Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 10/13/1988 I APPROVED m BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS Thursday October 13, 1988 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers, 7600 Executive Dr., Eden Prairie, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Bill Arockias amy, (Chairman), Hanley Anderson, Lyn Dean, Steve Longman,- Dwight Harvey, Scott Anderson, John Freemyer, Michael Bozonie, Neil Akemann. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT. Lyn Dean, Michael Bozonie (H Anderson and S Anderson arrived late) I. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Bill Arockiasamy, Chairman. Roll Call: Bill Arockiasamy, Dwight Harvey, John Freemyer, Steve Longman, Neil Acemann. Hanley Anderson arrived at 7:40. S Anderson arrived at 7:42. All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance II. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 8 1988 • MOTION: Harvey moved that the minutes from the September discussed at the end of the meeting. Longmanp er 8th meeting be and it passed unanimously. seconded the motion III. VARIANCES A. Re uest #88-25, submitted � Jim and Elizabeth Kelly for lo ert cated at 9 30 Ced— a Forest Road, Eden prairie Minnesotaro tr re nest is for a variance from Cit Code, Subdivision 26 to—armit a build n1 addition tOr from Seatisidel�lot line and deck 8.3' f_ a side lot line. City Code require a ' side and setback in the R!-22 Zo—g Dist_t — This variance was withdrawn. B• ERequ.est #88-34, submitted � James Henderson for Property located at U 9 Thornhill Rod Eden prat ir''e Minnesota. The re nest variance from Cit Code Cha ter is for a — � Section 1.OSu division 2Z 8i to ermit a ec a�C�ition from a si_Ce—a ine. re wires a 1�' side and setback in the RT_T3. oning Dist.Code This variance request was continued from the September 8, 1988 meeting. James Henderson appeared to present the variance. He showed drawings of the • property and area to the Board and explained that he and the builder had designed the home and that at the time he was unaware that the need for a variance would be necessary for the proposed deck. Later, at the time he had 2 put in the area playground he was still unaware of that fact. His idea in locating the playground area where it is was to provide shade for the children and at the same time to be able to watch them from within the home. If the deck area would need to be cut down, the 10' wide area will become only 5 or 6 feet wide--more like a walkway. Moving the playground will cost a certain amount of money since it is a heavy duty set of equipment. The home has the crank-out type of casement windows and this will present a problem on such a narrow walkway. Even if the deck were to be brought to the back of the home, it would still interfere with the windows in that area. * H. Anderson arrived at 7:40. Henderson also note d that if the deck were to be the neighbor's view of the pond could be blocked. in a different location, * S. Anderson arrived at 7:42. Henderson continued and noted that concerning the design of the home, he had chosen the lot because of the way if faces and considered the sunlight that would reach the site. He felt much frustration because of the fact that he did not know that a variance would be required. He had sent a notice to all the neighbors explaining his plans and there had been no problem. The neighbor that would be most affected had given written permission. He felt the best alternative is the present plan. Arockiasamy said he understood Henderson's frustration and asked Johnson if she had anything to add. • Johnson answered that she did not. Henderson said that he had an up-to-date survey. Freemyer was concered because he noted that many times these as-built survey's were made before the home was built. Often the actual position of the home will vary. Although he sees the situation regarding the edge of the deck, he felt it was out of the question to go over into 5' of the utility easement. Henderson asked if a survey done after the foundation was installed would be acceptable. Freemyer said it would. Arockiasamy asked if a deck was being considered for the bedroom side. Henderson answered that a small sun deck, not a major deck, was being considered for that location. Arockiasamy asked Johnson if a deck would be permitted on that side. Johnson answered that it would. Akemann asked if a variance was given when the property was built. • Henderson answered that a waiver had been given to the builder for the const of the garage and the house. He had been unaware of this. ruction 3 Harvey said although he sympathized with the situation, he was not fond of PUD's. Adding this deck would be adding living space. The neighbor that would be most affected would have living space on that side too. Although it would be an inconvenience to move the playground, there are alternatives here. He was not in favor of the variance and felt no hardship was shown. Henderson asked if the neighbor's opinions had no weight? Harvey answered that each person had their own opinion. Although the present neighbor may not object, he may not always live there. This variance would enhance the Henderson property and diminish the neighbor's. Longman noted the change in the stairway and felt it was a good idea. Although he was against PUD's, he reminded the Board that some good points were made here. The home is located near a pond which involves a safety factor for the children. The parents need to see them. He noted that Hans Hagen Homes had received a 5' variance in the past. Since the neighbor's here don't object, he would vote for the variance. Freemyer said that if the City says that a garage can be 5' off the line, then a deck should be considered no more of a living quarters that a garage--probably less. Based on the City's approval of the original building permit, he would be in favor of the proposed deck. He noted that a decision made here should not adversely affect the safety of the children. He said he was in favor of the variance. S Anderson had a question on the possibility of the sliding glass door being placed on the angled wall--could the deck go there and not require a variance? • Henderson said he was only asking a 4' variance. S Anderson asked if the additional 6' could be added to the deck behind the garage and not require a variance. Johnson answered that it could. S Anderson asked if some action needed to be taken against the builder. Henderson said he had been informed only that he was at the maximum width. S Anderson asked if living space could be enclosed and become a part of the home. Johnson answered that only a deck was being approved now. Enclosure of the area would require another variance. H Anderson asked if Henderson would like to go to the end of the garage with the structure. Henderson answered that he would. H Anderson clarified that a 6' area would make a walking area, but 10' would be more usable. Is it true that Henderson wanted the wider area? Henderson answered that was true, as if it were 6' , the playground would need to be moved. Asthetics were involved and also the angle of the sunlight. He did not want all of the deck in back of the house. H Anderson said he was agreeable with the variance. 4 Arockiasamy asked if anyone in the audience had anything to say on the matter. • No response. Akemann said that the Board is here to grant variances where hardships exist. He did not see a hardship. Henderson answered that he did see one. Akemann answered that the deck could still be built within code. Henderson stated that it would not be as he had originally planned. Now he is paying for the problem that he had been unaware of. Harvey said that Henderson purchased a home with a 5' setback from the side lot line. It was a small lot and he felt Henderson knew this. Henderson said he knew only that he was at the maximum of what was allowed. The deck does not come out further than the house does. Harvey noted that the deck could be built with no variance. Regarding the safety issue, would the ability to see the children be obstructed? Longman answered that it would, as Mrs Henderson had demonstrated that the month before. (You cannot see through the deck.) Henderson said the deck would be like a canopy. • Harvey felt the moving of the playground would be an inconvenience, but not a hardship. Arockiasamy said it was true that the deck could be built 6' wide going around the corner to the backside of the home, but he also added that the difference from 6 to 10 feet was not very substantial and the issue of the mother being able to watch the children should be considered. If the code is strictly with, the best is not being accomplished. . ¢implied MOTION: Longman moved that the Board grant variance request 88-34 with the following findings: 1. An inground patio is not practical. 2. This variance improves the ability to supervise the children when they are outside. 3. H Anderson added that it would be an additional 4' variance. 4. Freemyer added that the variance is for a deck only and any future plans for enclosure would require another variance. 5. Arockiasamy added that the building was planned with a patio door with a deck in mind at a future date. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed 4-3. S Anderson, D. Harvey, and N Akemann voted nay. 5 C, Re uest 488-35, submitted b at 7 —� McGI nn Bakeries for ro ert 2 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie �� located a var�nCe f o�ij Cod Ce ha ter ' Minnesota. The re uest • Area—Ratio t ermit a Floor A Arta a Ratio t — —Z ection 1, —�— �s for o of ,3� y �, Subdivision 2 =55 in the I-2 Zones — C1 ode maxim m ermiti;ed door Area District is .30. Floor at_ o Variance !Re___`-guest This variance request has been Withdrawn. D. Re nest 488-40 submitted b es n Street eUGar A. Hi �Y,— lden for ro ert located at —� rairie, iFf nnesota. a variance f_ Cites C°dew Cha ter Th e re uest. for B 1 TO ermit --1 � Section 11.E TuV — acres. o-- lattin of an I-2 loth h a—lot size�vofion•�$ e m t Code re uires 2 acres. Subdivision s, a front and arkin _z. H �o 5 feet, " '�-- g setbac of 2 feet. C_i Code re uires 3 To ermit a side— — �- _ and arkin set_ b__ of�feet. City Code er uires 10 feet, 4 a ro ert line. —"_' �`-� TO ermit a driveway entrance 0 feet from 5 5 Cit�r Code re uires �0'i To ermit a stru tc ure�sa�k fromsth 0 d �' Subdivis of n Mark of Nine M_ Cry of 2 To ermit a lot size off-78 L.e'odeC( uires a 50H� Water acre — _ setback, surface aum l°t si Subdivision 7 4%. Code re uires a'S of 35.60. Cii C_ maximum is To ermit imoerviouT im ervious sur—face setback from th Oe rm is 8 TO ermit an feet. City Cod`re a Eire a g foot setb�v Huh Water Mark of 0 Gary Hilden, owner of the —� He explained that they had property dtheir business to Eden Prairie appeared to present his variance request. had considered redeveloping the area for a long time and felt in 1s t The • to make these positive c t now was the time and the road changes. The Crosstown would soon become a 4 lane there creek on the west &hsouthpoft property become a service road. Because of the property, and several other factors, some problems had arisen, The City requires a 50' front yard setback and their plans allowed only for 25. The City required a side yardesethat backhey forhad worked parking of staff on the would be 01 , although they do have an easement on the propert ° Problems. first 150 g 1ro and their setback � • After 150' yy f 20' for the the driveway with 1501 ,btheors easementand widens to 261 . It would be wise to share said that should be i problem An attorney he had consulted had The lot size in this zoning area ar quirest2eacress. The p easement resent ot is There is no other propertyProperly drawn up. Of water,at the most to draw from. Regarding the drainagelditch,lone foot s• , has been observed in there. He stated that they had already contacted the Watershed District regarding the ditch. would be 35% and 30% is allowed by the City. already been a y. This plan for the sitehas surface approved by the Cit Council &Watershed b Y Y unanimous votes. Arockiasamy noted that the title conclusion was very if there were any other options. well written. He asked Johnson answered that there had been as staff has been working with the matter since February and discussing it with the DNR and Watershed, Arockiasamy said he could see no problem. . H Anderson stated that the variance was acceptable and a nice job had been done which involved lots of work. S Anderson said he felt there were not a lot of problems involved He would really like to see the area get cleaned up. Heaskedif here. the Board 6 . would be setting a precedent for lots in the flood plain--there were 8 lots there. Johnson answered that residential is different than industrial use. S Anderson had questions on the impervious surface. Johnson answered that the impervious surface was maximum for lots in the shoreland area. Arockiasamy felt it was an already existing non-conforming use. Freemyer asked questions regarding Watershed approval and feedback from the DNR. Hilden said he had a letter directed to the staff from the hydrologist, John Fax. They felt there would be no problem and recommended that they stay within the high water mark area. They had made some modifications after that recommendation. At this point they are down to the minimum size building they could use on the lot. He felt there would be lots of positive changes in the area. Freemyer asked if the business would continue to operate at the location and if space would be rented in the complex. Hilden answered that they would continue to operate at the site and that some space would be rented. Longman said that all items mentioned had been covered.He felt tht that improves the area would be good. Regarding the shoreline variance, heng felt the term here was used in it's broadest sense. He felt it was a good idea to keep the business in Eden Prairie and felt there had been good cooperation by the staff. Harvey felt that not granting the variance would be a true hardship. If there were no variance, the property-would be worthless. He commended Hilden on the plan. Would there be 50 or 54 parking stalls? Hilden answered that there would be 54. Akemann was in favor of the variance for all the reasons previously stated. He did ask if the building was more than what was needed by Hilden. Hilden answered that they could not afford to develop the property the were to put up any less. Extensive landscaping will be needed. Al olhardsurface such as curb and gutter and catch basins would need to be installed. The numbers become increasingly expensive as the size of the building and smaller. If there were no creek involved, there could be a 30% higheraller land to floor ratio. Arockiasamy asked for input from the audience. There was none. • Arockiasamy noted that the property was being developed for future business expansion also. 7 • MOTION: S Anderson moved that the Board approve -40 within the I-2 District on 1.89 acres with rthe cfollowing fie Request ndings: 1• Prior to City Council review, proponent shall : A. Revise the site plan to include an additional 4 parking stall design easterly parking stalls for a one-way situation to meet City Code. B. Revise the landscape plan to inches of provide for a total of 120 caliper plant material consistent with City Code which includes additional screening from County Road #67 and the loading and parking area in the southeast corner of the site, also provide a screening berm as shown in Attachment A to screen parking from County Road #67: C. Revise the rooftop mechanical equipment screening plan t 9 P o conform With City Code. 2.•. Prior to Final Plat ap proval , proponent shall : A. Receive approval from the Board of Appeals for variance as outlined in this Staff Report. B. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for . review by the Watershed District. C. Submit detailed utility, storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 3. Prior to Grading permit issuance proponent shall : A. Stake the grading limits with snow fencing to preserved. 9 protect trees to be B. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in a Of grading. advance C. Cap all existing wells and remove any septic systems. . 4. Prior to Building permit issuance proponent shall : A. Provide the City with proof at access easement for ingress and fegress galong ethe peast in o propeunty, a cross property line.. B. Submit colors samples for the building and site lightin det which minimize off-site glare. 9 ails C. Pay Cash Park Fee. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. • Arockiasamy noted the site constraints mentioned in the staff felt that this should be noted as grounds for granting the variant,e. and 8 E. Re located 488-41, submitted George and Karen Stuart for ro ert • low ed at 13945 Hol R d, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request -'Y for a variance from C_i Cha ter = —�— is Subdivisio-2 Code, Section 11.03, Zonin District. BC- To ermit a lot width of 87' in the �2----g City Code re uires a 90' minimum lot size of 07 sc�, ft, in the R -22 Zoni p T To ermi't a re uires �2 —� City Code —9- heast ft., Topermit a side and setback on the southeast corner of X is in home of 4,T5'5� setback i'n the � Dist City Code re uires a George Stuart appeared before the Board to present the variance. He explained that the home was built in 1969, but not near the center of the property. The property line is considerably closer to the home than if the home wee centered. He would like a variance to bring the property line closer to what had been assumed since 1969. He would like the following variances approved: 1, The West side of the to the 15 foot si Stuarts 'de-lot line restriction home encroaches on corner of the home, it is only At the Southeast boundary of the lot. Y 14 . 15 feet from the East 2- After conveyance Stuarts lot to the Si burgs and Ande sons, the Of the West 13 r si have a of the is obviously 87 feet of frontage on Holly due will less than the 90 feet re Y Road, This required. t After conveyance of the West 13 Stuarts lot, the residue will have an area feet t square feet. of the square . This is less than the 22, 000 square feet re- The fourth variance, is to the one relevant to the Siebur s� allow encroachment by the deck attached to the home the side-lot line g residence 13 foot setback restriction. me onto strip by the Stuarts After conveyance of the Will be 8.38 feet . the Northeast corner of cor- ner of from the East boundary, and the South the east deck the deck will be 7.27 feet from the East bounda ry. cor- Johnson noted that the Staff report goes into the history is a judgement case and needs to be clarified. °f both lots. This Stuart added that this request is the settlement of litigation. Akeman, Harvey Longman, Freemyer, A Anderson and H Anderson had no com ment.. MOTION: H Anderson moved that the Board approve as submitted. Longman seconded the otionaandnit pace ssedtunanimousl . 88-41 F• Re uest #88-42 y submitted � Phi—_lll and Jo ce Sie_ burg for ro ert located at�995 H Eden Pra_1e, Minnesota. The re ue . for a variance from C ttr Cha ter ___z Section st is division i B to ermit an existing deck to be setback the Northeast corner and 03, • from the southeast corn—0 8the, Last rom lot lines�i�t r Code re uires a I'S' o i ng act, --- —�—_ _ side and setb i n the R 9 Allen Christy appeared to present the variance. He explained that there had • been four property owners involved and each had been told the line was where it actually was not. MOTION: H Anderson moved that the Board approve the variance based on the findings mentioned in the staff report and quoted previously by Christy. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. C. a uest #88_43, submitted �y Chestnut place Partners for ro ert located at the nor-- hhw t uadrant of the intersection of Cho Drive and Anderson Lakes Parkwar�,—Eden Prairie, Minnesota he stnut re uest is for—riance from Cit,� Code, Cha ter Section 1.03, Subdivision 2, B t i- a neighborhood commercial site of 9 acres. Cit —" - - � - -- __.,� Code minimum lot size in t e Neigh orho�co -"Commercial . District is 2 acres. — - Paul Struther appeared to present the variance. He explained that the property involved was a neighborhood commercial development on Anderson Lake Parkway and Chestnut Drive. It is a retail project which is under the maximum allowed for this parcel.Another small pad building could be developed. Now there is an 8,000 square foot retail center which complies with all ordinances except the lot size. Johnson noted that the undersize had occurred because of the right of way of Anderson Lake Parkway, which had changed over the years. • Harvey asked if there was an elevation drawing. Struther said there was one, and displayed it to the Board. He said that there was high density all around the property and there was a residential character in the building design. Harvey asked if there was a berm between the property and the apartment buildin . Struther answered that there would be one. He had worked with a landscape g architect and that there would be no delivery doors in the back and gables had been added for interest. Longman and Freemyer had no comments. S Anderson asked if there would be gas at one end of the site. Struther answered that there would. Arockiasamy asked for input from the audience. There was none. MOTION: Harvey moved that the. Board approve Variance Request 88-43 as submitted because it is a remnant parcel and that the owner is not responsible that the parcel is less than required for neighborhood commercial development. Longman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 10 I • H, at ue - #8T� 8Submitted b Trumpy Homes Inc. for ro ert located at18&47 188 wi a t 7rai �'Y --le. Minnesota. The re uest is for a variance from City Code, PCharter heSec_=n-11.03, Subdivision 3 -� i ht of 8' . -z s to ermit a rivac fence ---2-- _ City Code max_m fence heft ermitted is 61 . Dennis Trumpy appeared to present the variance. He explained that he was seeking a variance for a 8' fence rather than the 6' allowed by code in the Autumn Woods project on the north side of Eden Prairie. There were a total of 103 lots there and of those, 26 back up to the tracks. Four of the lots back up to Lyman Lumber Co. and are hard to sell. The allowed 6' fence does not screen the lumber yard. Box cars and pole sheds were too high and could be seen over the 6' fence. He would like an 8' fence to screen it. He shDwed pictures taken from inside one of the homes on the first level. He also displayed a platt which indicated the location of the four lots in question. Arockiasamy asked Johnson if she had any additional information. Johnson answered that she had none. Harvey asked if there had been a permit required to built the fence. Johnson answered that there was none required for a 6' fence, but would be for an 8' fence. • Harvey asked Trumpy if he was aware of that fact. Trumpv answered that he had not been aware of that. Akemann said he was opposed to the variance as it would set a precedent. Harvey asked if this was Trunpy's first addition in Eden Prairie. Trumpy answered that it was his second. Harvey asked Trumpy if he was aware of the code on fences. Trumpy answered that he was not. Harvey said he was opposed as he felt there were other options available including natural vegetation. Longman asked Trumpy if he was the original developer. Trumpy answered that he was and that the area had been platted in 1984. Longman felt that Trumpy was aware of the tracks and Lumber Company at that time. He too would prefer natural screening and was against the variance. Freemyer said regarding the style of fence: It looks good for a while and thenusually looks tacky in a short time. They are also often damaged by wind. ' 11 • Longman said there was no code that specified that the posts must be sunk in concrete. TrumPy said he had placed the poles in 12" diameter holes. The posts were 4 by 4's and were set 8' apart. The depth of the holes was 61 . Then he had used 32 yards of concrete on each ground. post to set it firmly in the Freemyer asked Johnson if there was a height code that would affect Lyman Lumber. Johnson answered that Lyman Lumber was in Chanhassen. Freemyer agreed that trees were a better solution to the problem, although he did recognize the fact that trees take time. The only was he could vote in favor of the variance would be if there were an expiration date on it With the idea that trees replace it at that time. S Anderson said that he lives in a home that overlooks 494 and had a suspicion that the 6' code was known by Trumpy when they were put up. He felt it was better to have a 6' fence with 2 additional feet of berming. Freemyer told Trumpy that one option at this meeting was that the variance could be denied. Did Trumpy have any alternatives? • Trumpy said that he had expected it to be approved. He felt that if Layman Lumber had been in Eden Prairie, they would have been required to put up a fence. He had no other alternatives. H Anderson said he could not remember approving fence variances. He cited other instances that had come before the Board. Johnson noted the instance of the Prince Building--the variance had not been approved. H Anderson felt this variance was hard to justify. It is against the code. Trumpy said the code was intended for fences between residential areas. S Anderson said he could understand the need to block the railroad tracks and the lumber yard, but felt it could be done with 4' of berming and a variance would not be needed. Trumpy explained that the Building Inspector had put a on the fencing project. "Stop Work" order He had then continued with the 6' fence instead of 81 . There is an 8' fence on lot 5, 'part of lot 4 and part of lot 6. The rest of the fences are 61 . H Anderson asked how long the fence was total. Trumpy answered that it was about 150' including both 6 and 8 foot sect' • The two lots that need the 8 fencingmost are located behind La Ions. ' Layman Lumber. Arockiasamy asked if the 150' were continuous feet of fencing. 12 . Trumpy answered that they were continuous and consisted of 130' of 8' fencing and 50' of 6' fencing. Freemyer said he could understand that Trumpy would hate to take down or shorten what he had already put up. What was the fencing made of? Trumpy answered it was made from treated lumber. Longman said that Freemyer makes a good point. He would like to avoid the 'South side of Chicago loop'. Now just a slab of green lumber is on the site without much interest. He would be against the variance. Arockiasamy said to Trumpy that he felt it would not pass. He told him he could ask for a vote or take it back and bringnat in an alt He realized it was a difficult situation for Trumpy, e Board idea. not willing to vote in favor of it. PY� but the Board was TrUmPy said he got the picture and thanked the Board. Arockiasamy asked for input from the audience. There was none. MOTION: S Anderson moved that the Board deny variance 88-44 as no hardship was shown. There are alternatives such as berming and landscape potential. The problem of the railroad tracks • and lumber yard were understood, but it -was felt that this variance would not be in the best interest of the City. Longman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. I. Re nest #88-45, submitted by Burl Corporation for pr2pertj located south of Townline Road, east of Chennault War within Hidden Glen 3rd Addition, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The re uest is for a variance from City Code, Cha ter IT, Section M03, Subdivision 2, B, ermit ro osed Lots 5, 6, and Block 1 W ndham Nob 2nd Addition with a front lot width of 55' , 55', and 60' res ectivel City Code re wires 70' in the R�9.5 Zoning District, 2 To permit proposed =� Block 2, Wyndham Nob 2nd Additon with a front lot Cit Code requires 8�' in the R - . min District. width of 7 ' _.g Mike Black of James R Hill, Inc. appeared to present the variance. He explained that the property in question was 27 acres with 41 lots. Property had been added to the rear of Wyndham Knob 1st Addition. Now there were a total of 48 lots. The density was 1.5 units per acre. A variance was required for 4 lots as there was 2 different zoning districts. The 9.5 zoning district required 70' and the 13.5 zoning district required 85' . Some of the lots had ended up being huge, pie shaped lots and he felt that better site planning could be done on the lots if the variance could be obtained: In preparing the grading plans, there is typically a 50' house pad on each lot. He felt it was very crucial to have lots with 30' front yard setback and 50' rear yard set back. He said that they meet those requirements. He said the neighborhood • would be improved with this variance and it would reduce the amount of trees to be taken down. It makes work on topography and construction better. Johnson said the proposal was outlined in the packet and both the Planning Commission and the City Council had approved it. Lots are of sufficient size. 13 i Black said that the Corp of Engineers and DNR had both approved it also. There is a limit to the amount of grading that can be done on the lake • and this will be discussed again with those groups at a later date. H Anderson asked what the size of the house would be as it seemed close. Black answered that the plans did not necessarily mean that the house will be there. He said that all side yard setback requirements will be met. S Anderson had questions regarding the sale of lot 1 near the Crosstown, and also lots 6-12. He wondered if buyers should be notified that the area may be upgraded. Black said that he would like to think that the information would be passed on to them. A double row of evergreen will be planted. S Anderson said that marketing of the lots should include that information. Freemyer said he had no problem. It is really the distance of the building setback line that makes or breaks the issue. The City needs to control development there. He had no problem with it. Arockiasamy had no comment. Longman said if these lots were on a cul de sac, it would be a large compound compared to other cul de sacs. • Black said there were existing circumstances here. The Army Corp of Engineers has taken an active role in preservation of the wetlands. Harvey said that the radius's were really the same as in the cul de sac's. Black said they were going to request 701 , but the staff had advised them that this had never been approved. Akemann asked about out lot A. Black said it had been donated to the City. Arockiasamy asked for input from the audience. There was none. MOTION: S Anderson moved that the Board approve the variance 88-45 with the following conditions: 1. That no set back variances be required to construct new homes on any lots. (quoted from Burl Corp letter in packet) Akemann seconded the motion. Arockiasamy added the statement that lot 5, block 2 have a 75' width require- ment. Harvey again seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 14 J• Re nest #88-46, submitted � Richard_ Anderson for ro ert at 15619 No_den Drive, Eden Prairie—esota. The request for a variance from City Code—ha ter . Subdivision 2, B, to ermit a ara a adds—'t�ion 5' fromsetheon .O. line. Cites Code re wires 15' in the R1-22 Zonis District, west lot Richard Anderson appeared before the Board to present his varianc6. He explained that they moved into the home last year in Jul anticipated putting up a garage shortly. y• They had aready measured to make sure there was enough room for a garage. Helwas advised that a 10' setback was necessary, although this was not accurate. He would like an attached garage on the side of the house. The neighbors to the west have already signed in favor of the lot hun it, this is the only conceivable place rtoelocateetheegarage.sThells houseoisd older and was built in 56 or 58, and is not centered on the property. It would be 8 or 9 feet from the side of the garage to the fence. Possibly he could add on above the garage and install a drain tile system around the garage. A garage of this nature will bring up property to the standards of Eden Prairie. He cannot get along with a single car garage as it is at present because of the truck he owns which does not easily fit into it. He would like to close off the present garage and add living space. He has 2 children ages 7 and 3 and spends time with them in the basement. The carbon dioxide fumes are noticable there now. Arockiasamy asked if 2 trees would be removed. Anderson said he would leave them. • Arockiasamy asked if the driveway would curve. Anderson answered that it would curve, and since he was on a tight budget, he may wait until later for blacktop. Arockiasamy asked if Anderson had checked on the possibility of zoning restriction regarding the garage before he bought the home. Anderson said he had taken the word of the 'Realtor and his own measurements. Arockiasamy asked if the tuck under garage was undesirable, why did he buy the property anyway? Anderson said his intentions were to build the double garage. He work cars and this is hard in a single car garage. s on Arockiasamy said he had noticed the vehicles outside and asked if they would be inside if the double garage were to be built? Anderson answered that they would be inside. Akemann asked about the 2 trees in question. Anderson said he would leave them for now and hopefully permanently. Akemann asked what would become of the existing single car garage if and • when the project were to be completed. Anderson said he would convert it at a *later date. Akemann asked if there would be a three car garage for a whil e. 15 Anderson said it would be that way for a while, but he would like to • convert it as soon as possible. Akemann said the Board needed to identify a hardship. In this case there are several alternatives. There could be a single car addition or the size of the double garage addition could be reduced. � Anderson said he would still need a variance, even with a 20' garage. He felt a single car addition would be worthless. It would not look good there and he would rather move. Akemann felt there should be 2 conditions: I. The width of the garage be reduced 2. The existing single car garage door be cosmetically changed SO it does not look like a garage. Harvey noted that the majority of the homes in the area are the same style. He asked what was wrong with a single stall addition. What hardship was there? Anderson said that the garage that is there now is not usable. Harvey asked why it was not usable. Anderson said it was usable at a minimal level. Persons on both sides of the garage cannot get out of opposite doors at the same time. Harvey asked about the other vehicles. • Anderson answered that he had a 78 Datsun and a Dodge Van. Harvey said it would be building a garage addition to living space 5' from the side lot line. An additional oversize single stall garage could be added. He could see no hardship in this case. Longman reminded Anderson that he could not leave that driveway gravel surface without posting bond. He agreed that everyone needs a 2 car garage. He also felt that a 5' setback is extreme. To grant the variance, a compromise needs to be found. A hardship needs to be identified. He would be willin to compromise, but would not go along with 51 . g Arockiasamy had the same feelings on the matter as Longman and asked Anderson if he wold consider a smaller double. Freemyer said the Board cannot work on the occupation line--just property line. He could vote for the variance, but it would need to be less than it is. Regarding the carbon dioxide fumes in the basement, he suggested that Anderson have this checked as these should not be g et into the house. He felt Anderson could use a portion of the tuck garage and add to it. Freemyer also felt that no building nde be done above the garage. The City recognizes side yard set backs as different for garages and living quarters. A Anderson asked what the side yard set back for living quarters was. • Freemyer said it was 151 . A Anderson felt this was a strong` • set back requirement. He said that Anderson could get the shop area b b y going back 5 instead of sideways. The current 16 garage door should be removed. No future variance should be granted for living quarters above the garage. • Arockiasamy asked for input from the audienc e. There was none. Akemann said Anderson should consider the economic feasibility of'the project even if the variance were to be granted. He then cited some additional costs that would be involved. Anderson said as the garage seems to be getting narrower and narrower, the expansion is less and less appealing to him. Longman said he felt a 20' double garage would work. Anderson said at 201 , the potential for a workshop would be cut down a lot. Longman agreed that there may be restrictions according to the home and the site. Akemann felt the property could be very attractive looking. Freemyer asked if plans to start this fall had been made. Anderson said they had. Freemyer said a continuance could be granted. • Anderson said the Board had mentioned __ ' 22'? This would be 8' from the lot l line on therage side.How would they feel about Akemann felt the existing garage would still need to be covered up. Maybe Anderson should research it financially. Anderson said he would make it work. 22' is the minimum he could deal with. Harvey noted that this is a large lot district, R-122. lie are speaking here of a block full of homes with tuck-under garages. They are supposed to have a 15' separation on each side. Anderson said a precedent had already been set and cited a home in the area. Harvey said no one is addressing the issue of adding a single stall garage. Where is the hardship? Freemyer explained that by upgrading the existing garage, a one and one half stall garage could be added and have a total of 22 car garage.(He explained how this could be done.) Longman said that the garage was the issue--not the house.He would like to see everyone have a double garage. Harvey said that people who buy in this lot district have a right to expect that it will be honored. 17 Arockiasamy said there were 5 homes left with single car garages most already have doubles. The rest will likely build double garages. The difference • between 20' and 22' is not much. He would support 22' if more practical. H Anderson said one single stall could be added. Akemann noted that Anderson wanted additional living space. i H Anderson said the problem is the garage, not the house. He felt that there was no hardship shown here. Harvey asked Johnson if the other conversions in the area violated code. Johnson answered that there have been a number of variances and that the expansions would need to be researched. H Anderson asked if the addition would match the house. Anderson said it would. H Anderson said a new plan was needed. S Anderson asked about the side yard set back on living quarters. Johnson answered it was 15' on either side. S Anderson said he could see the hardship in the aspect that the house was not centered. He felt this would justify the variance. • Arockiasamy said the house was 1 'ocated where it is presently because of the topography of the land. Akemann told Anderson that the variance can be voted on this evening or it could be continued. Anderson said he would like the Board to vote on a 22' garage. If the 22' variance does not pass, would he need to apply for another variance? Freemyer said he would. Arockiasamy asked if 2 motions could be made in case the first one failed. Johnson answered that two could be made. Arockiasamy would like to see all houses get double garages. One stall could be added to the existing garage. He asked Anderson if he could make 20' work Harvey said the Board could not allow variances based on economic hardships o Freemyer said Possibly P only. p y there were no members willing to make a motion for a 22' garage, Anderson said to go ahead with the 20' variance then. • Arockiasamy asked if the variance was for the person P or the property. Johnson answered that it was for the property. Anderson asked again for the Board to go ahead with the 20' variance vote. 18 MOTION: S Anderson moved that the Board approve variance request 88-46 with the following conditions: • 1. Reduce the variance from 25 to 20 lineal feet garage addition on the north. This would make aotot l addition of 490 sq. ft. I 2. That the existing garage door be modified and the plans reviewed by the Staff. 3. This is granted on the basis that the Board believes that this street will eventually have all 2 stall garages. Arockiasamy added that the variance would be granting a 10' setback instead of 51 . Akemann added that the existing garage should be modified to match the rest of the building. Freemyer suggested an alternative of approaching the neighbor and offering to purchase part of the lot to match the occupation line with the property line. S Anderson said a varaince would still be needed. Arockiasamy seconded the motion and it passed 6-1. Harvey voted nay on the grounds that it is a large lot neighborhood and residents • there should expect to have wide setbacks between homes. ** H Anderson left the meeting. K. Re uest #88-47 submittea � American Family Insurance for property located at 0 Yell Circle Drive, Eden Prairie Minnesota. The request_ is for a variance from CI Co Cha ter ub� division 4Z Dz to Permit a wall sin of 00 ft. 1.7� Permits one wall sign of 5 s� ft. �" — -g- t• Ctty Code Rick Palmitier appeared before the Board to present the variance. He explained that in regard to the sign on the Phase III Building, they had attempted to design one within the present 50 sq ft limit, but the letter size could only be made to about 15". This was not large enough for a wall over 10,000 sq. ft. They would need new letters 24" high to be readable from Co. Rd. 62. The company has 23 letters in the name and there are no provisions for that in the code. They cannot drop the work "insurance". Only 10% of the wall space is all they would be using. They have no alternatives. Johnson had no comment., Arockiasamy asked if the sign on the Crosstown was illuminated. Would it stay and what was the size? Palmitier said it will stay and the letters were 8" high. Arockiasamy asked if it were true that by the time one sees the building, • the distance from it is about 500 feet. Palmitier answered that it was true. Arockiasamy said he had trouble seeing that the letters needed to be that large. 19 S Anderson said the sign could be seen clearly on the Crosstown now. He would rather have a ground mounted sign on the freeway. -He felt that there • was no need for additional signage other than that allowed by code. Freemyer said he liked a ground mounted sign. Is this a customer oriented center? What is the function of the sign? - i Palmitier answered that it is not to direct customers to the location, but to show the public that American Family Ins. is healthy and strong. Freemyer said he was opposed to it. Arockiasamy asked if there were only 1 ground mounted sign now. Palmitier answered that there was another one on Yellow Circle. Arockiasamy asked if two signs could be put on each building. Johnson answered that they could. Palmitier noted that these could only be 50 sq ft signs. Harvey had questions regarding PUD's. Johnson noted that signs were not an issue at the PUD. Arockiasamy reminded Palmitier that he could have 2 50 sq ft signs on each bldg. • Palmitier said they could not make it readable. He added that Wilson Learning is 3 by 33 feet signage. They have 10,000 on one wall also. Arockiasamy said the variance seems large for what they are trying to do. He could not say what size letters are needed, but would like to make sure that they are justified. Longman noted that the Board has had many similar requests. Everyone knows where American Family Ins. is located. There is no identity crisis here. Harvey noted that coming eastbound on the Crosstown there is a hill and a curve. How long will people be able to see that sign? Palmitier said maybe only a second, so it needs to be large. Harvey said that the monument signs had been done tastefully and that the buildings were tied together. Palmitier said that lots of buildings were tied together. Harvey said a hardship needed to be justified and he could not see one here. Palmitier said that the hardship would be that the letters would not be readable. Harvey said the Board needed to work with the code, not the size of the name. • S Anderson asked if the 15" letters met with the code. Johnson answered no, it would make 63 sq ft. Harvey asked how about the address on the building instead? 20 Palmitier said he personally would rather have had 3' letters, but American Family said to go for this. . Harvey said going over code had not been justified. i Arockiasamy asked Palmitier if he would be willing to put u different s' of letters so the Board could see the difference. P sizes S Anderson asked how about letters within code for one month? Arockiasamy said he felt it was best that the Board be able to look at the letter siz es es on the building. He did not feel that this variance would go _ through tonight. It can be voted on or continued. Palmitier said he would like a continuance.He would advise Staff of his plans. Akemann said he did not object to the sign as shown, but not in Eden Prairie. He preferred ground mounted signs. Does American Family have a logo? Palmitier said it would be a blur as the logo has lettering in it. Akemann noted that the Board tries to keep signs low key in Eden Prairie. S Anderson said he preferred good monument signs, although sometimes wall mounted signs can look nice. Akemann asked if there were alternatives. Palmitier answered that there were none now. Longman said he was business friendly and would vote for the variance if he felt the letters were too small. MOTION: Longman moved that the Board continue Variance 88-47 to the next regularly scheduled meeting. (Nov 10th) Akemann seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. (H Anderson had left) L. Request #88-48, submitted � PDQ Food Stores of Minnesota, Inc.. for property located at 7400 Mit_ Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota.The re nest is for a variance from Cif Code, Chapter 711 SectioM.03n :anop Subdivision —r B—to l ermit an accessory structure as- island .�ano from a front lot line. C� Code requires a 35' front and setback. Section03, Subdivision 3, H, to ermit arkin with a front and setback of 20' . City Code re uires 351 . Jim Shelton appeared to present the variance. He represented PDQ of MN. Jerry Anchor and Mitch Swanson were present with him at the meeting. The company had occupied the center since 1979 and had just purchased it one year ago. They had worked on several different phases in considering the redevelopment of the area, including traffice studies. ,This would be a major remodeling for a poorly designed and laid out building. Considerable studies had been done in order to upgrade the property to Eden Prairie standards. The staff approved the landscaping proposal submitted. The variance deals with the canopy overhangs and parking islands in the gas pump drive. The • corner of the building will need to be taken off and a double door installed. The mechanical equipment on the building will be screened. As leases for the other tenants in the building come due, the signage will be changed. 21 • S Anderson stated that he had negotiated for commercial property wi his business and asked if he should abstain. Shelton answered that there was no problem on his part with that fac Akemann said that he felt the idea was a good one. He asked how the traffic would be slowed down in the driving areas. Shelton said they would do whatever is necessary. Akemann asked about a possible problem with parking near the concrete curb in front of the door. Shelton responded that he did not feel it would be a problem. They would ask that the vehicles be moved if that should occur. Akemann asked about a possible walkway from the apartments nearby. Jerry Anchor answered that it would need to be worked out with the landscape engineers. Harvey commended PDQ for a good plan. Longman said it will improve the corner greatly. He was concerned that lots of kids ride their bicycles to the PDQ store and this may need attention. • Shelton said the company will look at that Problem. Th had to ask the kids to move their bicycles in the pase manager and others have t. Longman said he was for the variance. Arockiasamy asked how long the signs would remain up on the building after the leases have expired. When will they expire? Shelton said they would all be changed to one sign at that time which would span a period of 2-4 years. He felt that changes could be encouraged before that time period was up. Arockiasamy asked if the contemplated signs would meet city ordinances. Freemyer said he was sensitive to pedestrian and bicycle aspects. He felt the variance was needed to bring it up to today's retail standards. Shelton mentioned that there were only 3 more tenants in the building. He added that lawn sprinklers had been put in one year ago. S Anderson asked if the interior of the store would be expanded. Shelton answered that it would be after the dental office leaves. S Anderson said that since the neighborhood already knows where PDQ is located • no variance should be allowed to allow additional signage in the future. No, signage should be allowed on the canopy. Akemann asked about trash receptacles on the site. 22 • Shelton answered that they will be located at the gas pumps and also o side of the entrance. each Arockiasamy asked for in put from the audience. There was none. � MOTION: Longman moved that the Board approve variance request 88-48 as submitted. In addition it should be added that no sign variances be allowed and no signage be allowed on the canopy. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 6-0.(Anderson had left) M. i uest #88-449 submitted � Children's World Learnin Center for ro ert located at 88 qz_ Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The re•uest is for a variance from Cjty 03,Subdivision 3, K to rmit an acce destructure 1 t--pIon wood or metal exterior finish. Cif Code re uires 75 face brick, stone, or—s i�n—omm—a ial Zoning District and no more than mod—No stucco vih mew or lastic. — S Anderson said he had represented New Horizon Day Care. Should he abstain? Jody Malecha appeared to present the variance.with Anderson representing New Horizon Da y CareShe said there was not a problem . Malecha said she would like the building in question to be of wood or metal. Johnson said that the Staff had looked at the location and it should not be a visible site to the surrounding residents. This would be considered a temporary structure and should be removed if the Day Care moves. Akemann asked if the variance was for a permanent, temporary structure. Johnson answered that it was. Also, if the business at the site would change it would need to be removed. Longman asked if there would be footings. Malecha answered that there would not be. Harvey asked if there would be a limitation on the time period. Akemann said he had thought of that possibility. Arockiasamy noted that the variance would be good only for this business and not the next one. Harvey said that could be for 20 years. Johnson said other instances like this have been at churches in the area Akemann said he felt a potential buyer for the property should be advised t • hat the structure is temporary. S Anderson asked if the building would be in the play yard area.A pole barn type? 23 Malecha answered yes to all of S Anderson's questions. • S Anderson asked about trees in the area. Johnson answered that they would be on the berm. Harvey felt that time restrictions needed to be considered. Longman said he would vote for it if it were not permanent. He did not want it to be visible, and felt it should be shielded from the City streets. Freemyer said that metal buildings are not good as the roofs do not handle snow. He felt that the business could afford to do it right and he would vote against the variance. The Board agreed upon 5 years as a time limit for the structure. MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve variance 88-49 with a time limitation of 5 years for the structure. Longman seconded the motion and it passed 5-1. Freemyer voted nay. Anderson had left. IV. MINUTES OF MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 8 1988 MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board accept the minutes from the September 8th meeting as submitted. Longman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. V. OLD BUSINESS • A. Arockiasamy mentioned the house near Eden Prairie Road, north of Valley View, where there appears to be used water running from the house to the lake. Johnson said she would check on it. B. Discussion took place on the accumulation of debris near a building site owned by Tuve Builders. Should it be removed? It had been looked at and was under construction at the time. C. Questions were raised on the Bohl-Helgerson sign. It was noted that they were three sq ft under what was approved. D. Arockiasamy mentioned that regarding abstaining from the vote on variances, the Board member should make the decision, not the applicant. E. It was decided that regarding permanent structures, Johnson should look into establishing a time period. F. Regarding signs, it was suggested that guidelines be established so the same item do not come up on every variance. Information from past variances would be helpful Johnson said she would look into some standards. Arockiasamy asked if similar requests could be brought up on the computer. • Johnson answered that it could be brought up in that way. Freemyer felt that more information on garage variances would have helped in the garage variance considered this evening. Additional discussion took place on the garage variance that had been considered. 24 G. Discussion took place on the Touch of Class letter in the packet. • H. Freemyer suggested that the meeting begin at 7:00 P.M. in the fut*e. He also suggested that applicants be given an approximate time for! their variance instead of having to wait for several hours. I Johnson said she had tried to give some time indications to applicants. The Board agreed to meet at 7:00 instead of 7:30 hereafter. V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board adjourn. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:00 P.M. •