Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 08/13/1992 r APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 1992 7:30 P.M. , CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: HARVEY(Chairman) ,ARGUE(arrived at 7:45) , WEEKS, FREEMYER, WILKUS, ANDERSON, AKEMANN STAFF PRESENT: JEAN JOHNSON, PLANNING SHARON STORHOLM, SECRETARY BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: ANDERSON I. CALL OR ORDER - ROLL CALL -- PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. The Pledge of Allegiance was spoken and roll call was taken as noted above. II. MINUTES OF JULY 9,1992 MEETING Wilkus noted that on the last page, he had not seconded the motion. Weeks had seconded it. MOTION: Weeks moved that the Board approve the minutes as amended. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed 4-0 with Akemann abstaining. III. VARIANCES Harvey explained the variance procedure and order for the benefit of those in the audience. A. Request is for a variance to Permit a deck 3 feet from the rear lot line. Code requires a 20 foot _setback. Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Subdivision 3. , Table I. Coleman Griffing was not in attendance to present the request. Johnson said that she had tried to contact him unsuccessfully and suggested that the public hearing be closed with no prejudice. MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board close the public hearing 1 i • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 13, 1992 for Variance Request 92-015 without prejudice. Akemann seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. B. Request #91-017 by Wooddale Church of 6630 shady Oak Road for Rermission to install 4 on-site directional signs totaling 234 scruare feet (Code maximum is 36 square feet) . one sign is 3 feet in width (Code maximum is 1 1/2 feet) . Two of the four signs are 10 feet in height (Code maximum is 8 feet) . Mr. Clarke came forward to present the variance request. He said that they had been having an extensive study on the parking and congestion problems at Wooddale Church for about two years. There is a large parking area in the back, but better signage is needed to direct people to that area. There is a large church school and a nursery and many non members use the facility. This proposal is suggesting four main signs. The original proposal had suggested 16 smaller signs, but these would have been blocked by cars.He showed a photo of a similar sign used at a nearby college and indicated the locations of the four proposed signs on the • lot. The committee had rethought the sign proposal and had come up with essentially the same proposal. They did feel that the square footage for the lettering should be figured in a different manner and he indicated this method on the diagrams he had furnished. *Argue arrived at 7:45 P.M. Clarke said that sign C is primarily only a Sunday sign and is placed in about 375' from the Bryant Lake entrance. It would have two faces and no lighting. Sign D would be located in the back of the property about 550' from Bryant Lake rear entrance. Photos had been taken from the corner of Shady Oak Road. The sign on the picture would hardly be visible until you get within 100' of it. If it is shorter, the purpose would be defeated.He explained the size of the signs in relation to the size of the cars. Weeks asked if the area near the signs would be landscaped. Clarke answered that the landscaping would be done at some time in the future. Not right at this time, though. Harvey asked Clarke how he felt the signage should be measured. • 2 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 13, 1992 Clarke answered that it should be done the same as one would measure signage on a building. One measures the verbiage and not the whole wall. The proposal this evening presents the signs in essentially the same form, but the print area would be limited to the areas shown above the white line on the drawings. Harvey asked if he was correct when saying that the only change would be that sign B would be reduced by 12 Sq. ft. and Clarke's interpretation of how to determine the signage area. The City does not agree with Clarke's interpretation of how to measure signage. Johnson suggested that the Board could put a condition on the signs if it wished to do so. Clarke said that to build a brick based sign would be very expensive. Johnson said that most of the items have been reviewed and that the church committee noted (in it's letter of July 22) • the difference in how to measure the signage. There have been no further conversations either for or against the variance request. Literally, the request is still for 234 Sq. Ft. Weeks had questions regarding the distance and lettering on sign A. Clarke answered that the distance from the road would be 530' and the lettering area would be 2 1/2' . He noted that it could be read from 100' away. If it were reduced to 81 , it could not be seen. In fact, three of the four signs could not be seen from the road. Weeks said he was concerned with sign B. The intent of the ordinance is to reduce the massiveness of the sign. Clarke noted that sign B is on an island. The snow in that area builds up to 5 to 6 feet. Wilkus said he felt it was hard not to approve this request as they have 31 acres and the ordinance is written for one acres, fast food sites. Akemann felt that there was nothing unique in this situation • and his concern was with setting a precedent. He felt there 3 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 13, 1992 were options such as berming. The parking area sounds adequate and it is the responsibility of the church to inform it's members of the areas available. Clarke answered that Akemann's comment was a good assumption for members and Sunday services.However, Sunday parking is not the problem. Many special events are held here and the people attending those are not familiar with the facility. Akemann suggested the use of a mobile lit sign. Clarke answered that this alternative does not look good. Why should the members stand outside and direct traffic when there is no connection to many of the groups that use the facility? There is no advertising on these signs, it is all directional signage. These signs are not directed at the membership. Akemann said that it is the Board's responsibility to reduce or eliminate the variance requests. There are alternatives in this situation. • Clarke said that the church has spent much money over a two year time frame in order to try to effectively utilize the parking areas. This solution was the consensus. The church is not wealthy and signs cost a lot of money. Non church people are the ones who need this parking direction. Argue said he was in favor of the request. He said that he has attended special events at the facility and on Sunday. There is a problem as people do not know where they are going. The proposed signage is tasteful and appropriate. A foot or two difference would not be obtrusive on sign B. This facility is rendering a service to the community and there will be landscaping added later to this signage. Freemyer felt that he could vote for the request and added that the hardship could be the safety issue. The site is large and not a lot would be gained by berming and reduction of the sign size. If one thinks of the total area of the site, it makes the request less overwhelming. Argue noted that sight lines are a problem and someone may get killed trying to cross Shady Oak. Harvey said that the objective of the signs is to direct • people to the parking area and doors. His concern was the 4 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 13, 1992 total square footage of the signs. The steeple does identify the worship center and he felt the directional signs to the gym, nursery and worship center could be eliminated. The sign frontages should be reduced. He was concerned with setting precedents. Argue noted that when he had gone to a concert, he could not find how to get into the worship center. Clarke noted that Hennepin Vo Tech School has nine signs totaling 116 sq. ft. Emergency vehicles almost always go to the wrong doors at the church. These proposed signs are only helping the community and the church would rather not be putting them up, but the objective is to satisfy the needs of the community. MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board approve Variance Request 92- 017 as stated on this evening's agenda wherein the break lines on the signs are depicted. The hardship is that there • is a safety issue for visitors to the church that are parking on street shoulders because they are unaware of the overflow parking area in the back. This situation is also a hardship for emergency vehicles. A mitigating circumstance is that this is a 31 acre site. Argue seconded the motion and it passed 4-2 with Harvey and Akemann voting against. C. Reguest #92-018 by Steven Meyer of 9162 Starring Lane East to allow a 35 foot front yard setback in a block where a 46 foot average front yard setback exists. Steven Meyer came forward to present the variance request. He explained that the area in question is like a giant doughnut with houses all around. There is a collection basin in the middle for storm water run off. The lot he has purchased slopes down into the basin area. He had assumed that the neighbor had a 5' variance. When he had filed for the permit, he was told that the setback is 461 . Engineering people from the City said they would prefer to have the home built at 35' and not farther back into the catch basin. If it were farther back, it would put the home into future jeopardy. Still, it would be 5' farther back from the street than the neighbor person. Johnson noted that the area has a large retention pond. The • average block situation applies in this instance. If he 5 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 13, 1992 builds father back, he would be like a peninsula into the pond area. The homeowner to the south has no opposition. Meyer noted that the only natural outlet is through evaporation. Freemyer asked Johnson if the staff recommends that the home be built at 35' because of a problem with the average set back situation. Johnson answered yes, that was correct. Wilkus asked what the district set back requirement was. Johnson answered that it was 301 . Akemann asked Meyer if he felt the hardship was topography of the land. Meyer answered that he believed that to be true. • Argue asked how large the home was, if there were trees in the area and if the lot was 1061 wide. Meyer answered that the home was 2100 sq. ft. , there were 2 small trees in the front, and the catch basin is a swamp. Meyer added that the lot was 106' wide. Harvey said he had no problem with the request since the Engineering Staff recommended approval. Chairman Harvey asked for comments from the audience and there were none. MOTION: Akemann moved that the Board approve Variance Request 92-018 to permit a 35' setback from the front yard. The hardship cited is the topography of the lot. Weeks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. D. Request #92-019 by Michael and Jill Shavlik of 7353 Williams Lane (a 25 foot setback is required) and a 11.5 foot setback to the private access drive for the same deck (a 15 foot setback is required) . • Mike and Jill Shavlik came forward to present the variance 6 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 13, 1992 request. They said that they were requesting approval for a variance for a deck that was 14' wide and 26' long. Two approval letters from the neighbors were submitted. This deck would face a street that is only half a block and could never be a full block because homes were built there. Shavlik showed photos of the area . Johnson said that this may be the first time the Board has dealt with a cluster home development in this respect. This is a 4-6 home development that shares a common driveway. A 25' setback is required to Lawrence and Williams Lane. The existing home is now at the setback line. Possibly the deck could be downsized or an at-grade patio could be installed with a fence. She provided photos of the street area and the letters from Susan Verdeen and Mary Renz along with the signatures of the Association members. Akemann felt that a unique hardship needed to be identified. Wilkus asked why the proponents were requesting this size for a deck. • Shavlik answered that at the present time, they are spending outside time in the driveway and would like to have a deck instead. They feel that they need this width. If this is granted, they will change a window to a door for access to the deck. Freemyer noted that two setback variances are required in this instance. Shavlik said that they do have the approval of all those who live in the cluster development. She explained to the Board the layout of the area by using the photos she had submitted. Freemyer felt that there was an option to eliminate one variance entirely. A hardship needs to be identified. Shavlik said that at the present time, they only have one fire escape as both existing doors are side by side. Weeks asked Shavlik if the options suggested by Staff had been unacceptable. Shavlik answered that this is a split entry home and they • would like to access the deck from the inside of the home at 7 Y Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 13, 1992 the same level. This would not be possible with a ground level patio. Regarding the size of the deck, they would like to be able to have a patio table and chairs there and still be able to move around. Weeks suggested a combination of a smaller deck and a patio. He said that he was having trouble finding a hardship in this instance. An attempt to reduce the variance should be made. Shavlik reminded the Board that this proposal had met the approval of the Association officers and also the approval of the four cluster home owners. In addition, this would be facing only a half block street and would not be interfering with the privacy of others in the neighborhood. Harvey commented that it may not be affecting the privacy of others now, but it may do so at some time in the future. Akemann noted that this home was built at the setback limits. No enlargements can be made. The home was not • designed for a deck. The amount of variance needs to be considered. A unique hardship needs to be cited. Shavlik said that when they purchased the home, they assumed that they could remove a window and put a deck in that area. Akemann reminded Shavlik that economic issues cannot be considered as hardships. Harvey said that he agreed with Akemann. Cluster homes have advantages and also limitations. There is no room for expansion. The intended use of the home would not be not denied if this variance were turned down. Shavlik noted that many cluster homes do have decks. Harvey answered that they may not have been built at the setback. Argue had questions concerning the rear yard and street locations on the plat plans. Razmpour Bohmar came forward from the audience and said that he lived across the street at 7371 Williams Lane and he had no objections to the request. He felt that the fire escape • problem presented a hardship. 8 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 13, 1992 Harvey said that State Fire Codes are being met as windows are considered exits. Argue said that he saw a problem for the Shavliks, but that the Board also has a problem. He suggested considering a continuance. Shavlik said that in this instance, there would still be 22' from the deck to the street. Johnson said that many homes have 30-42' setbacks to the curb. Freemyer said that he was not in favor of a continuance. Harvey told the Shavliks that they had three options: a vote this evening, a continuance until next month's meeting or to withdraw the request. Shavlik asked for a continuance. • MOTION: Akemann moved that the Board continue the request for Variance 92-019 until next month's meeting. Weeks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. E. Request #92-020 by Diane Springer-Klooster of 17221 Terrey Pine Drive to permit platting of a lot 42,000 square feet in size, 120 feet wide, 140 feet wide at the Ordinary High Water Level of Mitchell Lake (5 acres, 300 feet, and 200 feet are required) . Also, to permit the enlargement of an existing structure - the new structure will be 1501+ setback from the high water level. The lot is Rroposed to be platted without frontage on a public street. Diane Springer-Klooster came forward to present the request. She explained that her family has lived on the property for many years. Her father has offered a part of his estate to her,including a cottage where her grandmother lived. In this instance, there are two hardships: R1-22 district requires a minimum lot size of 22,000 square feet and the Shoreland Ordinance causes a problem. Johnson said that this property does have a situation where • zoning allowed development without sewer and water. 9 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 13, 1992 Regulations for unsewered lots do not fit now. When sewer and water are in, the property will be more in conformance with the Shoreland Code. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the plat. Council has had the preliminary plat approval. The property to the west had a Shoreland Ordinance variance years ago. Harvey asked if the property was in the R1-22 district. Johnson answered that it was. Harvey asked if this were subdivided would both parcels need to meet the R1-22 district requirements? Johnson said that would be true. NOTION: Wilkus moved that the Board approve Variance Request 92-020 as proposed with the hardship cited as the enactment of the Shoreland Ordinance requirements. The two lots should be • maintained as proposed and no further variances shall be granted on lot subdivisions. Freemyer seconded the motion. Weeks offered an amendment that approval is contingent upon the conditions in the Staff report. Wilkus accepted the amendment and Freemyer passed the motion. Recess at 9: 15 Reconvene at 9:22 F. N_eauest #92-021 by Mark and Mary Drew to allow the existing deck to remain at a 5 foot setback (14 foot required) ; and the existing shed at a 6 foot setback (10 foot required) . New construction for a walkway and stairs within 10.5 feet of the side lot line. Mark and Mary Drew came forward to present the request. He said they had moved here in 1988. Their home was the last one to be completed on the street. He became aware that the deck may be in violation after the lot next to his property was laid out. He called the City Planning Dept. He had not built the deck. Drew provided plat maps and other drawings along with a cover letter. Drew noted that the original plat • map was incorrect. It had represented the house as being 20' 10 . Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 13, 1992 farther back. The deck is approximately 23' from the neighbor's garage. The entire side of the neighbor house is garage and workshop. No windows or living space face his deck, which is located 36' from the nearest living space (the kitchen window) . Regarding the shed under the deck, he had built this simple structure last fall. Since he has a very small garage, he needed the space. Drew had tried to built it in an inconspicuous space (it could have been on the back lot line, but he did not want to encumber anyone's view. No permit was taken out since it was under 100 sq. ft. and one is not required. When he had found out there was a problem, he had not completed it entirely and as a result, there is no trim or door on the structure. He would also like to build a walkway and stairs to allow access to the french doors and another door, both of which go out to "nothing. " These doors were part of the original plan. It would cost about $4,000 to tear down the deck. What should he do with those side doors if this is not allowed? Johnson said that the building records do not indicate that the previous owners ever got a permit on a deck. The • inspector had gone out recently and found that the deck joists spaces are too wide. A new permit would be needed and the joist system would need to be doubled. The structure could conform if 8 1/2' were removed. A four foot change on the location of the shed is needed. She noted that there was an opposition packet from the neighbor Koloski was included in each Board member's packet. Harvey asked when the home had been purchased and if a survey had been done. Drew said he had gotten the home through an individual and his attorney. Harvey asked if Drew had gotten a title opinion or a review of the setbacks. Drew said it was a case where perhaps the buyer should have been more beware. Harvey said that Drew should check to see if he has recourse against the attorney. Freemyer asked about the history of the french doors and also the purpose of the walkway. • 11 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 13, 1992 Drew said the walkway would be to access the french doors. It would be kept 3.5-4 feet wide. Regarding the french door background, there was a timberwall built there two feet below the door on the property line. It was filled with sand. He had removed it. Freemyer asked if Drew felt it would be a hardship if he did not have the french doors. Drew said it was a matter of aesthetics. The deck has no steps. He would like steps going down from it. Argue asked when Drew found out that the deck was out of compliance. Drew answered that he had realized it last summer. He had called the city and also discussed the problem with Mr. Koloski and at that time it did not appear to be an issue. He again said that he had contacted the City on his own inclination. He has cedar lap siding on his home and since he could not find the same siding, he went with a vertical • siding for the shed to blend with the pattern of the deck above. It is stained with the same stain as the home. He restated his request as being: Keep the existing deck and bring it into compliance, allow the shed to remain, allow a small walkway to the deck to access the french doors. Weeks asked if it were true that there was no survey or opinions on setbacks/property lines when this home was purchased. Drew said a survey had already been filed with the City. The home was built by reputable builder. Weeks said he had a problem with continuing the item since there were non-compliant conditions in existence. Drew said that if the stairs were to be relocated, it would be placed where the window would be placed when the lower level is completed. Mrs. Drew said she would like to have the stairs located as close to the doors as possible. Weeks asked if the problems were identified 12 months ago, why had Drew allowed 10 months to elapse before contacting • city staff? 12 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 13, 1992 Drew said that when the neighbor's home was staked out, he had realized the problem. He had discussed it with Koloski and felt it would not be a problem. Akemann asked if the door on the side was approved as part of the building plans for the house when the city had reviewed the plans. Johnson said building plans are only kept for 2 years. Akemann said that the deck would have to maintain a 14' setback and a deck would not have been allowed then. The previous owner had built the deck with no permit and it was not up to code. Drew had bought the home unaware and had added the shed. Now the Board is being asked to allow a stairway that does not meet code either. Recourse may be gotten through title insurance if that was purchased.The deck is non-conforming, the shed is non-conforming and now Drew is requesting a non-conforming stairway. Drew said that the shed is built around, but is not a part • of the deck. Akemann said he is looking for a hardship or a reduction or elimination of the variance. He does not wish to establish the precedent. Drew asked if financial issues were hardships ($6,000) . Akemann said that financial could not be the sole criteria. He was not in favor of the request. The deck needs to be reinforced. The shed needs to be repositioned and there are alternatives to the stairway proposal. Mrs. Drew said that the stairway provides access to the french doors. Drew said that if the deck were removed, the door to it would go nowhere. Akemann said this was not unusual. Wilkus suggested a patio outside the doors and Johnson answered that a patio should be at grade level. Steps could be built gdoing down to a landing. • Wilkus said that he could accept a reinforced deck and a 13 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 13, 1992 repositioned shed. Harvey felt that two of these variances were self inflicted: the shed and the walkway, and he was against these two requests. Drew did not create the deck. He asked Drew if the attorney he hired represented good and marketable title. Drew said that he did not know for sure. Argue said he commended Drew for coming to the City. He asked Johnson if the french doors were shown on the architectural plan or if inspections were done. Johnson said that all the land on that side of the house was not developed at that time. It was hard to perceive the lot line. Argue felt that if the french doors were on the original plan, that there should be a consideration for the owner. Drew noted that legal recourse is often more expensive that • the settlement. Freemyer said he would expect City inspectors to know where the side lot line is located. It should have raised a red flag for the City. The french doors may have been a window originally. He said he did have a problem with the shed.Without the walkway, Drew is. denied the use of the door. Harvey noted that code does not say you cannot put patio doors in on the setback. These doors are useable for outside access via steps to the ground and no deck. Freemyer said that if french doors were put in, that indicates that there was an intent there. Weeks asked what the intent was - to keep the door and not open it, or what? Freemyer said that there is a hardship issue as it relates to the doors. Craig Greenberg, an attorney for Koloski, cam forward to present his case. He noted the binder of information that had been provided for each board member. He said that he • understands Drew's difficulty, but needs to focus on the 14 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 13, 1992 Koloski's and what they are entitled to. The deck and the catwalk are directly visible from the Koloski's kitchen window. When Koloski had told Drew that he did not feel there would be a problem, he was not living there. He suggested that the deck could be reduced in size and access from the outside was not a necessity. The home was purchased from Doug Siler (a relative)and Susan Hustad. He said that Drew has an issue with the attorney who handled the transaction. This issue is significant to his client and his family. The shed is not pleasing and the color is not the same as the home. There is no door on the shed and there are tools inside. The deck can be downsized and the shed can be moved to comply with setback requirements. The walkway would be an non-complying structure added to an existing non- complying structure. Johnson said that the deck could be cut back to leave a 12 by 16 foot deck. Akemann suggested that Greenberg's client and Drew meet to discuss alternatives. He would like to see these . alternatives in one month. Greenberg said that would be the best course of action, but the relationship has deteriorated rather quickly. He would encourage his client to meet with Drew, but this is a buyer beware situation. Argue said that he took exception to Greenberg's statement regarding the relationship of the parties involved. He said that the statement offended him very much. The Drew home was built in 1988 and his client's home was built 18 months ago. He knew the sight lines and the deck was there. He agreed that the shed is inappropriate, and the deck does not meet code, but it was Greenberg's clients choice to build that home with those sight lines. Freemyer said there had been an error on Drew's part in not getting a survey done. Greenberg's client has a responsibility to have a survey done too. The client was aware that the deck was there at the time and he proceeded. This is an acceptance of the existing conditions. Greenberg said that the situation has worsened and may continue to worsen. • Drew said that the seller was his first cousin. He had been 15 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 13, 1992 in this home once before he purchased it. It had been built in 1986 and was the last home at that time. There were no covenants. Mr. Koloski's lot has covenants. He feels that the situation is starting to get into Koloski's expectations of him (his home is no where near $350,000 as is Koloski's home) . He had known Tim Koloski before he built the home next door. The deck only became an issue after a disagreement over another, unrelated issue. He would like to settle the dispute and is willing to be flexible. He is not convinced that Koloski will be flexible. The documents provided by the attorney imply that he built the house and he did not. It implies that he was committing a misdemeanor and he was not.He could have built that shed within 10' of the property line within the neighbor's view so it would have been less of a problem for the site. He would just like to get the issue finished and decided. Argue said that this is not the place to settle disputes. It could be voted on or continued to the next meeting. MOTION: • Akemann moved that the Board accept one aspect of Variance Request 92-021. This aspect is that the deck can remain if it is brought to building code requirements. The shed and the walkway requests are disapproved. Argue asked that the different parts of the request be separated. Akemann withdrew the motion. Drew said that access to the side doors is important and he would like to have 5' all the way along the outside and then he would cut the deck back. Harvey said that the Board will not redesign the deck this evening. They will consider any changes Drew is willing to make. Greenberg said that he will push his client to reason. Freemyer said he could go along with what Drew has suggested This would be a 5' reduction in the deck. Argue said he is willing to approve the deck as it stands with reinforcement work required. There are alternatives for • the french doors and the shed is a problem. 16 r 1 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 13, 1992 Weeks said that if another proposal was to be made, shouldn't a continuance be asked for? Harvey said yes, a continuance would be necessary and a lesser proposal should be brought back. There should be Alternatives presented, or compromise with Koloski. Mrs. Drew asked if the judgements would be based on Koloski's wishes or on city code. Freemyer said that people within 500' are allowed to comment at these meetings. Drew asked if no proposal is accepted this evening, could be come back and apply for a new one? Freemyer said the proponent could ask for less than what is published and that could be granted. If he comes up with an alternative that could be understood, he did not feel that he needed a picture. • Drew said that he would like a 10' variance from the front of the home to the back of the existing deck. He would remove 5' of deck and it would be 10.5' from the property line. He would remove the shed. MOTION: Argue felt that the request should allow a side yard set back of 10' for the existing deck and additional walkway, which should be allowed to go only to the front of the house. The deck structure should meet all codes and the shed should be removed. Freem yer seconded the motion. Weeks had a problem with the stairs. Drew said that whatever design he would come up with would have to be within 5' of the house. Harvey gave Drew the options: Vote, Continuance, Withdraw Drew asked for a continuance. Argue withdrew his motion. Freemyer accepted the withdrawal. 17 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 13, 1992 MOTION: Argue moved that Variance Request 92-021 be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Akemann seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Recess at 11:12 Reconvene at 11: 15 G. Request #92-022 by Raymond G. Helmer of 8307 Hiawatha Avenue to permit a garage addition 81411 from the side lot line (10 foot required. No proponent was in attendance to present the request. Item was moved to the end of the agenda. H. RR guest #92-023 by Walgreens at 7808 Eden Prairie Hoad/16475-79 Terrey Pine Drive to permit construction of 41 parking spaces for a proposed Walgreens (81 required) : permit 47.3% impervious surface in a Shoreland area (30% • maximum allowed by Code. Walgreen representatives said that the next item could be taken before their presentation if that proponent wished. Mr. Becker agreed to the change. I. Request #92-024 by Eugene Becker of 6224 Eden Prairie Road to permit a garage addition 10 feet from the side lot line (15 feet required) . Mr Eugene Becker came forward to present the request. He said that the information in the packet was self explanatory. Johnson said that the property is zoned R1-22 and has a minimum setback requirement of 151on each side. The proponent would like to be able to remove the existing breeze way and the single garage and construct a double garage. There had been no opposition to the request and there were letters from neighbors in support of it. Akemann asked what the hardship was in this instance. Becker answered that he had tried to sell his home,but • everyone wants a double garage. There is only grass between 18 a Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 13, 1992 the existing garage and the property line. Argue said he knew of the property and felt he could accept this request if a hardship could be identified. Akemann felt the hardship was that a double garage could not be built on this property without a variance. Wade Fisher, the potential buyer, stated that the neighbor to the south has a two car garage and these two garages would be side by side. He would put in two single doors to be similar to the neighbor's garage. The couple to the south was at this meeting earlier, but left because of the late hour. Akemann asked why a 36' deep garage was requested. Fisher said that it was to extend the garage for storage. There would be no door on the back side. MOTION: • Weeks moved that the Board approve Variance Request 92-024 as submitted. The hardship cited is that the property line and size of lot prevent the construction of a two car garage unless the variance is granted. Wilkus seconded the motion. Akemann suggested an amendment to state that this variance would bring the structure into market compliance with the neighborhood. Weeks and Wilkus accepted this amendment. Motion passed unanimously. H. Request #92-023 by Walgreens at 7808 Eden Prairie Road/16475-79 Terrey Pine Drive to permit construction of 41 parking spaces for a proposed Walgreens (81 required) ; permit 47.3% impervious surface in a Shoreland area (30% maximum allowed by Code. it John Kahler (architect) came forward to represent Walgreens and to present the variance request. He said that the property consisted of a 1 1/3 acre site on the south west corner of Terry Pine Road and Eden Prairie Road. The building location was worked out with the City Planning Dept. The landscaping was designed to screen nearby residents. This will be a very lush site. All the existing • trees in the lower area are being retained. Regarding the 19 r . Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 13, 1992 site drainage, there will be a swale along the back side which takes the drainage to the north to Terry Pine. Less water will be reaching Mitchell Lake. The site is focusing to the Eden Prairie Road side.Johnson said that the proponent has gone over the parking demands that are required. The parking looks less than code requirements, but they have demonstrated their needs. The water drainage is in the appropriate direction. Only a mulch will be used on the west side. Elim Shores is in support of the request as are the next door neighbors. The only opposition was to do with traffic. Argue asked what was between this property and the Super America Station. Kahler answered that it was a dental office. Akemann felt the proposal was outstanding. The hardship in this instance is a trade off. The use in the lower end of the commercial usage. There could have been more spaces for parking. • Weeks had questions concerning the trash disposal. Kahler answered that there was internal storage of trash. Freemyer asked about the procedure for stocking the store. Kahler said that a 65' truck would come early on Monday mornings once a week and unload for 2-3 hours. He indicated the site for unloading and said that a conveyor belt would assist in unloading. Johnson said that the storm parking lot run off issue was addressed and the storm sewers can handle it. Freemyer commended the proponents on their plan. MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board approve Variance Request 92 023 as stated. The hardship is that there are constraints as to how the site can be developed. They have met the staff requirements and worked with the City to increase the green space. As a result, the parking area has been reduced. They have produced figures on the actual square footage of retail space. Argue seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 20 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals August 13, 1992 G. Recruest #92-022 by Raymond G. Helmer of 8307 Hiawatha Avenue to Kermit a garage addition 8-1411 from the side lot line (10 foot required. Argue moved that this request be continued to the next meeting of the Board. Akemann seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV. OLD BUSINESS A AKEMANN RESIGNATION/NEW APPOINTEE Johnson noted that a resignation letter had been received from Akemann since he had recently moved to Prior Lake. The Council may make a new appointment on August 18th. B GUIDELINES FOR SPECIAL MEETINGS Johnson noted that the Guidelines for special meetings will be postponed to the next meeting because of the late hour. • V. NEW BUSINESS Johnson said that the items for next month include 2 new items and 3 continued items. VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Weeks moved that the Board adjourn. Wilkus seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:58 P.M. • 21