Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 07/12/2001 r APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS THURSDAY,JULY 129 2001 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD: Cliff Dunham, Chairperson; Louis Giglio, William Ford, Ismail Ismail,Michael O'Leary, Greg Olson STAFF: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator Peggy Rasmussen,Recorder GUESTS: Dick and Kris Bjorklund, 15299 Village Woods Drive Tom and Trudy Gunderson, 10370 Buckingham Drive Nathan Bergeland, 7012 Willow Creek Road Charles Stinson,Architect, 18356 Minnetonka Blvd. Stuart Nolan, 7020 Willow Creek Road Doug McCann, Sterling Fence, Inc. Mike Wilkus, Wilkus Architects, 11487 Valley View Rd David Luse, owner of property at 13480 Pioneer Trail Brad Moen,Moen-Leuer, 3600 Holly Lane, Plymouth CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Dunham called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL—PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Cliff Dunham, Louis Giglio, William Ford, Greg Olson. Michael O'Leary arrived at 7:12 p.m. Absent: Ismail Ismail. SWEARING IN OF NEW MEMBER Greg Olson , a new member of the Board, took the oath of office. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion/Second: Giglio/Ford, approved the agenda as published. Motion carried 4-0. H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals July 12, 2001 Minutes of May 10, 2001 Motion/Second: Ford/Giglio, to approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustments & Appeals held on May 10, 2001, as presented. Motion carried 4-0. III. VARIANCES A. Request #2001-05 by Dick and Kris Bjorklund at 15299 Village Woods Drive for approval to construct a 14' x 23' third stall onto the garage having a front yard setback of 24 feet(Code requires a minimum front setback of 30 feet). Kris Bjorklund said she and her husband have lived there for 13 years and are the original owners of the house. They want to keep certain architectural features and maintain the same roof line on the third stall of the garage. They were told the City denied their request for a permit because the southeast corner of the proposed addition extends 6 feet into the 30-foot setback. According to Bjorklund's measurements the addition would be 34 feet from the street at its nearest point due to the added 10 feet from property line to curb. From that corner it dramatically decreases.along 15 feet to the north, creating a non-compliant wedge. Nelson asked if the fence adjacent to the garage would stay where it is. Bjorklund said it would be taken out. However the fence along the perimeter of the back yard would stay. They will add landscaping along a path to the back yard. Ford asked if they had considered a 12' width rather than 14'. Bjorklund said they had not. Ford explained that when people request a variance, the Board reviews ways to minimize the amount of the variance. Bjorklund said she thought their request was a minor one. Jean Johnson presented the staff report. The Zoning is R1-13.5 residential district. The request is for a garage addition measuring 14' x 23'. The back corner of the proposed addition is into the setback by 6'. Options were mentioned in the staff report. One was to construct the addition 12' deep versus 14', resulting in a 26' setback rather than 24'. Another option would be to bring the garage forward so it is within the setback as much as possible, but may still require a variance. Some residents have come into the City Center to look at the plans, no letters have been received. Ford asked what size garages are typically requested. Johnson replied the Board normally sees 10'- 12' additions being requested. Ford asked if three-stall garages are standard in this neighborhood. Johnson replied yes. Dunham suggested moving the third stall four feet forward, which would make just a two-foot variance from the property line. Ford said normally they are stepped back with a three-stall garage,but on this lot with its angles, there is the opportunity to step it forward. KAComm.Dev\BOA-Board of Appeals\Minutes\20011Bd of Adjustments 07-12-01.doc 2 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals July 12, 2001 Dunham opened the public hearing. Having no one appear, Dunham closed the public hearing and asked for Board discussion. Giglio believed putting the garage addition forward four feet would detract from the house. Given the size of the house,he believed the setback of 26 feet is not bad. Olson agreed with that. Ford agreed that shifting the garage forward would be a bad idea. However, he didn't necessarily agree with the 14-foot width. That is more than the Board generally sees for these kinds of requests. The Board's general approach with setbacks has always been to minimize the amount of the variance request. He believed the width should be reduced to 12 feet. O'Leary said if this weren't a corner lot, he would have a problem with granting the variance. He couldn't see that moving the third stall forward or reducing the width two feet takes away from the value of the house. Nobody driving past the house would be able to see that on the back side of the garage the addition would match up with the two-car garage, so that architecturally it looks symmetrical. He would grant the variance on the basis of the hardship the Bjorklunds stated, which is the irregular shape of the lot. Dunham agreed with Ford that 12 feet is a more standard width for the third stall. He would be more in favor of reducing the width to 12 feet. Motion/Second: Giglio/Olson to approve Variance Request 2001-05 to add a 14' x 23' third-stall garage onto an existing garage having a front yard setback of 24 feet, instead of the minimum Code requirement of 30 feet, based on the irregular shape of the lot. The motion carried 3-2,with Dunham and Ford voting nay. B. Request #2001-06 by Tom and Trudy Gunderson at 10370 Buckingham Drive for approval to construct a three-stall garage having a front yard setback of 25 feet (Code requires a minimum front setback of 30 feet). Trudy Gunderson said the plan is to build a whole new garage and convert the old garage to living space. The front of the house faces into a cul de sac. They spoke with all of the neighbors and asked if they agreed with the plans. The neighbors signed a letter to that effect. The Gundersons said they have worked through the possibilities and believed this is the best plan for them because they have plenty of space on the south side of the house for a new garage. Giglio asked if the existing garage is for two cars. Gunderson said it is. Olson asked how big the house is now. Gunderson said it is about 1600 square feet. Converting the garage will give them just over 2000 square feet. KXomm.Dev\BOA-Board of Appeals\Minutes\2001\Bd of Adjustments 07-12-01.doc 3 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals July 12, 2001 Dunham asked if they had considered any options, such as taking five feet from the existing garage. Gunderson said if they took five feet from the existing garage that would limit the area of the new house. Olson asked if there are other three-car garages in the neighborhood. Gunderson said yes, across the street, and they received a variance to do the third stall. Johnson presented her staff report, stating the request by the Gundersons is to convert the existing double garage into living space and build a new three-stall garage, 32' x 22'. Staff suggested the option of trimming down the garage to two- and-a-half stalls or, if they needed more storage room, they could construct a detached storage building meeting setback requirements. Some residents have come into the City Center and looked at the plans. One comment was that the overall size was massive. No letters were received in opposition. Giglio asked if the garage would meet the setback code if the width were reduced by five feet. Johnson replied if they reduced it to 27 feet, that would meet the setback code. Ford asked how many stalls the average garage in the neighborhood has. Johnson said they are still mostly two stalls but a few are three stalls. Tom Gunderson said they like the neighborhood a lot and want to stay there, rather than moving to a larger house. They can't go deeper for storage space because the windows in the house would be blocked. They would be exceeding the setback line by five feet only at the easternmost corner. They thought a width of 30 feet was pretty small and that 32 feet would be about the right size. Giglio asked what their hardship is. Trudy Gunderson said the lot shape. Dunham pointed out there is not much relief in the length of the three-stall garage. Trudy Gunderson said that is why it is set back from the existing garage, to break the line across the front. Dunham said it could be set back more. Giglio said they could bring two stalls forward and drop the third one back. He suggested they talk to their architect about that. Dunham opened the public hearing. Having no one appear, Dunham closed the public hearing. Ford said he didn't think he could support the variance. The neighborhood generally has two-car garages. The request to add a three-stall garage will change the character of the neighborhood. Also he was not sure how the property would look with that large a garage. It would look good with a two-and-a-half-stall garage. That will still give them storage space. KXomm.Dev\BOA-Board of Appeals\Minutes\2001\Bd of Adjustments 07-12-01.doc 4 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals July 12, 2001 O'Leary said although what they are adding on to the existing structure seems to be quite a lot, the variance overall is minimal. There are similarities to the previous variance, but the Gundersons are not going with the deeper size on the three-stall garage. He was inclined to vote in favor of the variance unless there are more reasons given to the contrary. Olson wondered if the other lots in the cul de sac are big enough to support three- stall garages. He had an idea that they don't have room, and so no one else can build them because they would be encroaching on the adjacent properties. Ford said typically when the Board sees a request for a three-car garage, people say they have the last house on the block with a two-car garage. But this isn't a three- stall garage neighborhood. A huge change will be made to this house, and it will have a big visual impact. He agreed that the support of the neighborhood is there, but he was not sure how much weight to give that. In this particular case, because the neighborhood does not generally have three-car garages, that was a big factor for him to consider. Dunham said not all the options have been explored that would avoid going into the setback. There is 20 feet of buildable property on the north side of the house, so that would be a direction to build, and then add on a stall to the existing garage. Giglio said this is a corner lot and he agreed it is a massive change and will change the character of the house. But he didn't think building a 27-foot two-car garage would be much different. It is probably just as much of a visual change. O'Leary said if the neighbors were asked, they would probably wish to have the addition go toward the street rather than toward their property. Ford said he was not going to support the variance for the reason he stated; that it would allow the applicants to expand their house in a manner not consistent with the neighborhood. Motion/Second: Giglio/O'Leary to approve Variance Request 2001-06 to construct a three-stall garage having a front yard setback of 25 feet, the hardship being the curve of the street and the shape of the lot. Motion carried 3-2, with Ford and Dunham voting nay. C. Request#2001-07 by Nathan D. Bergeland at 7012 Willow Creek Road to: 1. Approve the existing 40' setback to the Ordinary High Water Level for the existing non-conforming house structure(Code requires 100'). 2. To enlarge the non-conforming house structure with the following: a. adding an attached 3rd stall garage having a'shoreland setback of 48' (Code requires a 100' setback) b. adding a 12'x 20' deck(meets 100' setback) c. adding a 16'x 20'porch (meets 100' setback) KXomm.Dev\BOA-Board of Appeals\Minutes\2001\Bd of Adjustments 07-12-01.doc 5 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals July 12, 2001 d. adding an entrance roof and covered walkway on the north side of the house(meets the 100' setback e. remove a one-story portion of the house and replace it with a two-story addition at a 60' shoreland setback(Code requires 100' setback) f. increasing the roof overhang to 3'6" (City Code, Sec. 11.75 NON-CONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES AND SIGNS. Subd. 1. Purposes. This Section is intended to limit the number and extent of non- conforming uses by prohibiting their enlargement, their re-establishment after abandonment, and the alteration of restoration after destruction of the structures they occupy. Eventually, certain classes of non-conforming structures of nominal value, and certain non-conforming signs, are to be eliminated or altered to conform. Subd. 2. Continuation and Maintenance. A. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, a use, lawfully occupying a structure or a site on the effective date of this Section or amendments thereto that does not conform with the use regulations or the site area per dwelling unit regulations for the district in which the use is located, shall be deemed to be a non-conforming use and may be continued except as otherwise provided in this Section. B. Non-conforming uses must comply with all regulations for off-street parking and loading, screening, landscaping and performance standards. C. Routine maintenance and repairs may be performed on a structure or site the use of which is non-conforming and on a non-conforming structure.) 3. Approve the existing 0' setback to the lake's Ordinary High Water Level for the existing non-conforming gazebo structure. Nathan Bergeland, 7012 Willow Creek Road, explained that he had been before the Board a year ago to request repair and maintenance of the property. The Board and then the City Council denied these requests. As a result he had to go to Hennepin County District Court. The court ruled gave him permission to put in new windows, new roof and new siding for the house and gazebo. He decided to hire a professional architect, Charles Stinson, who works in the Twin Cities area. Their objective is to build a structure that is sound. Giglio noted there are six different requests under item 2, and asked if they can approve them individually. Dunham said that could be done. Stinson said the construction and the architecture of the existing house is not good. There are no roof overhangs, so there is no protection from the sun or the rain. That has resulted in serious problems from water damage. They propose increasing the roof overhang to 3-1/2 feet and enclosing the flat roof. They would like the house to have more of the character of a lake cottage rather than modern. There has to be a new driveway put in because the present one goes over other people's property. They plan to remove a one-story portion of the house and replace it with a two-story addition. The new front elevation of the house will be more pleasing to look at. K:\Comm.Dev\BOA-Board of Appea1s\Minutes\2001\Bd of Adjustments 07-12-01.doc 6 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 12, 2001 They would like to add a stone wall to break down the scale of the house, add a porch and deck and create a patio area. Bergeland questioned the reason the gazebo was included in the list of requests for approval. Johnson explained that it would allow reconstruction of the gazebo if damaged by storm, etc. Bergeland said there are hardships connected with the living conditions in the house. He needs to get rid of the flat roof and the mold resulting from the water damage. He also wants to make sure the house is attractive looking. His neighbors want him to get to the point where it looks like a nice property, so he has the support of the neighborhood. He didn't believe what he was asking would be detrimental to the City; in fact,just the opposite. Johnson presented her staff report. Mr. Bergeland submitted a variance request to the Board last year, which included repair and maintenance of this structure. The Board did not approve the request. The Board believed the maintenance and repairs required exceeded routine maintenance and repair. The City Council upheld the Board's decision. Mr. Bergeland appealed the decision to Hennepin County court and was granted approval as outlined in the Order. This is a unique request, considering the enlargement of the house and the requested setback of 40 feet from the shore. There is a deck, garage addition and entryway addition as well to consider. Options in the staff report have to do with removing the non-conforming house structure and constructing a new home meeting the 100-foot setback. Another option would be to remodel the existing home without enlarging the structure's footprint. The Board has the option of looking at each request and decide if it wants to act in favor of some and not others. The letter from the DNR was included for the Board's reference. If the Board approves the applicant's request, City staff recommends the following conditions: (1) no building permits for the construction on the house be issued until an approved septic system has been installed on the property; (2) condition the 40-foot shoreland setback for the existing house footprint, not for any future additions. If the Board denies the request, findings have been included for denial. Ford asked why it is a non-conforming structure now. Johnson replied the setback now is 40 feet; Code requires 100 feet. The lot size had been non-conforming but approval was granted in a 1999 plat action. Another non-conforming item is that the lot does not have frontage on a street. The lot width variance was granted with the plat approval in 1999. Giglio asked if Bergeland is living in the house now. He replied that he is. Giglio asked if the Board always needs to establish a hardship before granting a request. Johnson replied there is the issue of hardships and unique circumstances. O'Leary said right now the setback of the house is 40 feet. When the City divided this lot into three lots, did they approve a 75-foot setback? Johnson said yes. K:\Comm.Dev\BOA-Board of Appeals\Minutes\2001\Bd of Adjustments 07-12-01.doc 7 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals July 12, 2001 Olson asked what are the required setbacks from other houses on each side? Johnson said a 15-foot minimum setback from each side of the house. That is not a problem in this case. Dunham opened the public hearing. Stuart Nolan, 7020 Willow Creek Road, said he lived immediately adjacent to these properties. The house Nate Bergeland lives in now is in bad shape. Basic maintenance was not done. Windows have rotted out and siding is damaged, so it became somewhat of a blight on the neighborhood. He said he spoke for 80 percent of the people on Willow Creek Road in asking that Nate Bergeland be allowed to make improvements to the house and turn this situation around. O'Leary asked Nolan what his setback is from the lake. Nolan said his house is high on a hill, so he is probably well over 100 feet back from the lake. There being no on else wishing to speak, Dunham closed the public hearing. Giglio asked for an explanation of the reason for relocating the driveway. Bergeland said he wanted to have safer ingress and egress to the property. The driveway comes in now off a building pad. Giglio asked if he would have to remove a large number of trees. Bergeland said most of the trees have already been removed that would need to be. Dunham said certainly this house is a structure that exists and is livable to some extent. Any improvement to it will be appreciated by the neighborhood. Adding a porch/deck that are beyond the 100-foot setback is fine, and if he built an addition to the garage beyond the 100-foot setback,that would be fine. O'Leary asked if Dunham was opposed to the third stall on the garage that would have a 48-foot setback to the lake, but conforms to the 15-foot setback on the side? Dunham said yes. Ford asked about the setback for the gazebo. Dunham said that was there before, so he would allow that. Giglio said last year the Board decided against the gazebo on the basis that a non- conforming structure should be torn down. However, now the court said the owner could repair it,but didn't say he could change it. Dunham replied if it is changed so it looks better, that is a win/win for everybody. O'Leary said Bergeland purchased the property intending to fix up and improve the house, and the court said he could. As long as he is not going within 100-foot setbacks, or adding new areas outside the footprint that had been established, he supports the request. KXomm.Dev\BOA-Board of Appeals\Minutes\2001\Bd of Adjustments 07-12-01.doc 8 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals July 12, 2001 O'Leary asked what is the position of the City regarding City sewer and water? Is the City going to be putting it in? Johnson replied it is a very difficult area in which to do a project, and the City has not received petitions from the residents to request it. She didn't believe it would be done soon. Ford asked what improvements were made to the gazebo. Bergeland replied he put on new siding. Ford said if the request for a third stall to the garage came in by itself, the Board would say it is a huge increase. Given the fact it is a large variance request because is in addition to the footprint of the non-conforming use. He was not prepared to support that portion of the request. Giglio asked if the landscaping toward the lake was natural or a manicured lawn. Bergeland said it is a lawn with trees; and the lawn goes all the way to the lake. Giglio asked if he used fertilizer. Bergeland said he did not. O'Leary asked where is the septic field on this land. Johnson said a new plan was approved with a shared drainfield. Giglio asked if the Board could add a condition to put in a new drainfield. Bergeland interjected he intends to install a private system. Johnson said staff would need to review the request. Motion/Second: O'Leary/Giglio to approve Variance Request 2001-07 1. Approve the existing 40-foot setback to the Ordinary High Water Level for the existing non-conforming house structure 2. Approve requests to enlarge the non-conforming house structure, with the exception of Item a. "adding an attached P stall garage having a shoreland setback of 48'." 3. Approve the existing 0' setback to the lake's Ordinary High Water Level for the existing non-conforming gazebo structure. Conditions: (1) No building permits for the construction on the house be issued until an approved septic system has been installed. (2) Condition the 40' shoreland setback for the existing house footprint, not for any future additions. The motion carried 5-0. D. Request#2001-08 by Sterling Fence, Inc. at 13480 Pioneer Trail to allow: 1. Outside storage of 12 trucks over 3/4 ton (Code limits outside vehicle parking to vehicles not exceeding 3/4 ton); 2. Outside storage of fence construction materials (Code requires materials, supplies, and equipment to be in an enclosed building); KXomm.Dev\BOA-Board of Appeals\Minutes\2001\Bd of Adjustments 07-12-01.doc 9 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals July 12, 2001 3. Permit parking to continue at a 0' setback from the property's south lot line (Code requires a 10-foot minimum setback for parking). Greg Olson offered to excuse himself from this request, citing a conflict of interest, as he does business with David Luse, owner of the property. Mr. Luse said the business he does with Mr. Olson has nothing to do with the property under discussion. Mr. Olson stayed. Mike Wilkus, Wilkus Architects, 11487 Valley View Rd., said he was working for Doug McCann, who is planning to move his existing business, Sterling Fence, Inc., from Bloomington to Eden Prairie, and needed the variances requested. He would be leasing the property and purchasing the existing building on the land. Sterling Fence has outlined the hardships involved and what they would intend to do to mitigate the requests. Wilkus said they plan to put a new 6-foot chain-link fence with opaque insets along the west, north and east boundaries of the entire site. They would provide a new 6- foot wood fence along the southern property line, west of the building, and enclose the west side of the exterior materials storage area to mitigate the outside storage. In addition, they would add landscaping to the south property line to screen the parking and enhance the wood fence. The vehicles stored on the property would exceed 3/a ton carrying capacity; however, the cab height does not exceed 77'. The proposed fencing around the property would screen all of the vehicles. With regard to parking within 10 feet of the front lot line, Wilkus believed the wood fence and landscaping to screen the parking would mitigate the variance request. Doug McCann, owner of Sterling Fence, Inc. said his business began in 1978 in Bloomington. They are being forced to move because the property is being redeveloped. They bring in material for fencing once a year. The crews generally leave for the work sites from their homes. The shop is used for making gates on the premises. They have eight part-time employees, eight sales people, three office employees, and six crews of two or three men who do installations. David Luse, owner of the property, said he purchased it in 1998. He fixed up the building on the property at considerable cost and paid for a Phase I and H environmental study. This is a transitional time for this property and he believed it would be a while before the ultimate use of it will be seen. Olson asked if he had any plans to bring the property into compliance with the City Codes. McCann said there were no plans for that right now. Olson asked, assuming his business grows, at some point McCann would be in a position to invest further in this property and build a bigger structure. McCann said his goal is to be there for the long term. Wilkus pointed out that at the back fence the land drops 40 feet, which prohibits expansion. KAComm.Dev\BOA-Board of Appeals\Minutes\2001\Bd of Adjustments 07-12-Ol.doc 10 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals July 12, 2001 McCann said he intends to hook up to City sewer and water as soon as it is available. Then they could bring the bathrooms up to code. He will meet with the City about this. Olson asked what was the possibility they would be able to move from outside to inside storage. McCann said the possibility is very minimal. There are issues with the property. Rezoning would be the only way to allow for expansion. Giglio asked why McCann was going to put up a chain-link fence on the west side of the property rather than a wood fence there. A chain-link fence is not as attractive and it would be next to the Cummins-Grill historic property. McCann said he would be willing to put up a wood fence. Ford asked if there was room to put up sheds to cover the construction materials, something that would meet City Codes. McCann said it is a lot of space to cover. Wilkes added that the intention is to keep the piles low. They are not planning to have piles higher than eight feet. McCann said his company would be sharing the access road off Pioneer Trail with the adjacent development because the developer could not get access off TH 212. This is the same access road that has been used since 1998. Ford asked how many people did they expect would be coming in and out every day. McCann said there are two delivery trucks each morning. Also, the part-time employees working on the site leave at noon and the office employees leave for lunch. The work crews usually only come to the site once a week. Ford asked how he would describe the maximum size trucks. McCann said the trucks are 1-1/2 ton, 16-foot flat-bed trucks. The cab is probably 6 feet. The site would get six or seven truckloads of material in April and a resupply in August and September. They unload within three hours. O'Leary asked if there is any retail business. McCann said perhaps a couple a day. Most sales are made over the phone. At the Pioneer Trail location, he expected there would be fewer. Inside the building there is an office area and warehouse with overhead doors. Johnson gave the staff report, stating the request as outlined is for the keeping of 12 3/4-ton trucks outside, and areas for the outside storage of supplies related to the fence business. As far as the area character, to the east and south is a newly approved office industrial park without outdoor storage, to the west is the City's Historic Cummins Grill house/property, and to the north is Staring Lake Park. The zoning for I-2 Industrial Park was approved in 1977. A request in 1998 was for outside storage of trucks and materials for a two-year period. Certain areas of the City are approved for outside storage in the Industrial General District, not in the I- 2 and I-5 Industrial Districts. There are approximately 30 acres of Industrial General land in the City. It is not expected more will be added to that. Options K:\Comm.Dev\BOA-Board of Appeals\Minutes\2001\Bd of Adjustments 07-12-01.doc 11 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals July 12, 2001 staff has discussed include storing all trucks and equipment inside. The City's records show 20,000 square feet of buildings on the 1.5-acre property. The property has a private well and septic system. City sewer and water is being planned for this year with possible construction next year. Another option would be to grant a more limited amount of area for outside storage and some trucks parked inside. Staff recommends approval be for no more than two years; that the fence constructed around the site be a 6-foot wood fence instead of a combination of wood and chain link; the applicant contact the City Building and Fire Code staff for review and approval prior to occupancy of the building. Regarding height of materials stored outside, in other cases the City has limited the height to no higher than the fence. A letter was received in opposition to the request from Brad Moen. Ford asked if there had been any complaints over the past two years on use of the site. Johnson said none that she has heard about. It has been regarded as a transition site. Olson asked what is the process involved in getting the zoning changed. Johnson replied the process would be a zoning request from I-2 to I-General, but I-General land has to be at least five acres. Giglio asked how the City decided on two-year approvals. Johnson replied because of the planned developments in this area in the City. It also depends on factors regarding sewer and water. Johnson said,regarding request for parking, the applicant would need to have a 10' setback instead of 0' to meet Code. Ford asked how far the adjacent site's parking would be from the fence. Johnson said it would be 50 feet. There will be a shared driveway with Mr. Moen's development. She explained the location of that development. Dunham opened the public hearing. Brad Moen, a partner in the Flying Cloud Business Park adjacent to the site under discussion, said he wrote the letter to the City opposing the requested variance. His project was approved by the City three months ago and he expected to begin work late this fall. It will be a$17 million project, with a 171,000-square-foot office/ showroom. He said he was very concerned about a fencing business moving next to his business and the historic area. He will have 500 people coming to work every day. He didn't think his tenants would be happy to share the driveway with trucks, etc. He would have the hardship in this case, not Sterling Fence. There are other options for them. There is no need to go with 0' setbacks. He said he had to comply with every City Ordinance. He didn't think granting this request would be good for Eden Prairie. This is a beautiful area,near Staring Lake. Ford asked where the entrance to his building and the parking would be. Moen showed him drawings of his proposed building and where the parking would be located. Giglio said he assumed there would be businesses that will carry inventory KAComm.Dev\BOA-Board of Appeals\Minutes\2001\Bd of Adjustments 07-12-01.doc 12 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals July 12, 2001 in the building. Moen said they would not be storing large amounts of inventory, but there would be docks for unloading in the back. It will be more of an office building. Dunham closed the public hearing. Ford asked McCann how many semi-trucks come in April with supplies. McCann said probably six at different times in April, two more to resupply later in the summer. Ford asked how many times a day his eight trucks come in and out of the site. McCann said once a day. Giglio asked if they are delivery trucks. McCann said three are delivery trucks and one could be used for delivery. Ford said compatibility is important. He took Moen's concerns very seriously. However,he believed eight loads of material a year would not be significant. Giglio said the storage material lies flat and he didn't believe people on the adjacent properties would be able to see the material. He asked the Board to consider if this is a reasonable use for this property and should they grant the variance. Olson said if the variance is granted, presumably it would be for a certain number of years, and after that time has elapsed they may get another request or the site will be brought up to Code. O'Leary said the Board could grant the variance for a certain amount of time and then state it would do it no longer. Giglio said the Board has done that with other places, such as truck rental businesses, but for only a certain number of years. Olson said they have to be careful, however,not to paint the City into a corner. Ford said Moen's buildings would not be up and occupied for almost two years. Then if there are problems he could come in and say want they are and the Board could deal with them at that time, rather than stating he thinks he is going to have a problem. Ford said he would support the variance for two years. Dunham said he agreed it would take two years to develop Moen's site. He would support a two-year variance. Giglio said when he looked at the site he thought Sterling Fence's request was reasonable, but he didn't know about the adjacent office/showroom development. He asked what the hardship was about. Ford said McCann is supposed to articulate what the hardship is. It could be the unique nature of the property. Ford said he didn't know that a hardship has been shown. He was inclined to grant the variance for a two-year period with certain limitations. However, a hardship has not been articulated. Ford asked if the applicant would like to address the hardship issue. Wilkus replied the 10-foot setback is one hardship along the south lot line that faces Pioneer Trail. K:\Comm.Dev\BOA-Board of Appeals\Minutes\2001\Bd of Adjustments 07-12-01.doc 13 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals July 12, 2001 They would try to go to a 10-foot setback and landscape along the fence. The main hardship is outside storage, which is critical to this operation. They will improve fences on the side adjacent to the Cummins-Grill property. Regarding outside truck parking, they are not equipped to park them inside. They asked to store materials outside because of the comings and goings from the site. The proposed inside use of the building would be to manufacture materials such as gates. Regarding expanding the building, in a few years they might be back to request expansion. However, he didn't know if they could meet all the City's requirements. The hardship is defining the unique usage of the site. Unique might be defined as transitional use of the property. Wilkus said they are trying to make the property better than it is now. O'Leary said the fact the property doesn't sit along the road and has a shared driveway would be the uniqueness of the property. He said he would support doing a 2- to 3-year variance. The hardship would be the uniqueness of the property itself. Motion/Second: O'Leary/Giglio to approve Variance Request 2001-08, to allow: 1. Outside storage of 10 trucks over 3/4 ton as described by company currently, and not changing them from what they are currently utilizing; 2. Outside storage of fence construction materials not to exceed the height of the fence; 3. Fencing around the perimeter of the property to be a six-foot wood fence; 4. Approve variance for no more than two years; 5. Applicant to contact City Building and Fire Code staff for review and approval prior to occupancy of the building; 6. Permit parking to continue as stated according to the plan, with 10-foot setback and with screening by landscaping on the south side and by the shared driveway. Ford asked Olson if he wished to abstain from voting, given the nature of the relationship he has with the property owner. Olson said he does business with the owner as his banker, and although the bank has no interest in this property, he would be perfectly willing to abstain, if the Board wanted him to do so. Ford said they all know people in the community and do business with them,but if Olson felt uncomfortable voting on this he could abstain. Olson said he would abstain. The motion carried 4-0-1,with Olson abstaining. IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS Johnson said the next meeting would be on August 9, 2001, with three or four items on the agenda. KXomm.Dev\BOA-Board of Appeals\Minutes\2001\Bd of Adjustments 07-12-01.doc 14 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals July 12, 2001 VI. ADJOURNMENT Dunham adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. K:\Comm.Dev\BOA-Board of Appeals\Minutes\2001\Bd of Adjustments 07-12-01.doc 15