Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 07/13/1995 UNAPPROVED MINUTES • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, JULY 139 1995 7:30 P.M. CITY CENTER 8080 MITCHELL ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: ARTHUR WEEKS, (CHAIR), CLIFF DUNHAM, DELAVAN DYE, MATTHEW HANSEN, CORRINE LYNCH, KATHY NELSON, MARY VASALY STAFF PRESENT: JEAN JOHNSON, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR; SCOTT KIPP, PLANNER; ELINDA BAHLEY, RECORDING SECRETARY BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: MATTHEW HANSEN, KATHY NELSON, MARY VASALY CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE • Chairman Weeks called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Hansen, Nelson and Vasaly were absent; all other members were present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Dunham moved that the Board approve the Agenda as published. Dye seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. H. MINUTES OF DUNE 8, 1995 MEETING MOTION: Dunham moved that the Board accept the Minutes of June 8, 1995 as amended: page 7, variance #95-15 passed 5-1-0 with opposition by Dunham. Dye seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. HI. VARIANCES Weeks explained the order of the Variance presentation process to those in attendance. • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 13, 1995 A. Request #95 18 by Best Buy Company Inc. for 7075 Flying Cloud Drive for approval to allow a 144 square foot wall sign on the west wall of their building at the above address. (Code permits an 80 square foot si n. Carol Waggoner, Sales Coordinator for Best Buy, reviewed her variance request with the Board. She noted that they have lowered the amount of signage. After speaking with executives at Best Buy, they decided that the least amount that they could go with are 4' 10" letters which comes out to be 144 square feet. The color of the letters are yellow, and the location is the same, the left corner of the west elevation of the building. Johnson indicated that this item was republished. The new request is 144 square feet. Staff has received one call regarding the new request from Argosy Electronics. They had requested more information, but Staff has not heard back from them whether they are in favor of the request or they are opposing the request. • Dye noted that he would rather see Best Buy in compliance with Code for 3 foot letters that calculates out to 80 square feet. Dunham was concerned that yellow letters on that building would not be seen from that far away through the trees. Weeks asked for their memory to be refreshed in terms of the reasons for the signage. Waggoner replied that their hardship is the visibility. They have a very difficult time with people finding their building, especially now when the trees are in bloom. There is no sign on the building itself, but there is a monument sign in front which can not be seen from Highway 169. They have a lot of clients that come in from out of town, and unless you're familiar with the area, it's very difficult to follow the map. Dunham asked if this sign would be near the entrance. Waggoner replied that they want the sign where Lee Data had their 80 foot sign. They don't feel that people would be able to see it at the entrance with the abundance of trees. They are only putting up one sign where they feel is the most visible. Weeks was concerned if Lee Data was granted a variance for their sign, and what the color of their sign was. Johnson replied that there was a variance • 2 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 13, 1995 granted for two wall signs at 80 sq. ft. each. At the time Lee Data requested their wall sign, industrial buildings were only allowed one wall sign per building. The Code was changed in 1986 or 1987 to allow 2 signs. Both wall signs were at the maximum of 80 square feet, and they were a dark brown color. Weeks asked if there was a need for this sign to be illuminated. Waggoner replied that they would like to have it illuminated, but they will not be leaving it on all night. They do have people that come in at night. If the Board is concerned about a certain time, Best Buy would be more than willing to turn it off at a certain time if that's an issue. Weeks opened the public hearing. Michael Lynch, representing Argosy Electronics, expressed concern about the unnecessary traffic that's going to be created, mainly because this is showing Best Buy Company, not Best Buy Corporate Headquarters. The traffic coming in the morning and leaving at night is a real mess, especially now with . Highway 169 closed off. Adding additional traffic to that is their main concern. They are located right behind Best Buy and have no problem with people finding them. They feel the hardship is very questionable. Waggoner indicated that they use a price tag ticket for their retail signs, and that's why they are not using it here because it would confuse people. The pylon sign out there now does say the words, corporate headquarters. They would be more than willing to put corporate headquarters underneath Best Buy, but would ask the Board to grant them extra square footage. Weeks closed the public hearing. Weeks asked if the proponent would accept the decision of the letters being reduced to be in compliance with Code. Waggoner replied that she personally does not want to because it's a serious issue. The signage on the building before them was 160 sq. ft. total, and they are not asking for a second sign. Lynch commented that she is having a hard time finding the hardship. She does not feel anyone has the right to have their sign seen from whatever thoroughfare it is. There are people back even further and they don't have a right to have a bigger sign just to be seen from the highway. She would • 3 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 13, 1995 rather see 2 smaller signs than 1 big one. Weeks commented that he would like to see a smaller sign, 3 feet, maybe 3.5 feet, but he's having trouble with 144 square feet. Dunham indicated that he would rather stay within Code than grant a variance. Weeks noted that he would be comfortable seeing a sign similar to Lee Data's sign, and he could accept 90 square feet. MOTION: Dunham moved that the Board grant request #95-18 for up to 82 square feet with the allowance of a second sign not to exceed 80 square feet. Lynch seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. B. Request #95-19 by Joseph and Jennifer Mischel for 6681 Tartan Curve • for approval to enlarge the garage to 24' x 28' creating a setback of no less than 9'10" to the side lot line (Code requires 15 feet and a 30 foot setback to the front lot line Average front setback for this block is_36 feet. Joseph Mischel, residing at 6681 Tartan Curve, reviewed his variance request with the Board. He noted that at the last meeting he was granted a variance for an 11 foot sideyard setback, and a 30 foot front setback to enlarge his garage. Unknown to him, his neighbor had a survey done of his lot line. Mischel was under the assumption, based on a fence previously installed, that the lot line was the fence line. As a result of his neighbor's survey, the lot line is not at the fence line, but 8/10 of a foot, approximately 9 5/8 inches, on his neighbor's property. The reason he is now asking for 9'10" is that be does not want to argue over inches, even though he measured to 10 feet. He promised that his garage would not be over 10 feet. He was willing to build it 23 feet wide, but was told that it would cost more because everything is precut at 24 feet. Johnson noted that the previous approval that was granted here would have allowed a garage that would be 23 feet. After they discovered the additional costs, Mischel then wished to be republished for a 9'10" variance. The • 4 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 13, 1995 background is similar to last month. The neighborhood of homes were built in the 1960's, and a lot of the garages are anywhere from 20 feet to 24 feet wide. Staff believes that one option would be to lower the garage to 22 feet wide because they are getting into an issue where the dimensions and the measurements don't always coincide. The applicant has not performed a certified survey on his own. If they go with a 22 foot wide garage, then there would be an 11'10" setback from the property line that was surveyed by the adjoining neighbor. Staff has received some calls about this request, and there are individuals here tonight that will speak to the Board. Lynch was concerned if a 22 foot garage is satisfactory for 2 cars. Johnson replied that new homes come in the range of 20 foot wide, 22 foot wide, and then 24 foot wide. A 22 foot wide will handle 2 cars. Mischel noted that he has the only 15 foot wide garage door in the neighborhood, plus there is a 3 foot extension of a fireplace in his garage which can not be removed. He is tired of getting his cars dinged up with chips. They can't unload groceries unless they park in the driveway. • Weeks asked what the dimensions from the garage to the inside firewall are. Mischel replied 17 feet. Weeks opened the public hearing. Bob Owens, residing at 6661 Tartan Curve, noted that he shares the property line with the Mischels. He noted that the Mischel's garage is 436 square feet, and his garage is 440 feet wide, which is only 4 inches wider than the Mischel's garage. They feel there is no hardship involved here. They have no problem putting 2 cars in their garage. The Mischels are requesting a 672 square foot garage which is 44% larger than the garages in the neighborhood. They feel there are discrepancies in the drawings submitted by the Mischels, and asked the Board to set aside the variance granted on June 8th, and they be granted to appeal this variance given the information they have in front of them this evening. Weeks closed the public hearing. Weeks inquired about what the Board's options are. Johnson replied the Board could rescind the previous variance, or continue the present item. • 5 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 13, 1995 Weeks asked if Mischel would be willing to have a certified survey done. Mischel replied that he doesn't want to because he has accepted the survey that his neighbor did. Dunham asked if the previous request still stands if they deny this request. Johnson replied that it would still stand unless they take action on it. Dunham asked if the neighbor has the option to appeal that request. Johnson replied that Code allows 15 days from the date of action. If there was no action on this request, the other would stand. If they take action here, they should wrap it up with a comment about that previous action. Mischel commented that if the Board is not willing to grant him the variance he has requested because of what the Owens have said, then he is willing to stay with what he has already been granted. Dunham does not feel that the cost will jump that much from 22 feet to 23 feet, but he is comfortable with granting 23 feet. • Lynch asked if the Owens were present at the last meeting. Owens replied that they were out of town. Owens commented that a hardship has not been demonstrated. Everyone is within the average 475 feet and have the same problems with their fireplace. All of the homes were built that way. Weeks indicated that there appears to be conflicting information on the drawings presented from the last time, and conflicted information on the size of the garage. He would like the item continued. There are enough conflicts here that he would like to see a survey. MOTION: Dunham moved that the Board deny variance request #95-19, and maintain the previous request at the last meeting. Lynch seconded the motion and it passed 3-1-0 with opposition by Weeks. C. Request #95-20 by Mail Handling Services for 7550 Corporate Way for • 6 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 13, 1995 approval to permit the existing and construct new loading dock facilities towards a street frontage (Corporate Way) (City Code does not permit loading facilities on a street frontage.) Darrell Anderson, representing the proponent, reviewed his variance request with the Board. He noted that the existing structure is a 65,000 square foot building. They are seeking approval of a 61,000 square foot warehouse addition. The loading dock for the existing building and the proposed addition face Corporate Way. They are consolidating the new loading facilities next to existing ones. Kipp noted that the Planning Commission and the City Council have reviewed the project and both have approved the request for Mail Handling Services. It makes sense to locate the facility together rather than have separate facilities. It allows a better opportunity to screen the facilities than to deal with a separate area. The landscaping plan screens the loading facilities with berming and conifer plantings. • Weeks opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing. MOTION: Dunham moved that the Board approve variance request #95-20, the hardship being the site configuration and location of the existing loading dock, with the stipulation that the Staff recommendations on landscaping and storm drainage be included in the conditions of approval. Dye seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. D. Request #95-21 by Roger and Addie Halverson for 6686 Kurtz Lane for platting of 2 lots which rear on a railroad bed (proposed Lots 6 and 7 with depths of 105 feet and 135 feet respectively. (Code requires 150 foot depth.) Dick Schutrop, Ryan Contracting, reviewed his variance request with the 40 7 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 13, 1995 Board. He noted that the reason they are asking for a variance on Lots 6 and 7 is because there is a railroad right-of-way behind the lots, and there is an existing home across the proposed road that prohibits the shifting of Kurtz Lane. There is no way they can shift the road there to make the lots any deeper. It's very important that they have Lots 6 and 7 since it is only an 8 home development, otherwise it wouldn't be viable to them. They have run into more expenses with regard to the sewer and water. Kipp noted that this project has been before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and both have approved the project. Kurtz Lane is an existing right-of-way and the road is very narrow. The road will now be developed into a cul-de-sac due to the fact that the City does not want to maintain the existing railroad crossing. Dye asked if Outlot B is to be maintained by the developer or be dedicated. Kipp replied that it would be dedicated. Dye asked if Kurtz Lane is to be a dedicated street. Kipp replied that it would • be a dedicated street with curb and gutter. Lynch noted that the setback requirement from the railroad bed is 150 feet. She asked if it's the same for residential as well as multi-family. Kipp replied that the setback isn't 150 feet. The lot's depth must be 150 feet. Code would require a 20 foot setback regardless of residential or multi-family. Lynch commented that it's a good use of the land given the conditions. Weeks opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing. Dunham asked if the tree replacement is still required according to the Staff Report. Kipp replied that if the proponent were to do a re-inventory of the trees in the area that is to be dedicated to the City, it would reduce the tree replacement. However, they still intend to plant all the trees indicated in the plan as mitigation for the variance. Weeks asked if this was private or public road. Kipp replied public. 8 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 13, 1995 MOTION: Dye moved that the Board approve variance request #95-21 to this new development, and that the developer complies with the Staff Report of May 1995, and the hardship is granting Outlot A and B to serve the wetland and secondary growth of trees and that the existing right-of-way alignment precludes shifting the road to make the lots deeper. Lynch seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. E. Request #95-22 by BUCA Restuarant for 7711 Mitchell Road to permit 60 off-site parking stalls to be located at 14180 Highway 5 to accommodate the parking need created by the addition of 48 outdoor dining seats. (Code requires parking to be on-site.) Francois Paradeise,,owner, reviewed his variance request with the Board. He noted that he would like the Board to grant him 60 off-site parking stalls to accommodate their new addition of 48 outdoor dining seats. They have • negotiated a lease with the owners east of the building for 60 stalls, and if they need to increase that number they can. When he first opened BUCA, he met with the fire marshal and spent the money on signs that say no parking, and put in fire lanes, and to show the place where there is additional parking. For the first two weeks, they spent money to have people direct the customers not to park in the fire lane. Johnson noted that they had installed a number of required parking stalls on site. What they are requesting is the need to have the additional stalls when they go to put in outdoor seating . They have what they have identified as a possibility for that outside parking, which would be the Westwood Professional Building, about 500 feet to the east. They have a lease agreement outlined for 5 years. Staff has been monitoring the parking since the business opened. They find that both this site and their other site in the Twin Cities do have a number of patrons that will wait an hour or two to get in the restaurant. Therefore, they have a higher parking need than a standard family style restaurant. Presently, they are using the grassy area to the north of the building and parking there. Paradeise noted that they do not encourage parking on the grassy area. They have an agreement with MNDOT that as soon as they acquire the land that is going to be right next to BUCA will then turn it into parking. They are • 9 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 13, 1995 unable to do that right now because MnDOT does not own that land yet. BUCA is willing to make a nice pathway with chips from the parking to the restaurant. Weeks asked if the lease agreement is for a specific time, 7 days a week. Paradeise replied that it starts the minute they open, and the lease agreement is for 5 years. It is for winter and summer to use it as parking. Dye suggested sidewalks to be put in on the property behind the restaurant all the way down to Westwood to keep the people off the street. Paradeise indicated that they are not willing to put sidewalks in because they don't own that property. They are willing to put in a path. Dye expressed concern about the safety of the people by those parking spaces because it's a two way road, and some people occasionally try to beat the red light. He feels it would be in the best interest of the customers to have some type of path there on an interim basis. Johnson noted that both the pathway, additional signage and even lighting might be something to consider if the Board is going to approve because it all enhances the safety. Staff feels that a 5 year term would be best so the situation could be revisited in 5 years. Staff received one call from the McDonalds Corporation. They requested additional material on the variance, but they didn't give any indication for opposing it. Weeks was concerned about the ratio of parking stalls being 3:1 at the restaurant, and 1:1 for the outdoor dining. He asked if some of this is to make up for a shortage of stalls based on actual use of the restaurant. Paradeise replied that it is to provide the proper parking temporarily until they get that lot from MnDOT. They open for business at 5:00. Their parking need really starts to suffer up to around 7:00. By that time most of the traffic has slowed down. This is the time where they need the additional parking. They can have the 10 employees park in the additional parking which means more customer parking in the front. Weeks asked if they have spoken to the operators of the daycare. Paradeise replied that they talked to McDonalds and it was found out that they use BUCA's parking during the lunchtime, which is okay. The daycare is not as 10 Minutes ` Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 13, 1995 flexible and they don't have a lot of parking and need all they have. Weeks expressed concern about there being any conflict with the people coming in and out of the daycare. Paradeise replied that he does not see any conflict. Weeks was concerned about the signage. Johnson replied that she has not seen a signage plan for this. The Code will allow them to put up directional signs no larger than 6 square feet, and they can not have a total of more than 36 square feet. They can have 6 signs up to 36 square feet for directional. Paradeise noted that there is one sign that says, BUCA additional parking, and 2 signs that say, fire lane. Dunham expressed concern about parking on the grassy area causing fires. Paradeise noted that they do not tell people to park there, or have any signs that say they can park there. • Dunham suggested getting some type of lease agreement with the owners of the property that BUCA can put in a hard surface for parking. Paradeise replied that he does not want to spend $30,000 on something that he does not own. Weeks opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing. Dunham commented that he does not feel that all the options have been explored on the costs perceived. He thinks there is a definite need for parking at that particular location and would be open to a continuance to understand more of the options and costs subject to the location. He feels it's unreasonable to have grassy areas for no parking and expect customers to walk a couple of blocks. Dye noted that it's not a couple of blocks. It's less than 500 feet. He feels putting in some sort of sidewalk from the parking at Westwood, and putting in directional signs to the lot, and moving the employees to that lot will reduce and give them more parking. It's an interim period of time until MnDOT • 11 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 13, 1995 makes up their mind, and that could be 10 years from now. MOTION: Dye moved that the Board approve variance request #95-22, the hardship being their unusual high need for parking and inadequate parking for the outdoor seats of the facility. The conditions are: employee parking should occur on the leased lot, a soft sidewalk with lights be built on the side of the BUCA building from the back of their building to the Westwood parking lot, and signage be put on the private driveway noting no parking. Lynch seconded the motion and it passed 3-1-0 with opposition by Dunham. F. Request #95-23 by Stephen and Kimberly Niosi for Northeast corner of U.S 169/212 and Eden Prairie Road for apuroval to construct a single family house on 1.2 acres having a side setback of 40 feet one side and 140 feet total for both sides (Code requires Rural lots existing as of July 6. 1982 to be a minimum size of 5 acres for a single family dwelling and the minimum side setbacks are 50 feet one side no less than 150 feet total for • both sides. Perry Ryan, Ryan Engineering, reviewed the variance request with the Board. The request is to develop a single family home on 1.2 acres with the variance granted. He discussed the issues noted in the Staff Report. There are a few 1 plus acre parcels in the surrounding area, and one with a home. To go to the 5 acre minimum would require purchasing the single one acre parcel to the east. Regarding the site distance from the driveway, with the proposed grading and proposed driveway, he believes the site distance is 150 feet in each direction. The road is a 15 mile an hour road, and 150 feet is the standard for that. They have accommodated the grading issues and have resolved those grading issues with the latest plans. The driveway access at one time was at about 17%, and it's now at 12% which is the maximum by the City ordinance. It would be a great economic hardship for one family to have to purchase an additional parcel in order to build their home. Johnson noted that if the Board does recommend the variance, it would then be forwarded on to the Planning Commission and City Council because it does need a steep slope review. Staff believes the driveway proposed is dangerous, referring to the City Engineering memo of June 29, 1995. • 12 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 13, 1995 Weeks expressed concern about the dangers of the steep slope off of Eden Prairie Road on to Highway 169. Johnson noted that it's an over 20% slope. Dye was concerned about the variance being denied in 1983. Ryan indicated that the reason it was actually pulled from going through the variance process at that time is that they did not have complete plans. Johnson noted that the variance was withdrawn, not denied. Johnson commented that they have had residents come in and look at the plans, but have not received any letters todate. Lynch expressed concern about the safety issue with the road. She is having a hard time approving this unless someone from the City was convinced that there weren't any safety issues. Weeks also was concerned about the safety issues. He feels that there is a blind corner there. There is a setback issue, a safety issue, and an acreage • issue that he is uncomfortable with. Weeks opened the public hearing. Karen Edstrom,residing_at 10133 Eden Prairie Road, noted that she and her husband live in the house referred to as just to the northeast of this parcel, plus they own the parcel that goes down to Highway 169 just to the east of the parcel that's in question. They are opposed to granting any kind of variance or changes in the City Code to allow this building on this parcel because it's totally unsuitable to the kind of building that's proposed. She handed out a letter to the Board stating their opposition to the variance, and she summarized her objections, as stated in the letter, to the Board. She also showed photographs taken depicting the bluffs and the steepness of the grade. She expressed concern about the safety regarding the steep slope. Hibbert Hill, residing at 10131 Eden Prairie Road, noted that they live back further on the bluffs, northeast of the proposed site. They expressed concern about the safety issues regarding the steep slope and driveway, and about constantly pulling cars in and out of the ditch every time it rains or snows because of accidents. He does not let his children go out and wait for the bus alone because of the traffic that goes up and down the hill so quickly. He was • 13 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 13, 1995 concerned about having a referendum to buy the land, and then a 1/4 mile down the road they are going to have a high density development. He does not think that is the intent of the City. He expressed concern about people parking in his driveway to look at the property in question. He was also concerned about the safety of children when the construction phase is taking place, because there is no place for trucks to park on the road or lot. He feels that the whole concept of this building is ridiculous. Loren Wuttke, noted that he owns the property directly to the west of the subject property. He is in favor of granting the variance with the provision that this house be connected as soon as the City obtains sewer and water for the area. Hill commented that all of the lots with homes in that area are grandfathered in. They were all built before the law went into effect. Weeks noted that he has a problem granting this request. The site appears too • small for the house, and the driveway is unsafe. If the site were larger, a house and driveway could be sited better. Ryan was in disagreement with the photos shown by the resident. From his best judgement, this is a buildable site. He believes they have met all of the City ordinances with respect to the driveway grade. They are not looking for a variance on the side setback, they could withdraw that part. They are only looking for a variance because of the lot size. This is a remnant parcel. Weeks asked what the proposed value of the house on this property is. Ryan replied that the proposed value of the structure will be $200,000 to $300,000. There are a couple of builders in mind and the price has not been determined yet. He also apologized to the resident for people parking in his driveway. MOTION: Dye moved that based on information submitted, the Board deny variance request #95-23 because it does not meet the requirements of 5 acres. Dunham seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. • 14 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 13, 1995 G. Request #95-24 by Dennis Davey for 9900 Spring Road to permit the re-establishment and construction of a single family dwelling after the destruction of the existing dwelling on a Rural lot of .75 acres to be increased to 1.45 acres in size. (City Code does not Hermit re- establishment or enlargement to non-conforming property. Rural lot size minimum for Rural parcels existing as of July 6, 1982 is 5 acres and Shoreland minimum lot size is 5 acres.) Dennis Davey, owner, reviewed his variance request with the Board. He would like to acquire the .7 acres to increase the lot size to 1.45 acres, and construct a new house after removing the old non-conforming buildings. Both homes on the property are in serious disrepair. It is his intention to conform to the setback regulation by attaining the additional surrounding property. They are increasing the property size to meet the existing rural setback requirements and shoreland setbacks. Johnson noted that the request involves removing an existing home and • building a new home. It would not be adding to a premature development in the Rural District because a home has existed on the property since the 1930's. They will remove all of the old buildings and the refuse on the property. The septic system does not meet Code, so a new septic system is proposed. Staff has sent this request to the Watershed District and the DNR because it is shoreland. They have not given written comment, but over the phone commented that this would be much of an improvement because of the septic system situation, and all of the refuse on the property. Because the property does not abut Riley Creek, the City is not requesting an easement or dedication of land for trail purposes. There have been no comments from the surrounding neighbors on this. Davey read a letter to the Board from Brett Hope, who is the property manager for the Charlson Company, giving his approval for the variance. He noted that he has spoken to several neighbors and they all give their approval and welcome the clean up of the property. Weeks asked if Davey attempted to increase the size larger than what is proposed. Davey replied that he attempted to do that, but the adjacent property owner is not willing to sell any additional property. Weeks asked what the timetable is. Davey replied that his goal is to be moved • 15 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 13, 1995 in before the winter. Weeks was concerned about any hazardous waste materials on the site. Davey replied that he is not aware of any. There are gallon drums on the site, but the owner assured him there was no hazardous waste materials, and the owner is responsible for removing them. Dunham asked if all the existing structures would be removed. Davey replied that all the existing outbuildings that are in disrepair would be removed. They may request to live in the front house while the construction is taking place. Johnson informed Davey that he would need to post a bond for removal with the Building Department if he plans to live in the existing home while construction is taking place on the new home. The City does not want to end up with 2 homes on the property. Dye compared this request with the previous request, and is considering what differences there are. • Lynch commented that it's difficult to have two of these type of requests back to back that have the same issue of the 5 acres. She has no problem voting in favor for approval. This is a totally different situation in that a house has existed here for many years, the new structure and site work will be more in conformance with Code and clean up the property. Dunham agreed with Lynch. He noted that it has merit to clean up that site and build new structures meeting setbacks. He noted all the structures and debris be removed before anything ever took place on the site, including the gallon drums. Weeks opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing. MOTION: Dunham moved that the Board approve variance request #95-24, involving the removing of structures not meeting code and the construction of a new house 16 • Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 13, 1995 meeting setback requirements. Furthermore, the property is locked in between the road and creek, and that all refuse be cleaned up, including the gallon drums. Lynch seconded the motion and it passed 3-0-1 with abstention by Dye. VI. OLD BUSINESS None. VII. NEW BUSINESS Johnson reviewed next month's meeting, noting there are 3 or 4 items on the agenda. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: • Dunham moved that the Board adjourn. Dye seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 P.M. • 17