Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 09/08/1988 APPROVED MIN= BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS • Thursday , September 8, 1988 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers, 7600 Executive Dr. , Eden Prairie, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Bill Arockiasamy, (Chairman), Hanely Anderson, Lyn Dean, Steve Longman, Dwight Harvey, Scott Anderson, John Freemyer, Michael Bozonie, Neil Akemann. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Bozonie, Neil Akemann 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, Dwight Harvey, John Freemyer, Lyn Dean, Hanley Anderson, Scott Anderson and Steve Longman All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance II. MINUTES OF AUGUST 11, 1988 Harvey noted that on page 14, Variance 88-28, those voting nay were S Anderson, Longman, and one other member, possibly Bozonie--this should be verified. It was not H Anderson,as recorded in minutes. It was decided to leave this item open until verification could be received from Bozonie.(Verification received 9/14. ) MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve the minutes of August 11, 1988 after the above mentioned item had been clarified. Hanley Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. III. VARIANCES A. Request #88-25, submitted by Jim and Elizabeth Kelly for property located at 9330 Cedar Forest Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Cha ter 11, Section 11.03, Subdivision 2B to permit a building addition ' from a side lot line and deck 8.7 from a side lot line. City Code requires a -MI side and setback in the R2 Zoning District. MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the variance be continued until the next meeting. Longman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. B. Request #88-26, submitted � -fie Beth Ann and Greg Halvorson for property located at 63'—Lakelan3rrace, Aden prairie, Minnesota. The request is for as w ariance from City Code Chapter. 1�Section 11-50, Subdivision 6B, to permit a buildin addition 71' from the 0 Ordinary High Water Mark of Lake Riley,, B a deck addition 67' from the igh Ordinary H Water Mark of Lake Riley. City Code requires a 03�' setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark and,= to Permit a room addition 45' from Riley Creek. City Code requires a-60' setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark of Riley Creek. 2 MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that this variance be moved to the end of • the listing of variances for the evening. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. C. Request #88-30, submitted by Investment Services Group, Inc. for property located at 6600 Washington Avenue, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The re uest is to have the als grant Board of Adjustments and A e ant again Variance Request T8-7-53 which included the following variances: A variance from City Code Cha ter�—, Section 1.03, Subdivision ,B. To ermit construction of an office/warehouse building with a Floor Area Ratio of 30. Code maximum is 30 . 2) To permit-7—front and parking setback of 40 feet. City ode re C wires �a ' front yard setback. - _ Tony Feffer, President of Investment Services Group, Inc appeared before the Board to present his variance. He noted that he had been before the Board two times before and asked the Board if there were any further questions. Freemyer asked why the necessity to keep coming back. Feffer explained that originally, the idea was to split off 8 acres, but then the seller did not want to sell. There was a lawsuit filed for specific performance. Since that time over one year had passed and a second variance was needed. He had ended up buying the property and was now negotiating with the tenants. The Building and materials are all the same as in the previous request. MOTION: Hanley Anderson moved that the Board grant the Variance 88-30 based on the following conclusion: Conclusion - Staff would recommend approval of this variance request asec on the following findings: 1) The Board has previously approved thevarbancE request which has not changed in any way. A developer's agreement on ME at City Hall will insure construction according to specific plans approvec by the Planning Commission and City Council . 2) Should the Board not extenc Variance Request #87-53, the applicant would have to reapply prior tc construction of the proposed office/warehouse building. This could create E time delay. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. D. Variance Request #88-31, submitted by William and Barbara Smisek and Katherine Trost for property located at 999 Dell Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, legally described as: See Reverse--.�Tde. The re uest is for a variance from City Code Cha terr ll, Section -Fl.03, Subdivision 2,B, to permit a Rural lot of -4-.—Z6-- acres, City Code requires a ten acre minimum lot size. William and Barbara Smisek appeared before the Board to present their variance. They explained that this was the third time they had appeared before the Board. It had been approved twice previously, but their attorney did not act on the matter. Johnson noted that the variance would increase the one acre size lotto 4 acres. Harvey asked if there had been a problem with the attorney. Johnson answered that it had not been filed as a plat. 3 • Harvey asked if it was recommended that all prior conditions be dropped in granting this variance. Johnson answered yes. MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board grant Variance Request 88-31 and delete the prior conditions as the formal review process would have taken place as part of the former variance requests. He added that there were no objections from nearby land owners. This motion was based on the following staff conclusion: Conclusion - Staff would recommend approval of the variance request without the conditions of Planning Commission/City Council review; without requiring Platting of the property, without requiring scenic easements; and without dedication of road right-of-way easements on the south side of the property. Staff is of the opinion to correct the existing problem which was created in 1977 and 1982, in a step by step process instead of requiring complete subdivision processes. All those conditions mentioned can be met in the future when and if either property owners decide to develop their property. In addition, the property is outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA), meaning the area is not designated to have City sewer or water. Further subdivision would not be possible by Code. Although the conditions previously required would be good to have, they are not imperative to have at this time, since the property is outside the MUSA. The conditions also seem to hamper correcting tax records with Hennepin County. It is Staffs opinion to recommend approval of the request and correct the existing problem without conditons which will hamper that effort. Dean seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. S Anderson arrived at 7:45 P.M. E• Re nest #88-32, submitted � Allen and Sharon Johnson for property located at 8303 Sheridan Lane, Eden Prairie Minnesota. The re uest is for a variance from C Code Cha ter _, Section .03, Subdivision 2,6, to perm�it a ara a addition 7.38' from a side lot line. City Code —requires a 51 side and setba— the R1-22 Zonin District. — __� Allen Johnson appeared before the Board to present his request. He would like to erect an 8' garage addition on the existing one stall garage which will create a 7.38' sideyard setback. In R1-22 district, the minimum distance from a side lot line is 15' . He explained that this addition would give him a 22' by 20' garage. It is an older neighborhood with only three homes left with single car garages. Arockiasamy asked if there were any objections from the neighbors. Johnson answered that there was no problem,and that the neighbor on the north h would back up to the garage addition with his own garage, so it would be garage to garage. He explained that the driveway already is wider now to create space for a second car, so no additional space would be used--it would just be a garage addition there instead of the parking area. Arockiasamy asked if there would not be some effect on the two properties when the garages were so close: 4 I Johnson answered that he did not feel it was that close. S Anderson asked if the three season porch was unheated. Johnson answered that it was not heated. There was an option to conver ' the porch, but the driveway would need to be changed and he would loose the only Lo trees on the property. They do use the porch a lot as an entry. Longman asked about other additions to the home. Johnson answered that they were adding to the back of the home at present. Harvey asked if the neighbor next door was selling the home there. Johnson answered that it was for sale. Longman said that he recognized the staff concern about setting a precedent and suggested that the garage be made smaller. Iie did note that the property would be improved by this addition. The variance would be considerable, but he felt that there was a hardship here. S Anderson noted that the alternative would not require a variance---going out the front of the building. He could see a hardship on the issue of the tree removal and also having the garage out front. Johnson noted that a variance would be required even if the garage were to be in front. Longman noted that a garage in front would ruin the porch. Johnson noted that when the home was built in 1954, it should have been built in a better position on the lot. S Anderson asked about the sideyard setback requirement. Johnson answered that it was 15' . Longman did not feel that there was much merit in the staff alternatives. H Anderson felt that a garage to garage variance could be more lenient. Harvey said that this is a large lot district. This would be a 50% variance. It is unfortunate that the home is positioned as it is, and he can understand why Johnson would like to keep the screened porch. However, converting the porch is an option. He felt the next door neighbor did not object because the house was for sale and a move was probable. Longman said the problem was created before Johnson was born. He felt it was desirable to add double garages. Harvey said he recognized this, but there was an alternative here. S Anderson questioned if the variance was approved this evening, would there be a potential for a three car garage in the future. Johnson noted that proposal would take the trees and cause other problems. Freemyer asked if there was a way to get around the trees. Johnson said there was no way. 5 i Freemyer noted that a standard garage door is 18' wide. He asked if a 20' • wide garage would work, or even reduce it to 19'2' , with possible storage in the back. He asked Johnson if he would consider a 6' addition to the garage. Johnson answered that 20' would be cramped. To get a double door in at that width, the existing door would have to be moved to the right. He explained that he was trying to do the project as inexpensively as possible and in the manner that would seem to work the best. That is why he asked for the 8' to begin with--he feels that the first option would be the best. Freemyer asked if the original idea was to use 2 single car garage doors. Johnson answered that he would like to go with one as he has a full size pick-up. Longman asked if the existing door is 8' wide. Johnson answered that it was an, older style 8' door. Freemyer suggested replacement of the total header and pull all towards the house 2' . Was the driveway bituminous? Johnson answered that it was bituminous. He noted that the family usually use the porch entrace to the house. H Anderson felt the addition makes sense as it is, but it should be noted that this variance is extreme because of the way the home sits on the lot. MOTION: S Anderson moved that the Board approve Variance 88-32 as submitted. Grounds for this approval were that the neighbor to the north did not object, the south property line has 22+' where only 15' are required, and Johnson's proposal is much better than the alternatives suggested because of the trees involved. Dean seconded the motion. Freemyer asked Johnson to verify that there were no drainage or utility easements in the area under discussion. He advised him to call the surveyor. The motion passed 7-1. Harvey voted nay on the grounds that this is a large lot district and he objected to the narrowing of the separation between the homes by 50%. He felt a precedent was being set. F. Re uest #88-33 submitted by Larry Moos for property located at 8651 Red Oak Drive, E en ra--e Minnesota.. The re uest is or a variance�rom C,—t' y Code Cha ter7—��tion . , Subdivision 2,B, to ermit construction of a garage addition 3. from a side lot line at the front of the garage addition and 4.8' from the side lot line at the back of the qarage Daddstirtiicont.. City Code wires a 15' side bc in the R12- 2 'Zoningand seta _ Larry Moos appeared before the Board to present his variance. He expressed his appreciation to the members who had taken the time to look at the site. He explained that he is proposing to build an addition to the double car garage that is presently there. This will leave a 13.1' sideyard setback at the front of the addition and a 14.8 sideyard setback at the rear of the addition. There is a neighborhood covenant in the area, and the majority of the neighbors agree with the plans. He presented neighbors signatures to the Board for review. He stated that he would like to get the extra vehicle out of sight. 6 Arockiasamy asked about the grade of the land. Johnson answered that, the grade will not change at all. Harvey asked if there would be fill brought to the site. Johnson answered that there would not. Freemyer said he was there the day before and did not notice bituminous surface there. Johnson noted that it goes back only 10 or 15 feet, and could have been concealed by sand in the area. Freemyer said that regarding the northeast corner, it was about 20" above ground at that point. Will there be block/slab exposed or will it be necessary to bring in fill? Johnson said he will talk to a contractor regarding the matter. Freemyer noted that as the grade is raised, the slope will change, unless the option of exposed block/slab is used. Johnson noted that the land levels out in back of the current garage. He would not add more fill than necessary. Freemyer asked about another possible addition. Johnson answered that he just wanted the garage extended. Harvey asked if the existing exterior of the garage is brick. Johnson answered that is it brick veneer in the front. Freemyer asked of the north wall of the garage would come out. Johnson answered that it would. Freemyer replied that with that plan, a 10' addition would be liberal. The variance could be reduced. He could see 10' if it were entirely separated, but this is an open area for three cars. Harvey felt this variance was minor compared to the previous one. Freemyer noted that 14'8". was not correct figure. It would be correct if the addition were deeper. It should be 1415". Harvey felt the character of the neighborhood would not be changed. S Anderson noted that the distance between the new garage and the neighbor will stil be within 30' (15' per garage) . MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve Variance Request 88-33 as submitted. rnrninrlc for th1C_ mnYinn T.inrn that *hn TTari?rini� T.Tac mnnr +4'n zoning district was not severely affected. Longman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 7 G. Re uest 188-34, submitted � James Henderson for ro ert located at 11769 Thornhill Road, Eden Prairie Minnesot-a re uest is for a-nc from City Code Cha ter 119 Se- 11.03,Subdivision 2, B, to ermit deck addition 5' from a side lot line. City Code re wires a 10' sett in the R�-13.5 Zoning pist_ r_ -'-- _ side yard Mrs James Henderson appeared before the Board to present her request. She noted that the memo distributed to the Board had described the situation well. They would like to build a deck on the rear of the home. She felt the plan would fit in well with the architecture as it follows the line already set by the garage. The alternatives are limited due to the topography of the land--it is steep there. There is also a playground on the property. The alternative to extend the deck out further into the yard would be more objectionable to the neighbors. Arockiasamy asked if there were plans for a deck on the other side. Henderson answered that eventually they may want one there, off the bedroom. Arockiasamy noted that there were two windows on the neighbors house on the side in question. He asked if Henderson had spoken with the neighbors. I Henderson responded that she had done so, and presented a letter of consent signed by several neighbors. Arockiasamy asked what rooms these windows were for in the neighbors home. Henderson answered that they were bedroom windows. Longman said that he has been a victim of the"deck as a living space" problem. Ile noted that the garage is already there--who will see the deck except the neighbors who don't object. He did note also that most decks go around the back of the house. Arockiasamy asked about the sandbox in the playgouund area. Henderson answered that it was constructed of landscape timbers. Longman noted that it could be moved. Henderson replied that she would like to be able to see the area from the house. If it were moved, it would not be seen. Longman asked how old the children were. Henderson answered that they were 3z years and 3%2 months. Arockiasamy asked if the back yard was level. Henderson answered it was. felt that the proposal was O.K. for the present neighbor, but that it • would not be good for long term. It is more conventional to have decks on the rear of the home. H Anderson said that the PUD concept was used to get around what the Board would or would not have granted. To ask for variances over that is excessive. s Harvey felt that PUD's were often out of line. This deck could possibly be enclosed someday. He felt there are options within code. Freemyer stated that regarding the survey, the certificate of survey resented to the Board was prepared before the home was built. Residential builders often shift house positions--he felt there was not enough map to compute the relationship of the garage. If the variance should be granted, the stipulation should be made that Henderson's get an "as built survey. : S Anderson questioned why the Board was discussing the issue. If this were to be done with concrete, it would be no problem. He does think it is too close to the property line and that the code is written in a confusing manner. The code should be changed regarding patios, decks, and living spaces. Arockiasamy explained that a patio was a floating slab-not above ground. A deck has to be pounded and built above ground. Johnson confirmed that explaination. Harvey asked if sidewalls were to be put up on the deck, would another variance be required. Johnson answered yes, if walls were added, it would be. Harvey asked if once the variance was approved, would this essentially allow the living space to be 5' from the side lot line? Johnson said that at this time the Board is looking at a deck only. Harvey felt that it should be stipulated that the deck only was being approved. Johnson said that the Developer's proposal is to build the maximum house for the width of the lot. Freemyer asked if 5 feet is allowed for garages in PUD. Johnson answered that it was in R195 District. Arockiasamy asked if the stairs were considered part of the deck. Johnson answered that they were not. Freemyer noted that the stairs would go into the easement. Johnson answered that the stairs are not a permanent structure and could be removed. Freemyer felt that the reason for not moving the playground (to be able to see the children) was a valid one. Henderson noted that they had first considered the other end of the yard, but decided against it for reason that it was not easily visible. . Freemyer naa questions on the patio door. Henderson explained the layout of the door on the drawing she had furnished of the area. 9 Freemyer felt there may be a possible trade-off here--a possible 8' deck behind the garage. Henderson felt the deck would not be visible from the street at all. It would just be a consideration for the immediate neighbors. H Anderson said he personally could not approve the variance tonight, and recommended that Henderson come back with better drawings and an "as built survey". S Anderson agreed. Longman said that Henderson should convey to her husband the Board's reluctance to grant the variance and possibly some options can be found. H Anderson felt the deck could be built in back of the home. Harvey suggested locating it between the house and the playground. S Anderson suggested that the Henderson figure out what it would take to move the swing set area. Arockiasamy asked Johnson if a deck on the other side would require a variance also. Johnson answered that it could require one. Arockiasamy felt that even if the deck was not built in that area now, he would like an idea of what would possibly happen there if one were to be built. Harvey felt that if a deck were to be built there, there would not be much re for granting a variance for this one. ason S Anderson felt a hardship needed to be established and care needed to be taken not to establish a precedent. Longman felt the pressure point was the permanent in-ground playground. It creates a definite conflict. Arockiasamy asked Henderson if she would like a continuance on the variance. Henderson answered that she would. MOTION: H Anderson moved that Variance 88-34 be continued to the next meeting. Arockiasamy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. H. Request #88-35. submitted � M GI nn Bakeries for ro ert located at 7 1.752 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11, Section 1�3, Subdivision 2, B, to permit a Floor Area Ratio of 62. Cites Code maximum Floor Area Ratio in the I-2 Zoning District is 30. Variance Re uest 84-55 permitted a Floor Area Ratio of .35. — _ Continued 10 I• Request #88-36, submitted by Pow-Bel Construction for Property located at 6596 Cherokee Trail West, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The re nest i5 for a • variance from City Code Cha ter El, Section 11.03, Subdivision 0 B to ermit a deck addition�2' from a rear lot line. City Code re wires a 20' rear and setback. _ — — Bruce Powers of Pow-Bel Construction appeared before the Board to present his variance. He said he had made an error concerning the lot line in an area he thought he could use,and has since determined it cannot be used, as he does not have the title in his name at present. The designer set the home too tight on the lot. He showed the Board a drawing of the area and said that he felt the the buyer of a $398,000 home would want a totally fumtional deck and not an area of only 3' from the dining room door to the deck railing as is permitted at present. S Anderson asked if the title to the triangle area were received by Powers, could the area under consideration be built bigger? Powers answered that it could not and it has nothing to do with the issue of the deck area. S Anderson asked Powers again if the triangle area was relevant to the issue in front of the Board. Powers answered that it was not. Powers added that he would like to have permission to finish the area proposed by the variance in time for the Parade of Homes. Arockiasamy asked if it were true that if code were complied with, an area of 3' would be the size from the Dining room door to the railing. Powers answered that it was true if there were no variance. Jim Foster, who owns a lot nearby, was at the meeting and said he attended to see what the outcome on the matter would be. Another visitor, John Lutnic -, owner of lots 6,7 & 8 showed a map of the layout of the lots to the Board. He asked what the normal setback in the rear yard was. Johnson answered it was 201 . Lutnic noted that it-will be 8' closer to his lot and the deck would look right down on his lot since the area under consideration was higher. Powers said he felt the bottom line in the matter was that if the deck were to be 8' larger, it would not make much difference. He stated that he had friends that had studied the matter and recommended his proposal. The final grading was done just today. Lutnic said that he had applied for a variance in Bloomington and was denied, and is familiar with setbacks and similar matters. Powers said he agreed, but felt when things are done, they should be done correctly. Lutnic felt it would diminish the value of the property (his property). • 11 Foster stated that he lived in the Raspberry Hill area. He asked Powers if he would be living there. Powers said that would depend on the economy and the sale of the home. Foster noted that both he and Ditnic lived there. Like Powers, Foster said his home is also an investment for him. Freemyer asked Foster to clarify if he was opossed to the variance. Foster and Lutnic both stated that they were opposed to the variance. Arockiasamy asked why Foster was opossed. Foster replied that the reasons were general ones. S Anderson said he could see possible problems with the grade of the area. He asked Lutnic if he lived near the home. Lutnic said he lived near there, on # 11. He owned thd the home. e lots adjacent to S Anderson passed a sketch around that he proposed. He said that he was not in favor of the variance as it stands now. Powers said a deck could be built now even larger than the one proposed. S Anderson answered that possibly Powers should do that and not ask for a . variance. Freemyer stated that he had no questions. Harvey noted that the home was 3,110 square feet, the front yard setback was 30' and sidelot setbacks were 15' and 10' . The area was built to maximum code allowances now. He felt the home was right up against code all the way around, and the home was too large for the size of the lot. A variance should not be considered on that basis. There already exists a usable deck and screened porch that are within code. No hardship was shown. Longman said he agreed with Lutnic that codes and setbacks were designed for a purpose. The Board exists to examine unusual situations. A hardship that is unique to the property must be defined, and not a financial hardship. He felt he could not vote to grant the variance. He did add that he fe�t Powers made a valid point in that a 3' catwalk was minimal. possibly 32or 4 ' would be better. Arockiasamy said he would go along with 4' . Is there a need to connect the 2 decks? Powers said it would depend on your point of view and the choice of the buyer. Arockiasamv asked if there were to be no variance granted, would there also be no connection between the decks? Powers answered that it was so. i 12 Arockiasamy stated that he was not convinced that the connection was important enough for the variance. • H Anderson said he could not go for the connection between the decks and felt there was not hardship shown. Powers said he would need to know what he would be allowed in case a buyer would ask about enlarging the area. Dean felt the Board would be generous to allow another foot. Longman asked Lutnic. and Foster if they would agree with granting a 4' walkway. Both -Lutnic and Foster said that felt that would be fair. MOTION: Longman moved that the Variance 88-36 be modified to allow an increase in the catwalk area from 3' to 4' which would increase the square footage of the deck area by 7.5 sq ft. A 4' wide catwalk area would be safer and allow access by handicapped individuals. S Anderson seconded the motion and it passed 5-2. Harvey and H Anderson voted nay. J• Re uest #88-37, submitted by CSM Corporation for ro ert located at 8564 Ma nol o Trail , Ede`ie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from C Code Cha ter 1. S- • ubdivision A, to erHt an area identification sign of 132.5 s uare feet. City Code ermits a sign area of 24 square feet er street entrance. - ._ • William Pink and David Carland ap peared before the Board to present the variance. They explained that Fountain Place Apartments cuirraitly has 490 units. It is a residential community suffering from an identity crisis. Access to # 169 is difficult with the construction process currently under way. Access to Prairie Center Drive will not be available until next year. There is a monumnet in place and they would like a sign on it. Commercial and Industrial projects in the city are allowed 80 sq. ft. signs. They felt they were not being treated fairly with only 24 sq. ft. They showed a drawing and explained the situation. It was noted that the variance was for an area that would only be used by residents of Fountain Place. The exact location was at the intersection of Alagnolia and Columbine. Harvey clarified the location of Anderson Lakes Parkway ,relative to the property. Pink said that originally the City has required a berm and they are proposing a fountain and signage for that berm. The wall face consisted of 3' retaining wall, 3' exposed above that, and a fountain in back. The landscaping will be the focus point. In this sign request, three different types of signage was needed: 1. Project I.D. sign, 2. Building I.D. sign, and 3. Building numbers. They would like the monument larger that code allows. The curb cut signs would be 2 sq ft. They would be permanent signs of wood on posts. They are asking for about 2 of what would be allowed if they choose to go with separate curb cut signs. As an option, they could shrink logos or take off 1 or 2 • logos, but they would like to use them as identifiers. It was their desire to draw attention to the street. Photos of other signs done in recent years were shown to the Board. 13 . Arockiasamy asked if at the fountain the curved wall was 6' high and 27' long. Was the lettering to go on there? Pink answered that was true. The concrete caps were not in place yet. He noted that the curb cuts were set up with public safety in mind. H Anderson said he was comfortable with the proposal. He felt there was a trade off here. The sign would identify a major project and it was all the same owner as in the case of Lee Data. Arockiasamy asked Johnson about the discrepancy in the square footage figures. Johnson felt it may be due to the different types of scales- used. Longman asked if the Lee Data issue and this issue were similar, or what _ H Anderson had meant in referring to Lee Data. H Anderson said he felt it was similar in the aspect that both were one owner projects with many tenants. Longman asked about the rental rates. Pink answered $500-$700 per month. Harvey asked Johnson if Fountain Place had been granted a shoreline variance. • Johnson believed that there had,,and also one for height. Harvey asked if any other variances were denied at the time. Johnson answered no. Harvey noted as a factual matter that the 80 sq ft referred to earlier in the discussion by Pink was for Commercial/Industrial property and this is residential property. Pink said that was possibly so, but he felt the project warrants the size of signage they are asking for in the request. Harvey noted the staff's examples of residential projects that are within code and that he felt they could easily be identified. He asked what trade-off was being offered here. Was it 7 area I.D. signs for 1 large sign? PiRk stated that some curb cut signs were needed for police & fire identification. Harvey said he had a problem with the monument sign. He felt that the competition could identify themselves within code and it was easily possible here too. Freemyer asked if the retaining wall was of brick and the letters of metal. Pink answered that was correct. The logo may be silk screen on plastic. • Freemyer asked about the composition of the directional signs. Pink answered that they would be silk screen on acrylic material with wood border. 14 Freemyer said at first he had been opposed, but now had little problem with the request. S Anderson said he felt he could be in favor of the variance if the smaller signs were mounted on brick bases, possiblly 2'by 2' , which would be more in character with the main sign. Freemyer said that S Anderson's suggestion was his concern also. He did not want the smaller signs to look like garage sale signs. Pink said the signs don't need to be double faced at this time. Johnson said even the name Fountain Place needs to be easily identifiable at night. Arockiasamy said he had driven through the area last evening and today. He also looked at the competition. He felt it was difficult to justify the size - of the sign on the basis that others can identify their projects with smaller signs. He admitted that the larger sign would be nice to have for the owners of the property, but he felt that granting this variance could set a difficult precedent. Harvey said he agreed. He could not identify unique circumstances of the property to allow the variance and set a possible precedent. Arockiasamy said that regarding the retaining wall, it will be seen as a sign and not as a retaining wall. • Carland spoke on the matter of finding the project--he said that apartment rental is a retail business and it was their desire to create identity day in and day out on an on-going basis. A 24 sq ft sign would identify the project, but it was their desire to create an awareness. He added that they do tasteful signs. Arockiasamv noted that things were not set up that way in Eden Prairie for apartment buildings. He felt that the fountain gives an image too. Using the sign to do that was not absolutely necessary in his opinion. Harvey said if a precedent was set, the next petitioner can ask for the same variance request. Arockiasamy felt the variance was a drastic one. Carland felt it made more sense to grant one sign at 100 sq ft rather than 7 at 24 sq ft. Pink noted that Eden Place has 4 signs in the range of 24 sq ft. He asked if he could put one sign at the curb cut and one somewhere else at his descretion, as at Eden Place? Johnson said she would have to check out the site at Eden Place, but that directional signs can be 32 sq ft. • Pink said there must be a means to iustifv the trade-off. Freemyer said he did not like large signs, but felt there was a trade-off here. He felt that smaller signs all over would not be as good a choice as the larger one. The intersection is not well traveled and the road does not have high visibility. 15 H Anderson asked what specific sign sizes would be. . S Anderson answered there would be one at 76.5 sq ft and 5 at 4 sq ft. each. Longman noted that this was three times larger than code allows. Arockiasamy said he did not consider the wall a retaining wall. Dean asked Johnson how much additional square footage was allowed because the signage was on a retaining wall. Johnson answered that no additional footage was involved, it was just that the brickwork was not counted as a whole. A line was drawn around the lettering and logo in that instance to determine size. S Anderson asked Johnson to define "sign." Johnson answered that a sign was any work, logo or pattern that communicates a message. MOTION: S Anderson moved that the Board approve Variance request on the following conditions: 1. That the total face area not exceed 76.5 sq ft. 2. That the total amount of independent signs on the property for I.D. purposes is 5. 3. That the 5 signs of smaller size do not exceed 4 sq ft each and should be mounted on brick bases. 4. That code would allow more sq ft than the proponent is requesting. 5. That the above suggestions are a better solution because of the roadway layout near the property, which causes a hardship. Freemyer seconded the motion. Arockiasamy noted that when considering the 5 different signs, only 2 or 3 can be seen from any one place. Motion passed 4-3. Harvey, Longman and Arockiasamy voted nay. K• Re nest #88-38 submitted �y Robert H. Mason Inc. for ro ert located West of Mitc el Roa an east of Red Roc( CaTce,C�T h-7rairie Minnesota. _TF e re uest is for a variance from City Code Chapter _, Section 11.5( . Subdivision 6 z B, fo er— m— it proposed Lots 30 and 31, Block 21 Red Rock Ranch with a 1 minimum lot width at the Ordinary High Water Mark of 40' and 35' respectively C� Code re uires a minimum lot width at the Ordinary High Water Mark of 120' . To ermit a minimum width at the building line less than 120' . Cif Code re uires a minimum w i d t F at the building line of 120' . 16 Randy Travalia and John Uban appeared to present the variance. Uban explained that Red Rock Ranch is a 2 phase project. There had been a PUD agreement in 1982, which had since been revised to 250 homes total. The first phase involved the N.W. Section of 68 acres, 61 home sits averaging 3'4 acre each. A number of considerations had prompted the request. He explained different items to the Board with the aid of a drawing. He noted that they had worked with the Planning and Park & Recreational Departments on the lot configuration for lots 30 & 31. These lots need variances from the shoreline management act. He understood that this Board could grant that variance. Travalia noted that the lots on the end of the penninsula are over sized. Most of the sloping woods are retained. A concave lot situation is created with a small frontage on the shoreline for each lot. S Anderson asked if the Planning Commission and the City Council had approved _ this. Uban said that it had been approved. Longman asked questions concerning the prices on the wooded lots. .Uban answered that since the homes would be upper bracket homes, the prices on the lots would range from $200,000 to $250,000 each. Longman asked if Robert Mason was the only developer. • Uban said he may bring builder participants into the project. Arockiasamy questioned Uban regarding the second part of the variance concerning minimum width at the building line. Uban verified the request. S Anderson questioned Uban regarding the involvement of PUD and asked about the garage sideyard setback. Uban verified that the project was under PUD. Johnson responded to the garage sideyard setback question by stating that standard is 10' and 151 . Harvey felt that there was a trade-off.He felt tree loss was being reduced and at the same time the city was being accomodated regarding park placement. MOTION: Harvey moved that: the Board approve Variance REquest 88-38 as submitted based on the conclusion outlined in staff report. Dean seconded the motion passed unanimously. L. Re uest #88-R-o-ad , submitted Louis Sutliff for ro ert located at 7070 Eden ra_ Roa den r� airie, Minnesota. a re uest is for a variance from Ctt� Code Cha ter 1 tio3 Subdivision 2, B� to - ermit a d . addition 20' from a side-`-line. �C_i�tr Code re uires a minimum side and setback of 50' in the Rural Zoning District. Arockiasamy asked if the deck was already in place. (No one appeared to speak regarding this variance) 17 Johnson confirmed that the deck was already in place. She noted that most of the lots in the area are zoned R1-13.5- • MOTION: H Anderson moved that the Board approve Variance reques� 88-39 with the following conculsions: 1) The existing home is a non-conforming use as it exists. 2) The existing structure and 4' deck addition added is consistant with the surrounding R1-13.5 Zoning District setbacks. 3) The setbacks are consistant with the R1-13.5 Zoning District setbacks, should the property be zoned R1-13.5. S Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. B. Re nest #88-26 ro submitted by Beth Ann and Greg Halvorson for ert o�ca ed at 9516' Lakeland errace, Aden Prairie, Minnesota. The �re�u=es—t is for A a variance from City Code Cha ter 1 9 Section .50 Subdivision , to ermit a buildin addition from the- Ordinary High Water Mark of Lake Riley, B a deck addition 67' from • the Ordinate Hitch Water Mark of Lake Riley. City Code re uires a TO—O' setback from the Ordinate High Water Mark and, to permit T room addition T5' from Riley Creek. Cjty Code re uires a 0 setback from the Ordina�rr Hi 2 Water Mark of Riley Creek. Johnson briefly explained the Droceedin s from last mon th. nth. • Arockias felt there a was not much the Board could do at this point. MOTION: S Anderson moved that the Board approve Variance Request 88-26 for the following reason: Approve Variance Request #88-26 as submitted with the following finding: A unique circumstance exists due to the site constraints and location of the existing home which limits building alternatives. H Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Touch of Class Johnson stated that representatives will appear next month to apply for a new variance. V. 'INTSi BUSINESS None VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board adjourn. Longman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.M.