HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 09/10/1992 • APPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1992 7:30 P.M., CITY HALL COUNCIL
CHAMBERS, 7600 EXECUTIVE
DRIVE
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344
BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: HARVEY(Chaimm),ARGUE, WEEKS,
EEMYER, WILKUS, ANDERSON
STAFF PRESENT: JEAN JOHNSON, PLANNING
SHARON STORHOLM, SECRETARY
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: AIMANN
I. CALL TO ORDER -- ROLL CALL
• Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. Roll call was taken as
noted above.
H. MINUTES OF AUGUST 13, 1992 MEETING
Harvey noted that on the page 10,(above the motion) where he had spoken, the words
"need to" should be deleted.
MOTION: Argue moved that the Board approve the minutes of the August 13,
1992 meeting with the correction noted by Harvey. Wilkus second the
motion and the motion passed 5-0 with Anderson abstaining.
III. VARIANCES
A. Request #92-019 by Michael and Jill Shaylik of 7353 Williams Lane to
allow an 11 foot front yard setback for a deck facing_Wffllaws Lane (a 25
font setback is mguired) and A 11.5 foot setback to the private access drive
for the same deck (a 15 foot setback is_mquired).
The Shavliks requested a one month continuance.
MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board continue Variance Request 92-021 to
the October meeting. Wilkus seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 1
B. ><tgguest #92-021 by Mark and Mary Drew of 10140 Meade Lane to allow
• the existing ruck to remain at A 5 font setback (14 foot required)! and the
existing shed at a 6 foot setback (10 foot mguiredh w construction for
a walkway and stairs within 10.5 feet of the side lot line.
Mark Drew presented the variance request. To clarify that the patio doors were a part
of the original structure, he presented the blueprints from 1986 which showed these
doors. He said that he had met with Johnson a couple of times in order to come up
with a different plan or proposal. The criteria is to retain as much deck as possible
and still be sensitive to Koloski's issue to retain some degree of privacy. He discussed
his proposal as follows: Some of the deck will be removed and the stairway down
from the french doors. The stairs to the deck and other rear door are important. This
floor does not have a first floor family room and the basement area will need to be
finished. The window areas are already roughed in. A deck could be put on the very
end, but it would be about a 10' drop and would exaggerate the Koloski's view of the
deck. His intention was to get some privacy and he had tried to step the deck back in
order to reduce the obtrusiveness. A screened fence area had been suggested and
hopefully, this could alleviate the Koloski's view of the deck. The third page of the
information shows approximately what this would look like. The second stairs is a
matter of balance rather than function and is optional.
Argue asked about the screening regarding item A3.
Drew said it would be some sort of fencing made of the same type of siding as the
house or possibly a woven material.
Freemyer asked if Drew would prefer to not put up the screening.
Drew answered that he agreed with Johnson's suggestion and felt that it would be
best. The area is pretty wide open and it would be beneficial.
Mrs Drew came forward with a mock-up of the home, deck and storage area
structures. She set it up to show the existing situation and the proposed situation.
Grade level was also indicated.
Harvey asked if the retaining wall would be kept.
Drew answered that it would be kept.
Harvey asked if the shed was built on top of the retaining wall.
Drew answered that it was built on the retaining wall. This shed is not free standing -
it is not movable. The second set of plans would remove 5' of the deck and shed. The
proposed deck and stairs would be the same.
Harvey asked if the shed would be removed with the first proposal.
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 2
• Drew said that he expected that the Board would want that. He would prefer to have
it, and will try to improve it, regardless.
Johnson said that she had a conversation with the representative of the Koloski's and
faxed them a copy of the plan for the B drawing. Koloski has this drawing.
Freemyer asked if Drew preferred alternative A. Would alternative B remove the
shed?
Drew said he did prefer alternative A, and with alternative B the shed would be
removed.
Weeks asked if the shed were to be removed, what would Drew do with the contents.
Drew said he would make outside storage somewhere. The contents are mostly
firewood.
Harvey asked how many feet above grade the french doors were.
Drew answered that they were about 6-7 feet above grade and that the back door was
about 10' above grade.
Harvey said that he felt that a french or patio door does not entitle one to feel that it
should be an exit from the home. Some use it as opposed to large windows. He said
he was not in favor of the walkway.
Mr. Koloski spoke regarding the issue of the hardship that had been cited: The
previous owner had built a patio of blocks and Drew had removed it. There are no
requirements on setbacks for free standing patios. There was a plan for those doors
and Drew chose to alter the plans. He is opposed to any variances at all. The shed
was added after Drew knew it was over the line and in violation of code. He had been
told by Drew that this would be a temporary shed and that is not the case. It would be
easy enough to comply with code - the deck could be towards the kitchen windows. It
would still be of good size, even if it were cut back. Compliance is best. He said that
he had to comply with regulations and everyone should do that. He requested that the
Board not grant the variances. A patio could be placed by the french doors using patio
blocks, etc, as had been done previously.
Drew asked if a raised patio structure is considered to have the same setback
requirements as a deck.
Johnson answered that the grade can be raised, and then no variance would be
required. Staff would need to review that to insure proper drainage.
• Freemyer noted that if a retaining wall is required, then it is raising grade.
Argue asked when the home was built, when Drew took possession and when area
outside the french doors had been removed.
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 3
• Drew answered that it had been built in 1986, he took possession in 1989, and he
estimated that the area outside the french doors had been removed about 1 1/2 years
ago. The shed had been put under the deck one year ago. He had discovered that it
did not meet code requirements one year after he lived there when Koloski's lot was
laid out. He said no survey had been done when he purchased the home.
Argue asked Koloski when he built the home he was living in.
Koloski answered that he had moved in last November, but had bought the lot three
years before.
Argue asked Koloski if he knew what was there (on Drew's property) at the time.
Koloski answered yes, he knew what was there and had no problem with the deck or
patio at that time. The shed had triggered it.
Argue asked if when Koloski purchased the lot and built the home he was aware of
the sight lines.
Koloski answered that he was aware of the sight lines, but there was only the deck at
that point.
• Harvey asked Koloski if Drew were to remove the shed, would the existing deck be
acceptable?
Koloski answered no, it would not be acceptable.
Harvey asked what had changed Koloski's opinion.
Koloski said it was lots of things - he had tried to keep them under control for a
number of years. He is not open minded about it anymore. He had felt violated. They
had spoken about the deck being in violation and Drew had gone right ahead and built
the shed.
Freemyer felt that if Drew did not have a hardship, no one would have (in the time
period since he began his term on the Board.)A person would naturally purchase
property assuming that everything is to code. Regarding plan B, the shed underneath
would be removed. In character, it is an identical structure outside as it was
originally. The neighbor admits that the structure that existed originally was
somewhat O.K./acceptable. He suggested that the Board approve Alternative B. There
are no damaged parties in this case when one considers things in chronological order.
Weeks felt that the proponent has made a reasonable attempt to rectify the problem.
The former timber wall patio would have required a railing anyway. This proposal is
• not greatly different than what would have been required. He would recommend
Alternative B.
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 4
• Harvey said the structure was altered and they would be adding to the problem. A
variance is being created. French doors or patio doors do not give the right to a deck
there.
Drew said that the patio that was there was built a year or two later. He said that he
remembered that he did tell Koloski that this was a temporary situation and so will
disassemble the shed and withdraw the request for a variance on it. Drew presented
the original blueprints for the Board's review after Argue requested to see them.
MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board approve Alternative B for Variance
Request 92-021, which details removal of a section of deck and
addition of another deck on the side of the house in the general location
of the french doors. The hardship is the pre-existing condition of the
deck and the retaining wall area (originally allowed a grade exit). The
proponent has offered trade-offs (removal of part of the deck for the
addition of decking near the french doors). The structure is in the same j
character as the pre-existing patio area. The shed will be removed. The
existing deck shall be brought up to standards determined by the city.
The proponent will need to apply for a building permit and has a one
year time frame in which to complete the deck modification and
removal of the shed. Argue seconded the motion and it passed 5-1 with
Harvey opposed.
Harvey stated that his opposition was because of the additional deck off the side of
the house.
C. R r of 8307 Hiawatha
permit a garage addition 8' 4" from the side lot line (10 foot required).
Mr Helmer was at the meeting to answer any question from the Board. He said that
the addition would be to store his boat and snowmobiles so they are not eyesores to
the neighbors. No tree removal would be necessary and there would be no window in
the third stall. The neighbors's pool would be next to the proposed structure.
Johnson said that the property is in an R1-13.5 district. The minimum setback would
be 10. Mr. Helmer would like a third garage stall. It would be 8'4" from the lot line.
There have been no comments from those who were notified. The proponent has
spoken to the neighbors also.
Freemyer asked what the hardship was in this situation.
Helmer answered that he needed storage for his boat, snowmobiles, and power tools.
Wilkus asked if there was a city ordinance for outside storage of vehicles.
Johnson answered that there was such an ordinance - a ten foot setback on the side or
rear lot lines and no more than 12' in height.
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 5
PPS �
Argue asked about the possibility of another structure for storage.
Helmer said he would not want to put any structure in the back yard. He now stores
these items in that area. The storage area could not be put in the back of the garage
because there is a deck there now.
Harvey said he needed some help in determining a hardship. Is the use of the property
denied? Were the circumstances created by some other party than the proponent? Are
you taking outside storage and moving it inside?
Helmer answered that he was doing that. He would be coming into the setback by
1'8".
Argue felt that the additional structure would be compatible.
Freemyer said that there was a trade off. Often boats standing outside can be
objectionable to the neighbors.
MOTION: Weeks moved that the Board approve Variance Request 92-022 as
submitted with the modifications that the garage addition conform to the
architectural style, site line, material, color, etc. The fence shall be
restored between the building addition and the property line. A
• restriction shall be placed on additional outside storage. The proponent
is making a good faith effort to provide enclosure that requires a 1'8"
variance. Wilkus seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
D. Emuest #92-025 by HQA DevelQUment Company for proRrty at 14301
West 62nd Street. The request is for:
Variances from Shoreland
1 Expand a non-conforming use.
25' setback to existing accessory building (150' required).
45' setback to existing burg (150' required).
85' setback to new proposed building (150' required)
All from Ordinary High Water level.
2 Zero foot setback for impervious surface to Ordinary High Water
level (50' required),
piing of a lot 1.89 acres in size (5 acres required).
4 45% impervious surface (30% max n um).
Variances from I-2 District
1 Allow existing building to remain with a 5' setback to east side lot
line (20' required).
2. Hard-surface a parking lot area 6' from the east side lot line (10'
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 6
rmquired)
Pbtft of an industrial lot 1.89 acres in size ( 2 acres required)
4 Allow 64% exterior buil ins materials of metal (25% maximum
required by Code),
Front yard setback of 25' for parking (50' reauired)
Brad Hoyt came forward to present the Variance Request and stated that he was in the
unusual position of asking for a record number of variances. Most of the variance
requests were driven by existing conditions. The location was a welding establishment
prior to this time. There is a two car garage on the property and a series of concrete
and metal structures at the rear of the property. Gary Hilman had been the owner and
had operated his business out of the back yard. In 1988, he had applied to tear down
all the existing structures and build a new building. This request is to connect the
existing family home to the existing metal structure to the rear. This would not be any
closer to the Shoreland setback than previously. They desire to upgrade the property.
The operator runs a high end auto repair business. The other part of the structure is
custom fabrication business for television props. The building used for auto repair
service is not in compliance with code, but is grandfathered in. All automotive work
would be done in the new addition. The house portion would be completely
remodeled and the hip roof would be removed and made into a flat roof. The house is
now flagstone and stucco. This siding would be removed and material to match the
addition would be added. The percentage of non-conforming materials may seem
• high, but the present non-conforming percentage is 100%. Areas that will not
conform will not be visible from the front,but will face the creek. Areas of the site
are low, but have never had any standing water. The culvert has recently been
reconstructed, and he said he was not sure of what effect that would have. A scenic
easement would be granted. Presently, the property is unpaved with no storm sewer.
Class five gravel is the road material there at this time. The proposal is to pave across
that gravel and the parking area will be pulled back. The home will be vacated and
will be used as a customer lounge and parking area. There will be a window looking
over the service area. All uses will be in conformance with code and it will be
updated to fire code. The home is hooked up to sanitary sewer now. The proposal
would take an eyesore and improve it. In the next stage, there will be another addition
to the property. The steel building will be removed then. In the second phase, the
grade would be lowered and a parking area would be removed. There is a retaining
wall of approximately five feet on the property now. This proposal is a good
compromise. All but one of the variances are driven by existing conditions. The entire
lot is within the shoreland setback. The most important issue is that there is an
uncontrolled discharge of water now and with this proposal, this would be controlled
and the trees will be preserved. The proponent is willing to agree to landscaping
requirements.
Johnson said that Hoyt had covered the background on the proposal. She outlined a
previous proposal on the property which had not been utilized and had lapsed. The
• proposal is for a 13% floor area ratio, which is not a heavy use. This is a difficult
site to develop. She anticipates that more water will flow through the area in the
future. The scenic easement is a new item (from the previous proposal). Post and
cable or landscaping could be used to prevent dumping in the area. Notices were sent
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 7
to neighbors, but no comments were received. The Planning Commission
recommended approval.
Hoyt said that they would like to get block up to grade before the ground freezes. The
grade of the highway in this area will be higher than it is now. Signage will be on a
stucco band on the front of the building in compliance with City code. These changes
will serve as an impetus for development in the area as the image will be upgraded.
The alternate is the existing condition, which is a blight.
Harvey asked if the roof top sign would be gone.
Hoyt answered yes, it would be removed.
Weeks had a concerns regarding storm water run off.
Hoyt answered that all the run off would be captured in the storm water system.
Anderson asked about the time frame for the structure indicated in orange on the
drawing.
Hoyt answered that the changes for that structure should be within a couple of years,
based upon what he has seen.
Anderson said she was glad to see that someone was trying to improve the property.
Freemyer asked if the structure on the west was a free standing garage.
Hoyt answered yes, it was a 2 1/2 car garage. One door had been removed and it has
been resided. The area would change from three buildings to two buildings.
Freemyer asked about the run off concept.
Hoyt answered that presently the street drains into the parking lot. In the first phase,
the area will be paved and all run off from the site will be controlled. It would be a
waste of money to install curb and gutter now--it would only be removed in the
second phase.
Freemyer felt it would be better to take the southerly metal building down now.
Hoyt described the building's construction and noted what changes would be made.
He noted that one half of the existing metal exposure would be gone on one building.
Freemyer asked what if the second phase never happens. He would like some
reassurance.
Hoyt answered that they are trying to do as much as can be done with the amount of
business the proponent has. He said he cannot predict for the owner. The inside of the
building is nice, but the outside is not. If it were torn down, it would need to be
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 8
• replaced elsewhere. The owner cannot finance these improvements, because it costs
about twice as much to build as it would be worth when it is done. That does not
make a whole lot of sense. The owner is taking money out of his pocket to improve
the site. This part of the improvement will cost about $150,000. One cannot predict
who will be elected or who will buy Mercedes in the future. It would be cleaner to
link the metal building with any future request.
Johnson said it would be ideal to see 100% conformance, but this site has so many
non-conforming aspects. The building could be linked to future requests.
Harvey said he was familiar with the site and asked if there are any windows in the
metal building.
Hoyt answered no, there were none, but there were windows in the second concrete
building.
Harvey asked if the proponent would be willing to add some windows to the Butler
type building.
Hoyt said that it then would become a security issue. The windows could be placed
high, but on the south wall of the building is a 4' catwalk for access to stored belts,
etc.
Harvey asked if the face block on the existing home and the addition would be the
same.
Hoyt answered yes.
Harvey said he liked the idea of adding the SE shed as a condition to any future
request and that in the future, all should comply with exterior materials requirements.
Freemyer said he would like to deny all the requests as he felt it falls short and
misses the mark. This is many variances on one small piece of property.
Freemyer said the proponent has the option to go to the Council. He felt it was a
overuse of property that close to the watershed. He cannot see a trade off, even
though it would be an improvement. Some of the requests do not apply to pre-existing
conditions, such as the impervious surface.
Hoyt said if the surface was pervious, it would be pervious to gas and oil as well as
water.
MOTION: Wilkus moved that the Board approve Variance Request 92-025 which
would approve all variances requested. The trade off cited is that the
• owner is trying to improve the property and to bring it into
conformance with code. The Shoreland Ordinance was passed after the
property was put into this type of use. The hardship cited is the existing
lot shape and configuration. The water run off into Nine Mile Creek
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 9
• will be controlled through a drainage pond and filter system.
Conditions are that landscaping plans be coordinated with the City Staff
and that non-conforming building materials be covered up. Opportunity
to deny or pass future requests can be can be linked to the building in
question. The approval shall include the provision that the proponent
provide a scenic conservation easement to the City. Anderson seconded
the motion.
Weeks suggested an amendment to state that all conditions in the Staff report be
complied with.
Wilkus and Anderson accepted the amendment.
Freemyer felt that the motion infers that the Board is approving pre-existing
conditions and some of the conditions are not pre-existing.
Wilkus said that the only non pre-existing condition was the impervious surface
condition and run off will be improved by the sedimentation pond and oil skimmer.
Motion passed 5-1 with Freemyer opposed.
E. Request #92-026 by Craig and Susan Edwards of 18625 Jacques Court.
The aquest is to permit the construction of a deck within 23 feet of a
front pr=rty lien (30 feet required).
Mrs Edwards came forward to present the Variance Request. She explained that they
are a corner lot. When they came in for a building permit, they found out about the
30' distance requirement from front property lines. They have sliding glass doors on
the dining room and these are 3 112 feet from the ground. The home is narrow from
the front view and a deck would enhance it from the outside. The deck on the back is
a long ways from the kitchen in the front. They would like a deck on the side closer
to the dining room and kitchen. There is shade in that area in the afternoon and the
back deck is sunny all the time. They had met with the neighbors and all were in
favor of the deck. They have a petition signed by the neighbors favoring the deck.
They have an affidavit from the Realtor that they were not informed of the problem
when they bought the home. The corner lot causes problems. They showed photos of
the area in question. There is a home in the neighborhood that already has a deck less
than 30' from the line.
Mr Edwards said that they are on a drive through road, but it is not a major highway.
There are no sidewalks in the area and there will be landscaping done to enhance the
deck area. The neighbors are in consensus. The builder had made no comment on a
future deck when they bought the home.
• Johnson said that in R1-13.5 district, the front yard set back is 30' (from both front
yard property lines)-- in this case, there are two front yard property lines.
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 10
• Weeks asked if the Builder portrayed a deck on the plans or if they had questioned
the builder on the grade.
Mr. Edwards answered no, there was no indication of a deck on the plans, and no,
there was snow on the ground at the time an the grading was done three months after
they were in the house.
Weeks asked if landscaping would be done if this variance were to be granted. He
also asked why the proponent had not wanted a stairway and a patio at grade level.
Mrs. Edwards said that landscaping would be done and if the grade level option were
necessary, they would probably look at putting in a privacy fence in that case. The
area is not flat for concrete.
Harvey suggested the use of landscape timbers and steps in order to create landings
from the door to the ground.
Weeks suggested the possibility that the deck be straight across, 4' out from the house
and step down to grade.
Weeks felt that there were other alternatives, i.e., a landing and stairs to the ground
and tree plantings to shade the other deck.
Argue said that these things are unfair to the homeowner that doors are installed and
owners are not always aware what can be built. This is seen all the time to keep
costs down for homeowners. He felt that this could be a hardship. The design is
commendable, rather than a straight line deck.
Anderson asked about the other house in the area that had been mentioned.
Johnson answered that it was on Chenault and Barrington. It was a detached platform,
somewhat at grade. It is not attached to the house and is less than 30" high and did
not require a building permit.
Freemyer asked if the Edwards had lived here while the home was being built.
Edwards said they lived in a hotel in Bloomington. The house was framed and roofed.
Someone had bought it and had backed out. They never saw the actual plans, but only
the floor plans.
Freemyer suggested that possibly the builder made a twelve course basement instead
of 11.
Harvey said that code requires a certain amount of light in a room. The builder may
• have installed the patio doors so that the light requirement would be met. Patio or
french doors do not necessarily mean access to the outside. The lot is a large lot and
has two front yards. It is a nice lot, a large lot, but has some restrictions. There is an
existing deck, which can be enlarged. A stairway could be put off the patio doors (or
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 11
• a walkway) that would lead back to the other deck. Compliance is possible without a
variance.
Brian Cosbou of 18587 Chenault Way (neighbor to the side) asked if a patio or a
fence to the project line were acceptable.
Harvey answered that they were within code guidelines.
Cosbou noted that code requires a certain amount of distance from lot lines. To the
north is an example of a home where there is only 5' of distance - what is the
reasoning?
Johnson answered that there were different zoning districts and setbacks. A 30 foot
front setback maintains uniform open space. Decks are to conform to the same
setback. Over time decks may convert to porches or full enclosed room structures.
Harvey said that fencing retains the green space.
Cosbou answered that it is retained only for those who live there.
Pat Caphesky of 18654 Chenault said that when he bought his home, it was an
implied usage. The builder implied it and the city implied it.
Harvey said that such doors do not imply a deck - it could be an exit with a landing
and then down to grade.
Caphesky felt that a walkway would only deteriorate the house. The neighbors are
here this evening and are in favor of the request. He could see no reason to deny this
request - it would be fanatical.
Sally Boden, a Realtor, believed it is an implied use. Most buyers would assume that
they would have access to a nice deck in that area. It was the Edwards intention when
they bought it.
Sandy Peterson of 18573 Chenault Way (across the street) noted that the grade of the
home is different - block work determines the final grade. If that is done incorrectly,
why do these people have to suffer for the mistake? Now there is a four foot drop and
it is unusable as it is. It looks stupid now. At what point is it the Edwards problem,
the builders problem or an inspection process problem?
Johnson said it meets requirements. Many changes are made during the process of
construction that alter from a plan but still conform to regulations.
Harvey felt that a solution could be made for this problem that is within code.
• Hardships are hard to define. This Board needs to consistently apply city code, not
only for the neighbors now, but for future neighbors and other neighborhoods.
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 12
• Sandy Peterson said that just a set of stairs would not look good in the area of the
doors.
Pat Caphesky said that a 4' sliding glass door is not needed for a stairs. A deck would
look much better and is more pleasing than timbers.
Harvey stated that a patio can be installed at grade level with the use of timbers,
decorative block or planter units.
Caphesky said that is was their neighborhood now and they would like to have it
aesthetically pleasing.
Sally Boden said there was a problem of decreased value for the home. Realtors
would have to inform any prospective buyer that they cannot build a deck there.
Mrs. Edwards said they are asking to improve the looks of the property.
Mr. Edwards felt that the neighbors who are living in the area have a big impact on
the decision(as in the other request this evening regarding a deck) - these neighbors
should have impact also.
Wilkus said that the variance had been reduced in that case. That proponent will
• remove 5' of an existing deck that was not constructed by him. Could it be reduced in
this case also?
Mr. Edwards said that when he came down to get a permit to build the deck, he had
found out about the problem.
Freemyer said that a design change could cut the variance amount nearly in half.
Ron Johansen, the architect, asked if Freemyer was referring to cutting off the 3'
extension. This would take away from the aesthetics.
Mr Edwards asked if there was a target area that the Board was concerned about.
What direction should he take?
Weeks said that there are options. It may be prudent to come back and present
alternatives. You know what the constraints are - put ideas and constraints together
and come back and the Board will reconsider. He said that he was an architect also
and understands what the Edwards are trying to accomplish here. The Board has to
address the ordinances.
Cosbou asked how the ordinances could be changed. He could not fathom why a
concrete patio would be allowed, but not a deck.
• Freemyer said it was not in the charter of the Board to second guess ordinances. The
City can be petitioned for changes.
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 13
• Mrs. Edwards noted that the house on Chenault Way and Barrington (unattached
deck),If there was a stairway and the decking on the ground, would that be
acceptable?
Johnson said plans could be submitted for review.
Mr Edwards said he was totally naive - he could have asked for a much larger deck,
and then reduced it. Instead, he brought a deck plan that was reasonable and then is
still asked to shrink it up. It seems as if he should have started with a larger request.
Why are letters sent to neighbors if their opinion is not important? He got a clear
sense that the opinions of the neighbors are not important.
Mrs. Edwards said that they had applied in July - it is now two months later. This has
been disconcerting for them.
Harvey said that the reason that Eden Prairie is the community that it is, relates to the
consistency of the City and the various regulations.
Mrs Edwards said that there is inconsistency within neighborhoods (zoning and
setbacks).
Harvey said that this Board needs to deal with the issue at hand.
Argue asked where the code of ethics was (that would require disclosure of this) when
the Edwards bought the property?
These people have a case with the Builder and the Real Estate Agent. He had trusted
his agent when he bought his home. This deck would enhance the neighborhood.
MOTION: Argue moved that the Board approve Variance Request 92-026 as
presented with the hardship cited as potential misrepresentation by the
agent and the builder and potential loss of value of the home. Anderson
seconded the motion.
** Vote below, after continued discussion.
Freemyer said that State statutes say that the criteria for hardship for a variance is
that reasonable use of the property is denied. He felt the hardship needed to be
defined using that guideline.
Cosbou said that there are not absolutes, there will always be exceptions.
Mr.Edwards agreed that there was possible misrepresentation.
• Harvey said that there are alternatives:
1. Ask for a vote. If denied, it can be appealed to Council within 15 days.
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 14
2. Request a continuance in order to present alternate designs and
reduceteliminate variance.
3. Withdraw the request.
Harvey noted that tie votes are considered losses.
Argue noted that the deck that was discussed earlier was continued from last month's
meeting.
Mr. Edwards said he has already gone from July to August to September. He is not
asking for compassion - he considered himself just a regular guy. This is costing
money and time and patience.
Freemyer said that the City Council can also make decisions on variances
Anderson said that she can identify with this situation. The proposal looks good. The
proponent tried to be conservative and not extravagant. That is an important point.
This is an issue of fairness. Others have come and the neighborhood was against it.
This Board needs to struggle to figure out a solution. She said she appreciated
Edwards conservatism. There have been similar cases in the past that the Council has
held up or overturned. She told the Edwards that they should not hesitate to discuss it
• with the Council.
Harvey said that depreciation cannot be the only factor cited as a hardship.
Mr Edwards decided that he would request a vote.
** Vote on Variance Request 92-026.
Motion was denied 2-4 with Anderson and Argue in favor and the rest opposed.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. MIDWEST ASPHALT SAND PILE
Wilkus asked about the large sand pile on this site.
Johnson said that it was recycled roadways.
B. GUIDELINES FOR EXTRA MEETINGS
MOTION: Wilkus moved that the guidelines be discussed at the next meeting.
Weeks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 15
C. VARIANCE ON KURTZ LAND
Freemyer was concerned about the previous variance for this site deteriorating. He
felt that there was a problem with the safety of a conduit at the site. A complaint
should be made.
Johnson said it would be referred to the electrical inspector.
D. LARGE "FOR SALE" SIGN AT FACTORY OUTLET CENTER
Anderson noted a large for sale sign that said owned by Manufacturers Hanover of
New York.
Johnson noted that it is non-conforming. Leasing signs should be at only 32 square
feet.
V. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Wilkus moved that the Board adjourn. Argue seconded the motion and
it passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 11:22 P.M.
S9EPMIN
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals --- 16