HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 08/11/1988 i
APPROVED HIN[MES
• BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
Thursday, August 11, 1988 7:30 P.M. City Hall Coujncil
Chambers, 7600 Executive Dr. ,
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Bill Arockiasamy, (Chairman), Hanley
Anderson, Lyn Dean, Steve Longman,
Dwight Harvey, Scott Anderson, John
Freemyer, Michael Bozonie, Neil Akemann.
BOARD PEERS ABSENT: Lyn Dean
I. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Bill Arockiasamy, Chairman.
Roll Call: Bill Arockiasamy, Michael Bozonie, Dwight Harvey, Steve Longaman,
John Freemyer, Neil Akemann, Scott Anderson, Hanley Anderson.
All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
II.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the item of discussion concerning "Touch
of Class" be moved to the end of the agenda for the evening.
Longman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. (Dean absent).
III. MINUTES OF JULY 14 1988
Longman noted that the spelling of Carter under item F. on page 9 should be changed
to Cardarelle.
MOTION: Longman moved that the minutes of the meeting of July 14 be approved
with the above mentioned correction. Harvey seconded the motion and
it passed unanimously. (Dean absent).
IV.VARIANCES
A. Request #88-20, submitted � Sign Consultants, Inc. for ro-pert located at
565 Prairie Center Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, lei described as Lot
Block li Lunds Center Addition. The re uest is for a variance from City
Code Cha terms—Section . 0 Subdivision 3, X, to ermit a double faced
s inn with a di sta— eetween sign faces of 2'6", City Code perm is '
between sign faces on a double faced sign• —
Richard Lang of Sign Consultants appeared once again before the Board to present
a proposal for the sign to be erected in front of the Lund's store in Eden Prairie.
• He presented drawing he had made and stated that the sign had been modified as
much as possible. He illustrated "ghosting" effects that could occur if the sign
were to be improperly erected. He noted that the 12' by 4' brick columns were
2
the minumal size that could be used. He explained that inside these brick columns
• had been placed extra stong steel posts to compensate for the smaller area. He
felt that 22" was the minimum width the sign faces could be apart to eliminate
the "ghosting" problem. He showed photos of Lund's sign at Colonial Square
where larger brick had been used in construction. In this proposal h� was
suggesting the width of the brick columns be 16".
Discussion and questions concerning strength of the steel, size of the bricks,
and ghosting took place between Mr. Lang and the Members of the Board.
Harvey asked about the width between the double faced sign in this proposal.
Lang answered that they are proposing 22".
Lang showed examples of signs that were not architecturally well done to illustrate
his basis for requesting the size variances in the Lund sign.
Lang went on to show prints of the poles that would be used and their positioning,
and also mentioned that these poles were more expensive than what had been
originally planned.
Arockiasamy confirmed with Lang that the size of the brick to be used would be
4" by 12", the same as the brick in the building.
Tracy Lund stated that 2 spaces in the complex would be used for other tenants,
and two were to be used for additional Lund's projects.
• Opinions from the Members of the Board were as follows:
H Anderson: O.K.
Bozonie: O.K.
S Anderson: O.K.
Akemann: Would vote against as there seems to be no hardship involved.
Longman: Sign is bigger than he would have hoped for. He can see the idea of trying
to keep sign similar to other Lund Stores.
Harvey: Commend efforts made in this matter. He feels that the corporate image
is not the issue here as reductions have already been made from 26" to
22". Maybe the City Council should consider. He would vote against.
Freemyer: While there may not be a hardship involved, he felt it would be hard
to come closer to code considering the total package of materials
being used in construction. He would vote yes.
Arockiasamy questioned Lang on the basis for 8" on each side of the sign and Lang
responded that it was necessary to eliminate "ghosting," and get good illumination.
Akemann asked about the possibility of placing the columns at the outside edge
of the sign.
Lang responded that it would portray a different image (more ladder like) than
the traditional one desired by Lunds.
MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board approve variance 88-20 for a sign
• width not to exceed 22" and a pole width not to exceed 16" including
the brick. The basis for the decision being the materials used in
the project and the image desired by the owners would not permit a
lesser size. Longman seconded the motion and it passed 5-3. Bozonie,
Harvey and Akemann voted nay. (Dean absent)
3
B. Request #88-22, submitted by Eberhardt Real Estate Companies for property
located at 9955 West 7 th Street and east of Golden Triangle Drive, Eden
• Prairie, Minnesota. The re uest is for a variance from City Code Cha ter—H,
ecction ) Subdivision 2B, to ermit construction of a building
addition to an existing I-2 building so the new Floor Area Ratio will be
City Code maximum Floor Area Ratio is .30, 2) Subdivision II, to
permit a loadinq facility on a street frontage. City Code does not permit
loading facilities to be located on a street frontage.
Mike Wilkins appeared to present the variance request to the Board and explained
that Bachman's Dept 56 was expanding by approximately 100.000 sq. ft. This
would exceed a 30% floor ratio. He explained that a hardship is created with
this property due to the limits created by the Golden Triangle.
Johnson noted that the staff has reviewed the issue and the loading dock area
will be screened.
Arockiasamy had questions on the storage area and the layout of the site.
S Anderson asked about possible office space at the site.
Wilkins answered that a small truck office of about 1600 sq ft would be there.
All current offices will be demolished.
Harvey asked questions concerning landscaping, berming and irrigation.
• Wilkins answered that they have provided for a 8' berm on the Golden Triangle
side. There would be irrigation and the landscaping requirements will be exceeded.
Harvey stated that while he was generally not for going against code, he felt the
amount of screening and shielding was compensation.
Longman said it meets setback and parking requirements and the floor area was
not that dramatically off.
Arockiasamy said that trade-offs and benefits needed to be looked at in the matter.
He asked about the status of the street.
Johnson answered that it will be started this fall.
Akemann asked if there would be docks on each end of the building.
Wilkins answered yes. In response to a question regarding the landscaping,
he then showed the Board a landscaping plan.
Akemann asked if some of the parking requirements could be deleted.
Johnson answered that the requirement for hard surface parking could be lifted.
S Anderson asked Johnson if offices could be built in this warehouse.
• Johnson responded that offices could not be built without additional parking
when and if Bachman's would leave the site.
4
• Harvey asked if Bachman's was leasing the building.
Wilkins answered that they were leasing.
Harvey still had questions regarding the parking spaces.
Johnson felt it would be better to have a plan now regarding that matter.
Wilkins felt the number of parking spaces limits the use of the building.
Arockiasamy asked if it could be conditional on the use of this tenant.
Johnson answered that it could, but the variance usually goes with the property.
Bozonie asked if there were other sites that could bring conditions closer to code.
Wilkins said there were in other cities.
Bozonie then clarified that it was this site in Eden Prairie or another location
in another city. He asked how many years the lease would be for.
Wilkins answered it would be for 10 years.
Akemann asked if additional semi traffic could be involved.
Wilkins answered that there would be no additional semi traffic.
• MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve Variance 88-22 with the following
findings:
a) The site constraints prevent viable alternatives.
b) The plan incorporates mitigative measures through berms and
Plan material which lessen the variances impacts.
c) Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended approval of
the project at its July 25, 1988 meeting.
d) The building meets all setbacks and parking requirements for
the specific use.
Longman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.(Dean Absent)
C. (This variance was moved up on the agenda due to children in attendance)
Request #88-27-M, submitted �y Brian William Kenny to be moved to 6252
Harborou h Court, Ede Prairie, Minnesota. The building's present location
is at 990 Penn Avenue South, Bloomington, Minnesota. The type of building
To be moved is a residential structure.
Brian Kenny appeared before the Board to present his request for a variance.
He explained that the home he desired to move to the Eden Prairie location was
built by Mary Anderson in 1986 at 9901 Penn Ave S. It was a model for a condo
for senior citizens which had been built with the intention of moving it at a
later date. Mr Kenny had bid on the property and his offer had been accepted.
5
He would like to move the home to the Chatham Woods area of Eden Prairie.
• It fits in with the single family housing in the area. He explained that some
of the home needed to be removed in order to move it. After reaching the site,
that portion of the home would be reattached and additional footage would be
added to reach 3000 sq ft on the main floor. He showed photos of the ome as
it looks now in Bloomington. He felt that the home would fit in well �ith the
neighborhood and noted that it was constructed with 2 by 6's and was well
insulated. He explained his plans for enlarging the home at the Eden Prairie site.
Kenny noted that the square footage meets the covenents and exceeds them. He
stated that he would be doing most of the work himself except the wiring and other
specialized trades. The target date for completion of the outside work was 3 months.
He would like to move in before winter and do the interior work in the cold months.
He has noted that there is a wet area near the driveway that would need some extra
work, but the pattern of water flow on the property would be basically the same.
He felt he could complete the exterior work in 3 months and not inconvenience
the neighborhood for 9 months or so as is often the case in new construction.
Freemyer was concerned with Kenny's background and ability to do the work.
Kenny explained his qualifications and the fact that he had been doing contracting
on his own for years. He has several subcontractors and feels competent in
carpentry and cement.
Freemyer asked about the possiblity of a second story.
Kenny said at this point it was not planned, but he will put in 2'by 12's,,just
in case,so it could be an option.
Freemyer asked if the proposed additions would fit on the lot and work in well
with the elevation of the site.
Kenny answered that they would and showed a front elevation view.
Freemyer asked if the home would in fact be sitting sideways on the lot.
Kenny answered that it would.
Freemyer clarified to Kenny that the home would need to meet Eden Prairie codes
as well as those of Bloomington.
Kenny said that he understood that.
Harvey asked Kenny if he was willing to bond that the project would take 3 months
and no longer.
Kenny said he was willing to bond that.
Harvey asked how many windows would be in the addition.
Kenny answered that there would be 21 windows there.
Harvey had concerns about getting the project done on the exterior in 90 days.
• He felt the bond should be high--possibly double,to ensure the completion date.
Kenny said he would prefer an irrevocable letter of trust.
S Anderson asked how much this letter of trust would be for.
6
• Kenny answered it should be near the value of the home-around $200,000.
Harvey asked how many sq ft would be moved to the site and what the maximum
height of a possible second -story wc.-.zld be.
Kenny answered that 1270 sq ft would be moved to the site and more would then
be added to meet requirements. The peak of the roof was now 18.5 ft and would
be 26-27 ft with a second story. He said the home is basically a walk-out
rambler but because of the design, it is compatible with other homes in the area.
Longman noted that it is a concern to protect property values in the area. He
asked who enforces the neighborhood covenants.
Johnson answered that the Howmeowner's Association would enforce them.
Longman-asked if Kenny was the fee owner.
Kenny answered that he was and showed his certificate of purchase.
Longman said that there was no evidence of complete building plans.
Kenny said he did not know that this was required at this meeting but could
provide them. He will submit them when he gets a building permit.
Longman asked if soil borings had been done.
• Kenny said not yet. He had asked others about their findings and found that the
site is suspect.
Longman noted that the site is depressed elevation wise. Would fill be needed?
Kenny said "yes and no". He would excavate some fill out and use it in other areas.
Discussion and explaination regarding elevation and fill on the site took place.
Longman asked if Kenny had had experience in putting homes on lots where elevation
was an issue.
Kenny answered that he had.
Arockiasamy asked about the help that Kenny was planning on using.
Kenny answered that they were licensed subcontractors.
Arockiasamy noted that opinions on how the structure blends in with the neighbor-
hood can differ. He asked if Kenny planned to get help in this regard.
Kenny said that he had a friend who is a landscape architecht. He had not consulted
with others at this point.
Kenny said he had talked to 23 neighbors on Sunday. Many were led to believe wrongly
• concerning his proposal. The two major concerns were the time element involved
and if the home would be up to street level.
7
Kenny had clarified the facts with the neighbors and found that only two did
• not 'see his plan in a favorable light--one reserved judgement until the
drawings could be seen at this meeting.
Arockiasamy had questions on the moving and assembly of the home.
Kenny explained the moving process and plans.
Akemann asked why this issue had come to this Board and not the Planning Commission.
Johnson explained that in the late 70's the Board of Appeals first confronted
these matters. It states in Section 10 that the Board of Appeals shall handle
such matters. In answer to another question by Akemann, she noted that occupancy _
permits are usually required by mortgage and lender instutions and merely state
that the structure is habitable.
Betty Biskins,a member of the audience, stated that a certificate of occupancy
was required at closing.
Longman said the structure would have to pass plumbing, heating, and electrical
inspections.
Kenny said that he understood that.
Longman noted that building permits have a 6 month expiration date.
• Johnson stated that it can be extended by doing some work on the project.
Harvey asked if a 90 day permit could be issued.
Johnson answered that it could be done.
Akemann said this is an unusual circumstance in the fact the we can view the home
before it is on site. He felt that the lot was unusual and the fact that the
home did not face the front of the lot did not make it consistent with the rest
of the homes in the area.
Kenny said he desired a certain type of floor plan and considering the site, he
did not feel that there was much of a choice.
Akemann asked if Kenny would build the home different if he were building from
scratch.
Kenny answered no, he would not.
S Anderson noted that the Board cannot enforce Homeowner's Association Covenants.
He asked Kenny if he would be willing to comply with them. He also mentioned
the problem of not knowing how this would affect the neighbor's property. He felt
this needed to be explained to the neighbors in detail and would like additional
information on topography and landscape planning.
Kenny said the next door neighbor had not done landscaping and he would work
• together with him on the project. He also stated that he would comply with the
Homeowners Association covenants.
8
S Anderson said he would still like more information on the project and also
the letter of credit matter.
• Kenny said time is the problem. He needed to get the project moving.
S Anderson asked if there was a setback variance required.
i
Kenny answered that there was not.
S Anderson asked Kenny if he would be willing to continue the request for 30 days.
Kenny answered that the home must be moved out by Sept 25. It would not allow
enough time.
Bozonie said he applauded the enterprise shown by Kenny and thought the structure
was nice. However, he felt it was a mismatch to the neighborhood.
Kenny said the Homeowners Association covenants made him change the design somewhat.
H Anderson felt the problem was in the siting of the home. He did not feel this
variance could be approved or denied at this meeting. More absolute information
and complete details would be needed. Also, in the event the covenants needed
to be enforced, who would do it? He felt the siting was just not good and was
not consistent with the neighborhood.
Some comments arose from the audience and Arockiasamy asked those in attendance
to prepare their statements, but do not repeat opinions already expressed by the
Members of the Board.
Harvey added that he would like the names and relationship of anyone speaking
on the matter be in the record.
S Anderson said he would like a topographical and aerial view of the site.
Akemann asked if Kenny had alternatives in mind.
Kenney said no other lots had been chosen as potential sites.
Freemyer said there are "parking spots" available for such homes. Also he added
that there should be a grading plan.
Kenny said he would ask his mover about such parking spots. He stated that he did
not have a grading plan.
Betty Biskins of All Pro Builders appeared before the Board stating that their
company had two homes in the area being completed at the present time. These
were on Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 11, Block 7. She said she was speaking for the
majority of the residents of Chatham Woods. She had questions on the continuity,
grade problems, and the way the house would be situated on the lot. She felt
the completion time projected by Kenny was not realistic. She did not feel he was
capable of doing all the things he claimed in the construction of the home. She would
like evidence of the line of credit, his qualifications, and how Kenny could
possibly find the time to do it in 3 months. Biskins asked if Kenny had met the
• requirements of the application and if the specials had been paid off.
Johnson answered that they were to be paid on the lot in Bloomington.
Biskins said according to her sources, the covenants ran with the land -And:: in.some
9
instances, they overruled the building codes. If that were the fact in this
instance, the project could be stopped now pending Homeowners Association
approval.
• Longman said Biskins was correct in that the covenants ran with the land for
30 years, but on the other hand, control was not automatically take on by
the neighbors since Toma Company is no longer in existence.
Arockiasamy noted that the Board does not make judgements on personal matters.
Another member of the audience, Mr. Marlowe Anderson , came forward and said he
was at the meeting when the house was awarded. He will be a next door neighbor
for the proposed homesite. He stated that he had done this kind of work and
knows from experience that it cannot be done in this time frame. It is at least
10" to virgin soil, if it could be reached at that point. It would take a minimum
of 1,000 yards of soil at approximately $15,000 to prepare the site for the home.
He stated that he had spoken with the neighbors and 80% had opposed the project.
Ed Rajoik came forward from the audience and stated that he was the oldest
resident of the area. He resided at Lot 1, Block 7 in Harborough Court. He would
like to go on record opposing the project.
Steve Arendale of 6256 Harborough Court did not feel Kenny had put out a sub-
stantial cash outlay at this point and had questions on whether or not he
could complete the project becuase of financial limitations. He suggested that
the Board deny the variance request.
Harvey asked Arendale how long the construction had taken on his home.
Arendale answered it had taken 5 months with many people working each day.
Lisa Steeney, a neighbor of the potential site, asked for more information
on Kenny's credibility and lisensure.
Longman stated that some of the neighbor's points were valid. He noted there
were problems with soil and elevation, and a large risk would be taken by Kenny
with the bond for 90 days considering the possibility of inclement weather.
Arockiasamy noted that there were several potential problems. He asked Kenny if
he could respond with options. He felt it was quite a risk to take. At this point,
he felt the variance request would not pass. He gave Kenny the option of returning
after more planning and information or asking the Board to act on the matter at
this meeting.
Harvey stated that the home was not that far off architecturally, but he did have
some concerns about the 3 month completion period. Another concern was the
absence of complete plans and the sizeaUe bond would be hard to post.
Mr Kenny returned to the podium and said that he would not address the personal
attacks, but stick to the issues. He had proposed to complete only the outside
within the 3 month period, not the entire structure. A substantial part of the
structure has already been completed. He asked where are all the neighbors who
• signed against his proposal? He felt he had explained the issues and they were
no longer concerned. Possibly the main concern here was a prejudice on the money
saved by this method. He expressed appreciation to':the Board for the time spent
10
f
on his request. He stated he would find another lot and will just build a similar
• home to this one on the lot in Chatham Woods.
MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board deny Variance Request 8-27 based on
inadequate information provided. Longman seconded �he motion and
it passed unanimously. (Dean absent) i
D. Request #88-23, submitted �X Westwood Investors for property located at 6365
Carlson Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from
City Code, Cha ter 2, Section 2. , Subdivision 2 (1 For the Board of
Appeals and Adjustments to hear an appeal of determination made �City
Staff Zoning Administrator Staff eetermined the east lot line of the above
referenced lot to be a rear yard lot line versus a side lot line, =2 j City
Code Cha ter ,—Section 11.03, Subdivision 2B, to permit a rear yard
building setback for the existinq building of 21.25' . City Code requires a
25' rear and setback. —'
Michael Wilkins appeared to represent Hoyt Development in presenting the
request for the variance. He explained that when plans for the property were laid
out, there was no rear property line. The rear driveways are shared and paved.
Arockiasamy asked if there was a property line in between the two buildings now.
Wilkins answered yes.
Wilkins stated there was a question as to which direction was considered the
rear property line. If it is east of the property, then a variance was needed.
Johnson stated that the matter was before planning recently and the building
was shown as 25' back, but it was built with a 21' 'rear lot line. It does not
meet the setback requirements.
Arockiasamy asked jest why the area under discussion would be referred to as the
side lot line. Was it just an alternative to be able to meet requirements?
Wilkins answered that yes, it is an alternative. Carlson Drive bends in this
area and directions like this can be an issue on cul-de-sacs.
Freemyer asked if Hoyt owned the property to the east also.
Wilkins answered yes. There would be no objection from there.
MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board agree with the staff opinion that the
lot line in question is determined to be a rear yard and approve
Variance Request 88-23, permitting a 21.25' rear yard building setbac
Longman seconded the motion. and it passed unanimously. (Dean absent;
Harvey noted that the basis for granting the variance was that the
building was already constructed and that there were not objections
from surrounding property owners.
•
11
E. Request #88-24, submitted by Raven Ridge Homeowners Association for property
located at Raven Ridge Condominium No. 410 on Edenvale Boulevard, Eden
Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter
. 11, Section 1 .03, (1 Subdivision 2B, To permit a detached garage a' from
the side lot line on Lot 5, City Code requires 10' , (2 Subdivision 3H5b, To
permit a 0' side yard arkin setback between lots a� nd 6, CityCode
requires 10' , Subdivision 3H5d, To permit a front yard arp king etback
of 21' , City Code requires 301 .
Dick Brown, president of Raven Ridge Homeowner's Association, appeared before the
Board to present the request. He noted that the documents before the Board were
self explainatory, but if there were any additional questions, he would gladly
answer them.
Arockiasamy asked if the property in question was north of the pump house.
Brown answered that it was.
Harvey asked if the structure in question was for single car garages.
Brown answered that it was. He explained that it would be a 3 car detached garage.
Akemann noted that the original plans for the property did not include a garage
for units 5 and 6. He questioned if the Board should approve a garage on a site
that was originally not to have one.He asked Brown if this would be the only
free standing garage.
. Brown answered that it would be the only one.
S Anderson asked about the opinions of the adjacent owners.
Brown replied that there were no objections from Cambridge Co (the developers) or
from 5 of the 6 property owners nearby.
H Anderson felt the Association may have a right to have a garage there.
Arockiasamy asked if all 6 parking stalls were needed there.
Brown said they were and they would like more if possible, but it would encroach
into the setback by 91 .
Freemyer had questions concerning the visibility from Edenvale.
Brown answered that it will barely be visible from there. They intend to retain
the berm and put trees on it.
Akemann did not agree with the concept of putting a garage on a site that was
never intended to have one. It would be the only free standing garage on the site.
Brown responded that a garage was planned for the future there.
MOTION: S Anderson moved that the Board approve the variance due to the
fact that the property and the nature of the property has changed
and created a hardship on the owners through land restrictions.
Motion was seconded by Harvey and passed 7-1. Akemann voted nay.
12
• F• Re nest #88-25, submitted by Jim and Elizabeth Kelly for property located at
9330 Cedar Forest Road, Eden Prairie'The—request
Minnesota, legally described as Lot
Block 2, Cedar Forest st Addition. The re uest is for a variance f om City
Code, Chapter 11,Section .03, Subdivision 26 to ermit a uildin
addition 10' from—a side lot line and deck 8.5' from -aside lot lin City
Code requires a 15' side and setback in the R1-22 Zoning District.
This variance was continued.
MOTION: S Anderson moved that the Board continue variance request 88-25
and the motion was seconded by Freemyer. Motion massed unanimously.
(Dean absent)
G. Request #88-26, submitted b Beth Ann and Greg Halvorson for property
located at 5536 Lakeland Terrace, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is
fora variance from City Code Chha�ter 1 7Section .50, Subdivision 6B, to
ermit a building addition 71 from the Ordinary High Water Mark of Lake
Rim._ City Code re uires a 00' setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark.
Beth and Greg Halvorson appeared before the Board to present their variance
request. They explained that their intent was to get permission to add on to
an older home to make a family room and dining area. They handed out sketches
and showed pictures of the area involved. A wall on the creek side of the
home would be moved out to enlarge the living room. Originally, they had not
• thought of going beyond the building line, but the architect suggested an ad-
ditional 2'
Akemann clarified the fact with the Halvorsons that the additional 2' would
put them in violation of code, although they already were before deciding to add the
extra 2 feet.
Johnson stated that the Board could not act on a variance request unless it
had been published, and the change in plans to add the extra 2' had not been
published.
Akemann mentioned that a certain setback from the creek needed to be maintained.
Johnson men coned that the variance co d be published and continued.
rc�ubl�sk��Q �o ads 45'5 Pig6 �rm tt)
MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board continue variance request 88-26.
Arockiasamy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
(Dean absent)
Johnson noted that she will modify the application form.
H. q
Re uest #88-28, submitted � Michael J. Dunbar for property located at 12160
Travois Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota The request is for a variance from
Cjty Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Subdivision 2, District Standards, A. ,
7_, to ermit the total ratio of the total square footage- of all garages and
accesses build in s to the total lot area to be 10%. City Code permits a
• maximum of 7 /20. — — — —
Mike Dunbar appeared before the Board to present his request for a variance.
13
He explained that he would like to get all his vehicles in the garage.
He added that he would like to incorporate a work area also. Dunbar passed
out drawings of the proposed structure.
Arockiasamy asked what the opinion of the neighbors was on the project
Dunbar said as far as he could tell it was O.K. , although he had not talked
to the neighbor on the back of the property.
Bozonie felt the addition looked overwhelming. If it were 20 by 15, would
it still meet FAR code?
Dunbar answered that it would.
Akemann questioned Johnson regarding the total ratio of square footage of
garages--could it be converted to another use?
Johnson answered yes. Four stalls are maximum. Normally this size lot would
not allow this.
Akemann felt windows would make the structure look better.
Dunbar said he would rather not have them for security purposes.
Akemann questioned Dunbar on the hardship issue and also the asthetic appeal
or lack of it with this design.
• Dunbar felt a hardship was shown by the fact that his driveway was being damaged
from the pickup sitting there. He said he could install windows if the asthetic
appeal would be improved that way.
H Anderson noted that this was a huge addition and not a natural thing for
this neighborhood.
S Anderson asked Johnson if this were to be constructed using windows,and
for the purpose of a home addition, would Dunbar need a variance?
Johnson answered that he may not.
Arockiasamy had reservation on the 28' wall and said long term effects needed
to be considered.
Dunbar said that according to the law, the addition could be 28' deep and 5'
wide, but of course that would not be practical.
S Anderson felt no hardship was shown. He had never seen anything in excess
of 10%. He felt the maximum in this instance should be 20 by 18 feet.
Harvey shared his concerns and said the Board needed to look beyond the present
neighbors. He felt this was a matter of convenience rather than hardship.
Freemyer said 52.3' is a massive side wall. He felt Dunbar should consider
• a smaller addition. Possibly the wall could be 24' instead.
Dunbar replied that would be considered.
14
S Anderson said he liked the idea of the windows. He noted that the Board needed
to consider that this may set a precedent for the future.
Arockiasamy asked if the Board felt a hardship was demonstrated--was this just-
ified--If it was needed, how much space was needed? Not just the present, but
the future needed to be considered.
i
Akemann felt a garage addition could be built within code.
H Anderson stated that having three vehicles was not a hardship. Space for
storage of vehicles can be rented.
Dunbar said that this proposal was based on what the City had originally led
him to believe. He had gotten a loan and then went to get a permit and found
out it was not within code.
S Anderson noted that a 20 by 15 foot addition could be constructed and still
remain within code.
Dan Noethe, a neighbor of Dunbar came forward and mentioned another home in
the neighborhood that had a similar situation. He asked for verification of
the statement that if this were a house addition and not for a garage, no
variance would be needed.
Johnson said PUD language can differ and she would need to check.
Noethe said in his own case having to park on the streets had resulted in
. damage to his vehicles. He felt cause for hardship existed.
Freemyer asked if approval on certain parimeters could be granted.
Arockiasamy felt it better that the Board not design the addition-liability
could possibly come back in the future if problems occurred.
Akemann felt the consensus of the Board was that there was no hardship demonstrated.
H Anderson noted that Dunbar could go with a 20 by 16 or a 20 by 18, if he would
take out the center wall that he was proposing.
MOTION: Akemann moved that the Board deny Variance Request 88-28 on the
grounds that there was not hardship identified. Harvey seconded
the motion and it passed 5-3. S Anderson, Bozonie, and Longman
voted nay. (Dean absent) -
I. Request #88-29, submitted �y Marco Construction for property located
northwest of the intersection of Eden Road and Glen Lane, Eden Prairie,
Minnesota. -The—request is for a variance from City Co3ce Chapter I1, Section
.50, Subdivision 6,6— to ermit the following Shoreland Management
variances: 1 To per6it a Tot size of 1.24 acres. CCli tv Code requires a 10
acre minimum lot size. (2 To ermit a building setback of5' for the
principal structure, 31 ' for the deck and 25 ' for the azebo. City Code
requires a 200' structure setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark. T3�
Subdivision 8D to—permit a arkin lot 25 ' from the Ordinary High Water
• Mark. City Code requires a 50' setback from the Ordinar High Water Mark.
4 Subdivision 7C to permit impervious surface of 58 of the total lot
area. City Code does not permit impervious surface to exceed 30% of the
total lot area. ( Also City Code Cha ter 1�6�Subdivision 3,H,5,d, to
permit parking 17.5' from the front lot line. City Code requires a 35'
front yard setback. — -
15
i
Paul Struther appeared to represent Marco Construction in requesting the variance.
He showed plans of the proposed site and mentioned that in the past a similar
site plan was proposed for an office there.
Johnson said there had been other requests on this lot and adjoining lots.
The lake was classified as shoreline in 1984 and it has made planning difficult.
The planning commission feels that this is consistent with the site plan.
S Anderson asked if the parking shown was sufficient for the 5000 sq ft
restaurant.
Struther answered that 57 stalls were required and they had plans for 68, some
of which .would be underground.
Akemann felt the use of the property was being stretched to the limit. He did not
feel that it was the best use of the lot.
Struther noted that this proposal was less square footage than a previously
approved request.
Johnson said that she felt it makes good use of the property since it was
downtown and in a major center area.
Freemyer had questions regarding the DNR shoreline management act. He felt this
much bituminous so close to the lake was in violation. 5 Variances were involved.
He asked about the land to the west.
Johnson replied that the homes in that area were being moved out.
S Anderson said he supported the plan because he could see the hardship created
by the wetlands and setback requirements. He supported this idea since the area
was one of vitality and this use for the property would be good.
Arockiasamy felt the Board must look at the total picture.
MOTION: S Anderson moved that the Board approve Variance Request 88-29
with the following findings:
a) The site constraints create a hardship for development of
the site. No development could occur on this site without
Shoreland variances.
b) The Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed and
approved the site plan.
c) Unique characteristics of the lot create a need for the
requested variances.
H Anderson seconded the motion and it passed 6-2. Freemyer and Akemann voted nay.
(Dean absent)
J. Discussion on reply from Touch of Class regarding work on the property
Johnson noted the letter received from Touch of Class and suggested that a
1b
target date be given for completion of the work.
Arockiasamy felt that the letter from Touch of Class was vague and uninformative.
He felt the Board could act on the matter now or give one more chance to Touch
of Class to give the Board specific information on when the project will be
completed.
H Anderson stated that the Board only grants variances and there was no longer
one in effect on this property.
After discussion on the matter, it was decided that Touch of Class would be
informed that there was no longer a variance in effect now and the City will
have to enforce the original code for 75% brick.
V. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board adjourn. Bozonie seconded the motion
and it passed unanimously (Dean absent)
Meeting adjourned at 12:25 P.M.
•