Corporation. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
B. Request #88-55, submitted �y David Rathke for property located at
• 17308 Padons Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a
variance from City Code, Chapter ection 11.03,
si Subdivion 2-
to ermit a ara a addition 5' from a s-ire lot line. Cit
Code requires in the RI-ZZ Zonin District) -ubdivision
C� to permit a ara a addition 37' from the front lot line. City
Code re uires 9' as der the existing average setback of the legal
o ck. — --
2
. Arockiasamy noted that Variance Request 88-55 had been withdrawn.
C. Request #88-58, submitted by George and Carolyn Reichow for property�
To—ca—UR at IUiJI Eden �Prairie oaa,E ed�n Prairie�innesota. The
request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 1, Section 1.T5_
Subdivision 1, —to—permit the re-establishment and construction of a
single family home after the destruction of an existing home on a
rural lot less than 10 acres in size. City Code does not permit the
re-establishment or enlargement to non-conforming property.
Carolyn & Jerry (Garrett) Reichow appeared to present their request for the
variance. C Garrett explained that they presently lived in the old Sally
Brown home, which they had remodeled at tremendous expense. Recently they
had the opportunity to purchase some property that they had admired for some
time, but this property was non-conforming. The structure could not be
remodeled to suit the need of their children and grand children, whom they
entertained often. She proposed that the existing foundation be used and
added to. Then the rest of the structure would be removed or taken down.
Johnson said that there had been no additional comments from the residents
in the area. The proposal would meet rural setbacks.
Arockiasamy asked what the size of the lot was.
Reichow answered that it was 1.45 acres.
Arockiasamy asked if there were any other options.
Johnson answered that the only one was -to continue with the older home.
Reichow noted that the home was small with only 2 bedrooms and one bath.
There is a breezway that is not heated.
Arockias y verified that the Reichows intended to remove the existing structure
and buil a new one. He noted that although the home on the site did not fit
the needs of the Reichows, it may fit some other family's needs.
Reichow answered that she understood that, although it had been on the market
for some time and had not sold.
Arockiasamy asked if the structure was usable.
Reichow answered that it was, but not for their needs.
Harvey asked if the home was presently for sale.
Reichow answered that they had placed a contingency offer on the property based
on the outcome of this decision.
Harvey asked if the property could be subdivided or replatted.
• Johnson answered that it could not be done now.
Harvey said he had no problems with it.
Freemyer noted that concerns with wells and septic tanks were the probable
basis for the ordinances that were in effect there now.
3
. Freemyer asked if the proponents had any history on the well and septic
system. He asked if the ground had good perculation and if they had
spoken with a soil analyst?
Reichow said they did not have that information yet, but the neighbors in
the area would possibly have some knowledge on the matter.
Karen Edstrom, listing agent for the property and neighbor to the site) came
forth and noted that the well should be at least 200' deep. She said that the
soil was the sandy-loamy type. It was doubtful that the present septic system
would be adequate for the Reichows needs.
Harvey asked how many baths would be in the proposed home.
Reichow answered that 2'z bath would be included.
Arockiasamy said it was a nice location and he supported the variance.
Akemann asked if the minimum sized lot in 1956 was 2 acres, how come the
home was built on 1.45 acres?
Johnson said the records were not available to get that information.
H Anderson asked if the walk-out area would be visible from the valley below.
Reichow said she did not think so, as there was a big set back.
• Arockiasamv asked for input from the audience.
Jim Van Winkle and his wife Helen of 10129 Eden Prairie Rd noted that they
would be pleased to see the variance pass. They said they knew of no trouble
with the septic system.
1
Steve & Kim Niosi , who own the property on the corner of 169 and Eden Prairie
Road said they were in favor of the variance.
MOTION: Harvey moved that the B(yard approvik Variance Request 88-58 as
submitted-finding the removal of the existing home and construction
of a new home does not significantly change the use of the property.
He noted that there were no other options. Akemann seconded the
motion and it passed unanimously.
* Arockiasamy added that no other variances for setbacks on the property be
applied for.
Freemyer asked if proof needed to be given on the septic system.
Johnson answered that it did at the time of building permit. oize is based on
the number of bedrooms.
D. Request #88-59, submitted �X Sunset Homes Corporation for property
located at 17766-70-74-78 Evener Way, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The
frgquest is for a v7ri Nance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.0,
u� bdivision Lb, to Dermit the construction of decksi2' from a rear*
lot line. City Code requires setback from a rear lot line in
the RM-b Zoning District. —
4
Michael Gair represented Sunset Homes, Inc. to present the variance
. request. He passed out information. He noted that all plans and elev tions
were determined by the Staff and he had been working closely with th� Staff
on this project.
Harvey asked what the front yard setback was.
Mike Gair answered it was 30' .
Harvey asked if they were at the 30' line on the front yard setback on these
properties.
Mike Gair answered that they were.
Mike Gair said that they had been building single family dwellings in that
area and people were assuming that they were getting the same type home as
the model home, which shows a patio door and deck.
Johnson explained the Staff concerns on the decks. The plans had not been
shown on the approved documents. Later documents showed the decks.
Arockiasamy asked if the decks on the models built so far had been O.K.?
Mike Gair answered that they were.
Arockiasamy said the City could not assume that the builder will do the same
• in other lots as in the one discussed at an earlier time.
Harvey noted that coming any closerto the street was not possible because
of the front set back line.
Arockiasamy said it appears that the City will go with the proposal unless
the deck is built there.
Mike Gair said that all he did was to follow the directions of the Staff.
Every plan included a patio door. There is also extensive planting in the area--
eleven 6' Black Hills spruce.
Harvey asked about the height of the decks.
Mike Gair answered that they start at about 9' . He added that the units were
sold based on the models.
Dave Tollefson and his neighbor, Mr Bathke, came forth and they
%reconcerned that the set back was so far back that there was virtually no
back yard. His concern was the landscaping plan for the whole ^rea.
Mike Gair responded that the landscaping had been bonded.
H Anderson asked if the deck on the site would be a problem for Tollefson
and Bathke.
• Tollefson and Bathke answered not, but asked if there was anything that
would grow faster than spruce that could be added to supplant the screening.
Mike Gair answered that this could be done if the Board decided it is needed.
Some 4' Summit Ash could be added. If there were no decks on these homes, the
only exit would be the side door.
5
• Arockiasamy said he could see that the deck is justifiable, but coul a smaller
deck be made to mimimize the deck area?
Gair answered that it was a possibility---maybe 8 by 10 or 10 by 10 foot decks
could be used instead.
H Anderson suggested changing 10' wide and 12' deep to 10' deep and 12' wide
to decrease the footage extending away from the house.
Gair answered that it could be done.
Freemyer said he could go for an 8 by 14' deck easily.
Additional small group discussion took place on the deck sizes suggested.
Johnson noted that she had received a call from Mary Ann Bissen, who had
objected to the variance.
Freemyer asked what the Board felt about a 8 by 14' deck.
Arockiasamy felt the Board should be stipulate the width of the deck.
Freemyer felt that a maximum size should be stipulated.
Arockiasamy noted that Tollefson had asked for some verification the screening
that would be planted to provide additional privacy. He asked Tollefson if the
• decks were to be 8' deep, would be still feel that the decks would be visible?
Johnson noted that this did not have an impact on the variance as the two
homes are not adjacent to lots requesting variances.
H Anderson said he did not blame Tollefson for wanting to be sure they are
planted as promised.
Tollefson said the variance would bring his driveway closer to the site, so
he had suggested the additional shrubbery.
Gair said that he had posted an $80,000 landscape bond with the City
for those plantings. He felt that he and Tollefson could certainly work together.
MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board approve Variance Request 88-59
based on the conditions that the deck shall not exceed 8' in
depth going away from the home. The width could be 14'--or less--
but no more. The hardship demonstrated is that:there are already
existing patio doors installed, these homes were sold with the
existing model as a reference (has deck), and the impact of the
decks will be less with the plantings to be installed. Harvey
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
E. Request #88-60, submitted �X Minnesota Valve and Fitting Company for
Propertylocated at 1590L Westt 8�reet, Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
The re uest is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 ection
• 03, Subdivision 2z B, To ermit lattin of the ro osed I-2
lot less than 2 acres kUlty Code requirescre minimum 2 To
ermit lattin of the ro osed 1-2
witFi a lot de#ess
h less that
3 (CityCode re wires a lot de th of 3U0' To permit
D -attin of the ro ose T-2- of with a lot wi th than-MT
it Code requires i'j;C4TT permit a building , loor Area Ratio
6
above 30% (City Code maximum building Floor Area Ratio is 36%, (5)
jo permit a proposed front yard building set aacck of7T' ands' from
proposed future roads City Code re wires 5 (6 To permit a side
• yard building setback of 1�' City Code requires 20' . SecjOn
il-U3, Subdivision 3, H, To permit 13 parking stalls (City
- ��.
would require 23 based on use of building floor area utilizati
—TTo -permit a side yard parking setback of 5' (City Code requires
.iv)_ — —
Russ Smith appeared to represent Ray Sedlak in presenting the variance.
He explained that the variance had been applied for last year and was
granted; but that an extension for another year was needed. The work
had not been done because the State had not come that far yet with the
road work in the area. The State has said that they will be done within
the next 12 months.
Freemyer felt that the reason for this extension was a valid one.
MOTION: H Anderson moved that the Board approve the extension of
Variance 88-60 for another year. Arockiasamy seconded the
motion and it passed unanimously.
F. Request #88-61, submitted �y Marilyn Schoonover for property located
at 18600 Duck Lake Trail, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is
for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section .03,
Subdivision 2, to permit construction of a detached garage 1' from a
• side lot line. City Code require'in the Rural Zoning District
Marilyn Schoonover appeared to present -her variance request. She explained that
she had lived at the site for 14 years. She had held off building the garage
because of the orchard and the fact that she has respect for the architecture
of the older farm home. She had not wanted to put up a new structure right
next to the home. Her concern was that she did not want the structure too
close to the home and did not want to remove trees in the orchard. She would
like to come in only 7' with the garage instead of the required 10' to
maintain the home and orchard as they are.
Arockiasamy asked questions concerning the plans for the streets in the area.
Johnson answered that they were laid out now as they would be in the future.
The City does still maintain Old Duck Lake Trail.
Freemyer asked if the garage were set back the required 101 , would trees
be lost?
Schoonover answered that there would be some lost.
Akemann asked which trees would be lost and asked Schoonover to identify them
on the drawing.
Schoonover did identify the specific trees.
. Arockiasamy asked what the size of the garage was.
Schoonover answered that it was 20' wide and 22' deep.
Akemann felt that there was not enough information to make a decision at this time.
... . ... ._.
7
Schoonover asked if there would be a problem if the trees were not involved.
• Harvey felt the garage could be brought 3' closer to the home witho t detracting
from it. r
Schoonover said her concern was the impact of the new garage on an old home.
The size could not be decreased because it is the standard 2 stall garage.
Johnson noted that according to the diagram, the garage was the same
dimensions on each side--it could possibly be 20' by 20' .
Harvey noted that in an earlier letter to the Board, Schoinover said she
could live with a 10' setback.
Schoonover said that she thought that the measurements were 10' , but that she
had been 3' off, so it was actually 7' .
Harvey told Schoonover that she was choosing to leave the property in the
rural zoning district. This requires a 30' setback. He is trying to justify
coming down to 10'--to go an extra 3' is an even bigger step. He asked
Johnson if the taxes differed in rural and residential districts.
Johnson answered that the Assessor would probably assess the property
according to use--probably residential.
Arockiasamy asked if there was any input from the audience.
There was none.
• Arockiasamy said the garage scales to 20' by 201 . His tendency would be
to keep the setback to 10' . The size of the garage could be reduced and it
could be moved slightly. He felt more specific details were needed.
Harvey said he could not go with a setback of 7' . He did not feel that one
tree was enough hardship. Others have had to maintain a 10' setback. He
did not feel the situation was unique as to justify a variance.
Schoonover said it was an aesthetic variance.
Akemann asked Schoonover to verify that the garage had not been built.
She said it had not been built.
H Anderson said to Schoonover that she could prepare a stronger case and
come back before the Board in January.
Arockiasamy said hardship is a strong factor in determining variances, In this
situation; there was not enough of a hardship to sway the Board. If the
request is voted on this evening, it will probably not pass.
Freemyer asked if the property had been surveyed.
Schoonover said it had been surveyed and she knew where the line was located.
Freemyer said he would like more information.
Arockiasamy said that personal preference is not a good reason for as variance.
8
Schoonover requested that the Variance request be continued until January 12th.
Akemann explained the difference in the 30' , 10' , and 7' setbacks.
MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board continue the Varian Request
88-61 until the January 12the meeting. Akemann seconded the motion
and it passed unanimously.
G. Request #88-62, submitted � Carl L. Perkins for property located at
998 Dell Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a
variance from City Code, Later 11, Section 17.03, Subdivision 2B,
to ermit a deck addition 13' from a rear lot line. City Code
re wires a 25' rear and tes back.
Carl Perkins appeared to present the variance. He explained that he wanted to
remove the existing deck and replace it with a larger one. This deck would
be 13' from the lot line instead of the 25' where the previous one had been
located.
Arockiasamy asked if the existing deck was non-conforming.
Perkins said he felt it must be, although he did not know that before.
Arockiasamy asked how wide the deck is that is there now.
Perkins answered that the existing deck is 10' by 12' . He said that the
deck was built about 15 years ago, and he had not been aware that the
deck was non-conforming.
• Freemyer asked if Perkins was aware of Staff alternatives.
Perkins answered that the alternative presented would not give any shade.
Harvey asked if the patio door was 6' from the corner of the house.
Perkins answered that it was 12' from the corner of the house. (He showed
the Board the original plans for the home)
Arockiasamy asked for input from the audience.
There was none.
MOTION: Akemann moved that the Board approve Variance request 88-62
as submitted. The unique circumstances were that there was
already a non-conforming deck and the deck is not in view of
another structure. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
H. Re uest #88-63, submitted �y Bohl/Helgeson Development Corporation
C/O Project Developers, Inc. for property located at 16428 and 16 10
Ellerdale Lane, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a
variance from Cjty Code Cha ter 11, Section 11.03, Subdivision 2B_
TETTo ermit a 2r.42�front yard setback for lot 48. City Code
• requires 301 . � To permit a 24.72' front yard setback for Lot 50.
City Code requires 20' .
Terry Schneider appeared to present the variance request. He explained
that the project was a 68 unit townhouse development that they had been
9
developing for the last year. During the development process, the units
had been changed from 6 units to 4 units and at the Council's request
they had turned the units away from the road. They did not want them
• parallel to the road, but instead angled them to get into the des red
setback with the garages. The City had asked that they add 4' to ach
lot (after the plat had been approved)--they did that and went ah ad
and developed the area. Planning had said maybe it is only technicallly
20' from the property line, but it is only 40' from Crosstown right of
way. A. $40,000 sound barrier is being constructed that will be 10-14' high.
Arockiasamy asked questions concerning the setback.
Johnson answered that the setback was from the property line on the north side.
Schneider said he would like a variance from the north property line. He showed
the Board a map and explained the layout.
H Anderson asked if the wall was a part of PUD.
Johnson answered that it was part of PUD.
MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve variance request 88-63
citing the unique circumstances that the developer has turned
the units to make them more livable near the Crosstown.
Arockiasamy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
• None
V. NEW BUSINESS
Memo regarding starting time of meetings•
No Action
Memo regarding establishment of a 7 member versus a 9 member Board
Arockiasamy felt that 9 members were too much because it takes too long and
each member assumes that there will be enough present for a quorum.
Harvey said that there were 9 on the Board now and each member should be
able to participate again if they desire.
Arockiasamy said it could continue as is until a vacancy arises.
H Anderson said he will not continue after January. He feels that Lyn Dean
will not continue either.
ARockiasamy said with that assumption, it could be suggested to the Council
to cut the membership to 7.
Akemann said he agreed.
• MOTION: H Anderson moved that a recommendation be sent to the Council
to reduce membership to 7 members. Harvey seconded the motion
and it passed unanimously.
10
• VI. ADJOURNN=
MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board adjourn. Arockiasamy seconded the
motion and it passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
•
•