HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 11/10/1988 APPROVED MINUTE S
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
Thursday, Novenber 10, 1988 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council
Chambers, 7600 Executive Dr. ,
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Bill Arockiasamy, (Chairman), Hanley
Anderson, Lyn Dean, Steve Longman,
Dwight Harvey, Scott Anderson, John
Freemyer, Michael Bozonie, Neil Akemann.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Tyn Dean, John Freemyer
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, Steve Longman, Neil Akemann,
Hanley Anderson, Scott Anderson, Michael Bozonie, Neil Akemann.
All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance
II. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 18 MEETING
• MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve the minutes of the October 18,
1988 meeting. Arockiasamy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
III. VARIANCES
A. Request #88-47, submitted by American family Insurance for property
located at �00 Yellow Circle Drive, Eden Prairie Minnesota. The
request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 1, Section 11.�,
si u divion7I s to Permit a wall sign of 100 sq.. ft. City Code
permits one wall sign of 5�s ft..
The Board had received a request to continue this variance.
MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve the request for a continuance
on Variance Request 88-47. Bozonie seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously. Variance continued to December meeting.
B.' Request #88-51, submitted by Touch of Class Interiors for property
located at- 10280 County Road �8i Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The
. request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.03,
io
ubdivisn-71—K, to permit 70od siding and 30% glass exterior
siding. City Code re wires 17f-acceptable masonry/glass and no more
than 25% wood, stucco, vinyl, metal, or Plastic in the Office Zoning
District.
Kate and Craig Halvorson of Touch of Class Interiors appeared before the Board
to present their variance. Kate Halvorson explained that the main points had
been covered in the letter received by the Board Members. Since the original
variance had been granted, several things had changed. The Halvorsons had
2
sought professional advice from several people. Through this advice they
had determined that the building will not be feasible for use for the
• _, business for very many more years due to high taxes and costs involved
in the application of brick to the exterior. Development will be started
much sooner for these reasons. They are working with an architect now
on the plan. They said that they were aware that the upgrade on County
Rd 18 will take place and this also affects the matter. They did not
feel they wanted to put $20,000-into the building at this point. An
appeal for understanding was made to the Board.
Arockiasamy asked Johnson to review the matter briefly for the benefit
of Board Members who had not been present at previous meetings relating
to the matter.
Johnson said that the matter was brought to the City in 1986 requesting
that a single family home be transfered to office zoning district. This
request went through the Planning Commission and the Council. At that
time 40% wood and 60% masonry or glass was approved (Var. Req. 88-25).
The present request is to use 30% glass and 70% wood. 30% is short of
the usual requirement, as 75% is required in an office district.
Arockiasamy asked if he understood correctly, that if the most recent
request was granted, nothing will need to be done to the property--was
this correct?
K. Halvorson answered that it was so, with the idea that they are proceeding
with plans.
• Arockiasamy asked if anything had been done in 1986 after the original
variance had been received.
K. Halvorson answered that they were still paying off debts for other
improvements. They had been granted an extra year because of finances.
They had explored both brick and stucco. The roofline is a problem so
full brick or full stone could not be used.
Arockiasamy asked if others nad been involved with the project during the
year.
K Halvorson answered that it had been mainly herself and her husband,
with others giving opinions.
Arockiasamy asked what was done the second year.
K Halvorson answered that they had gone back and forth on decisions as to
what is the proper finishing for the site. Estimates had been made and a
contract had been signed for stucco. At the time they were not aware that
stucco was not acceptable. A contractor was hired, but the building permit was
denied.
Arockiasamy said he felt it was necessary to clear up this matter. It
appeared to him that the Halvorsons did not quite agree with the decision
that had been made, so the matter was pushed back farther and farther.
• K Halvorson said that procrastination had taken place with the matter and
clients needs had been met instead. Matters had become more involved as
more opinions were given. Concerns for the long range plans and adjacent
property were issues. Brick would cost around $20,000. At the present
time she felt it was a temporary situation and did not want to do anything
now. She did not feel the site was jeopardizing the area at this point.
3
Arockiasamy asked if the situation might be permanent-temporary.
• _, K Halvorson answered that it was not.
Akemann asked specifically what hardship was involved here.
K Halvorson answered that the problem was paying off the loan--an
economic hardship was involved. They were forced to look forward
considering the tax situation.
Akemann asked if the Halvorsons has some uncertainty in the situation.
They answered that they did.
Akemann said the situation was all or nothing--were the Halvorsons open
to amendments?
Halvorson answered that they certainly were. She was pleading with the
Board to understand the uniqueness of the situation. This was not the
typical commercial setting.
Akemann asked if the request was denied, what would be the next step?
Johnson said that Halvorsons could appeal to the City Council, or else
they would have a building in violation of code.
Harvey said he had sat here twice and heard the requests approved, basically
for financial reasons, for 2 years. Now he hears this was a period of
exploration. It seems like a lengthy time. He does sympathize with the
tax increase (600%), but Halvorsons must remember that they went from the
lowest to the highest category of evaluation for taxes. Regarding the
upgrading of County Rd. 18, it probably will not happen faster that 212--
it is anyone's guess. Regarding the surrounding property, the area to
the north is public property (possibility of a school), and the other
two sides that are in Eden Prairie are single family residentially zoned.
Johnson noted that the vacant land to the east is Co. Rd. 18 corridor, and the
Bloomington side would be multi-family residential. In Eden Prairie
there is a commercial possibility on the NW corner of County Road 18 and 1.
Halvorson said she appreciated the concern of the 2 year issue, but they
did not want to make a hasty decision.
Harvey said we are not talking haste, since two years are gone and another
five years are possible.
Halvorson said that the people who own the NW quadrant have had many
thoughts in developing that area.
Harvey reminded Halvorson that they went from rural zoning to office
almost over night.
• Halvorson answered that had not been the case at all.
4
Longman stated he had been invqlved since the onset. Regarding thefollowing
• -: items: according to the Halvorson letter.
Item 1: This statement is open ended. The property may be too small for
another building. On the issue of the taxes, it was not the Board's idea
to change the zoning. He felt this was a self inflicted wound.
Item 3: This does not say anything. We cannot put this off forever.
He said he was disappointed in the two year time period that had already
passed.
Item 4: The building should be brought up to office/commercial standards.
Item 6: It states that the present siding fits the area. He agrees. It
is not appropriate however for an office building-
Longman stated that the status of the Hwy 18 improvement changes weekly.
Harvey noted that even if the property were taken for the upgrade, then
compensation would be made.
Longman noted that the Board has no control over short or long term usage
of the building. He felt the building may be sold and it will remain as
it is indefinitely. In the past he had tried to work out compromises, but
can see no hardship here. He would vote to deny the variance.
• Arockiasamy asked if Touch of Class was there before the zoning was changed.
Halvorson answered that they were there, in the lower level.There had been
another business there before they were.
S Anderson asked how many acres were involved.
Johnson answered 5 acres.
S Anderson noted that this would be 1 acre. of office zoning, .75 acre
of guided office zoning, and 3.25 acres of guided multi-family. He
then asked how many square feet were involved.
Halvorson answered that 2300 square feet were included in the structure.
S Anderson felt that there was a possibility of someone coming someday with
a plan for a parking ramp, etc. Technically, this is possible according
to zoning.
Halvorson said they do not plan that--the current taxes are $13,000.
S Anderson asked what the market value was prior to zoning.
C Halvorson answered that it was about $130,000.
• S Anderson asked what the current market value was.
C Halvorson answered that it was about $240,000 to $250,000.
Bozonie felt that the Halvorsons would have a tremendous advantage over
5
start-up businesses if this variance were to be granted.
• H Anderson noted that all other variances were complied with. He felt
that since the Halvorsons liked the way the building looked now, it did
not make sense to them to do anything more to it now. Code says ylou need
Ito put brick on it. The Board must adhere to a code that says office buildings
need to have brick on them. He felt that the Halvorsons will probably need
to go the the Council on the matter.
Harvey asked how many square feet of masonry need to be applied.
C Halvorson answered 2,000 square feet.
---Harvey noted ttat stucco runs about $4.00 per sq. ft. and brick runs about
$7.00 per sq. ft.
C Halvorson showed Harvey the estimates he had received.
Discussion took place on the estimates and the prices that had been submitted.
The question of whether or not the bids had included the wood and glass areas
was debated.
S Anderson asked Halvorson if a value ircreas a of $125,000 were realized by the
Halvorsons, wasn't that a true financial benefit from the city?
C Halvorson said he had never viewed it that way.
• S Anderson asked if Halvorson would be willing to sell the property for
one half of its market value.
C Halvorson asked if that was what they were here to debate.
The Halvorsons said that the financial hardship was not the issue.
S Anderson noted that there was not financial hardship involved.
Longman felt that Anderson made a good point. He reminded Halvorsons that
they had asked for a zoning change. They had been in viloation of a half
dozen codes. Now, two years later, the biggest item is not complied with.
S Anderson asked if Halvorsons would be willing to not increase the footage
on the site.
C Halvorson asked what the purpose of that would be.
S Anderson replied that technically, the square footage of an office
structure could be increased.
Arockiasamy said,to summarize the matter: It is very hard to fully
understand and accept any apology at this point. What has happened during
the past two years doe, not give him the feeling that anything will happen
in the future. The Board did what it could in the way of compromises. He
did not feel he could do anything more this evening. The whole matter
. needed to be started from scratch. He would deny the request.
Harvey said at the time the business was organized, lease space was available
in the Cit3 but Halvorson choose to have the property rezoned. When that
6
is done, someone must pay the piper. All he has heard is talk of exploration.
He cannot vote for the request.
MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board deny Variance Request 88-51for the
following reasons: 1. The variance is not in keeping1with the spirit
and intent of the code. 2. There has been no hardship demonstrated,
except economic. 3. The variance is too large a deviation from code
and would not be in keeping with the office/commercial planned for
this area. 4. Past performance on variances 86-10 and 87-35 has not
occurred.Longman seconded,and it passed unanimously to deny request.
C. Request #88-52, submitted �X Ben Kaeding for property located at
—Atherton Way, EdenPrairie, Minnesota. The request is for a
variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Se-c--tion11.03, Subdivision 2i
to ermit an accessorystructure ara qSr
with a hei ht of 21' .
sty CPooe maximum height for an accessory uc ure iii RT-I33
Zoning District is t5'
Ben Kaeding appeared to present his request. He explained that he had
purchased the lot November 15, 1984. He had checked with the City and
asked what length of time was available to him to constuuct the home on
the site. He had been told that there was no, specific length of time
for construction specified as long as construction continued. He then asked
if the detached garage could be constructed first and was told that it
could, with certain restrictions. He did a total site design and had the
site surveyed. (He noted that there was an item on page 4 that he did not
agree with--this was in the staff report). In November of 1985, the
electrical was installed. Construction was then delayed because of another
. piece of real estate he had been involved with at the time. In 1987, he
applied for a building permit and moved the truck and cement mixer to
the site anticipating approval of the permit. It took 60 days to get the
permit--unitl September 24th. There was concern by neighbors as to what
would happen on the site. He began construction on the detached garage,
so he could store tools and other equipment while the building was in
process. A stop work order was issued by the City at the end of October.
He revised the plan and got approval and started construction again the
same day. Over winter he had redesigned the building, since everything
he had been planning had been changed. He had received a letter from the
City to either dig a hole immediately or the building permit would be
revoked. He had the foundation hole dug within a week. In June he had
spoken with the neighbors about their concerns and Mr. Bergquist had
suggested that he build the main structure first. On July 1, he began
construction. So far there had been 30 construction days, and 320 non-
construction days. He is requesting a conditional variance that after
the home is completed, the roof of the garage can be raised. He would
like to resolve the issue before putting siding on the garage. He has
petitions from the neighbors--many approve, but some have concerns.
(He passed the petition around) He showed recent photos of the site
and explained them. In conclusion, he added that he had had 320 days
delay with construction occuring for 160 days (lost 130 days because
of excessive heat). He would like to finish and do the final grading before
the weather gets bad. He showed pictures of another neighbor with a
garage with a 12/12 pitch, which is in excess of code. He felt a high
. pitched roof adds more character.
H Anderson said that the other garages in the photos were done on a different
basis---PUD---Planned Unit Development. (Prairie Knoll Addition)
Kaeding felt the picture still showed the character added by the high
pitched roof.
7
H Anderson said he could see no hardship here. Kaeding had designed it in
in violation of code.
• Kaeding said if he had known this in the planning stages,-it wou d have
been redesigned then.
H Anderson noted that just because Kaeding feels the garage would look
better--that is not basis for a hardship.
Kaeding said it is also financial--He could move the garage and add it to the
and adding iould be costly.
H Anderson said it was too bad that Kaeding had gotten into this, but Eden
Prairie code does not allow him to get out.
Bozonie said he felt there was no hardship demonstrated.
S Anderson had no comments.
Longman asked why Kaeding wanted a two story garage.
Kaeding said the building was designed with a second story for storage.
He wanted all the lawn equipment stored out of the house. Also the skiing
and sports equipment could be stored there.
Longman asked if the one story garage Kaeding has now complies with code.
Johnson answered yes.
• Longman asked Kaeding if he wanted a steeper roof on the present garage,
or a two story garage.
Kaeding answered that it was a primary consideration. He would also like
to be able to walk on the second story.
Longman said it was an unfortunate situation. He would like to grant
the variance, but needed to identify the hardship. He could not find one.
He did not feel it would have a good impact on the neighborhood. He thinks
the limit. of the 15' storage building is a good one.
Kaeding said he felt the hardship demonstrated was the extra cost involved
in moving the structure, the extra cost involved in lowering the roof, and
alterations will delay the building process. The neighborhood generally
feels that the other building had more pleasing impact on the area.
Longman asked if it was boiling down to appearance.
Kaeding answered that it was 70% appearance and 30% functional.
Longman said that since Kaeding had been educated in architecture, he
did not understand why he did not build a three stall garage in the
first place.
Kaeding said he was a hobbyist and would like to keep the house area
• clean from sawdust. It was designed around functionality.
8
Harvey said that the Board cannot grant variances on economic reasons. Only
• _ hardships present a basis for variances being granted. The other neighbors
in the area may view the building as a hardship. He asked what the height
of the fence would be.
Kaeding answered 61 .
Akem
ann felt there -was no pre-existing condition here.
Kaeding answered that both home and garage were approved,by the Bldg. Dept. with
the high pitch. Then a stop work order was received and a variance
was needed.
Akemann noted that Kaeding had put the roof on the garage anyway.
Kaeding answered that "they" had suggested that he apply for a variance.
Akemann felt that the only hardship was aesthetic.
Arockiasamy asked a question regarding the other houses in the pictures.
Johnson said it was called Prairie Knolls-she thinks it was a PUD.
Arockiasamy asked what point the roof construction on the garage
had come to when the stop work order was issued.
Kaeding answered that the rafters were cut, the walls were up and they were
• beginning to put the roof on.
Arockiasamy asked if slope was a factor at that point, could not there
have been an adjustment made then?
Kaeding said he looked at that possibility strongly, and determined that
the walls would have been only 4-5' high. He could not drive in there if
it would be like this. He did go back and cut the walls off 18", which
brougYt the second floor down.
Arockiasamy asked if the detached garage was for the boat.
Kaeding answered it would be for a workshop and a camper.
Arockiasamy noted that once the changes had been made, Kaeding must have
known that the full second floor usage would not be gotten. What had
happened so he wanted to regain it now?
Kaeding answered at the present time something was needed over the foam siding.
The first purpose of the structure was to serve as a tool storage area,
and now the second purpose was to use as a workshop. He would like to use
`2 levels. and raise the roof.
Arockiasamy said the variances and stop work orders had not delayed
construction on the main house--why hadn't it been worked on?
• Kaeding said this issue had held that up too. He had to reconsider other
plans for the house when these did not seem to work out easily.
9
Arockiasamy said it seemed as if Kaeding had decided on the garage first,
and then tried to make the house fit the garage.
• Kaeding said that when the garage design changed, then he looked at making
r a change in the house design. -
Arockiasamy said aesthetic reasons were not sufficient for a variance
being granted. He invited the audience to speak and asked that they
do not repeat comments made by those before them.
H Anderson said Kaeding could consider withdrawing the request. He was
opposed to it. Maybe time should be taken to reconsider the approach and
possibly ask for another variance other than from 15' to 21' .
Kaeding said he would not like to withdraw at this point. He felt he had
done all the City had asked him to do. He would like to make the building
more pleasing to the neighborhood.
Donnie Bergquist, who lives south of the property, appeared before the
Board. He said he would like good neighbor relationships, but has some
concerns:
1. Property has been a long time in developing.
` 2. Guidelines were set up when they bought in 1984, (9 month completion time).
The delay was a concern for him.
3. He noted that the pitches on the other garages mentioned (12/12) were
the main garages, and not secondary garages.
4. The structure is a large building. The building blocks the view of
• the park and pathway from the north.
5. He is concerned with setting a precedent.
6. The use of the property was a concern to him also. He questioned if it
was to be for anything other than storage--there are phone lines in
there now.
7. The boat will not be able to go in the unit.
8. Most of the trees were removed from the site--there is no buffer.
Kaeding said he would like to withdraw the request.
Johnson said the other neighbors Could still express themselves so it
will be included in the record.
Ken Dieson appeared before the Board. He lives at 7621 Atherton Way, south
of the property. His concern was that a business may be run from the garage.
He said that there are degrees of ugliness--trucks and equipment are ugly
too. He had raised 11 children in a 2700 sq ft. home with a 2 car garage.
He had settled for a 10 by 10' shed when he had applied for a building.
Dieson felt a variance should not be offered because of what children
might be wanting or how many vehicles a person has.
Ed Allenberg of 7551 Atherton appeared before the Board. He said he had
spoken with Kaeding on the matter. He showed pictures to the Board.
He says if Kaeding withdraws, his appearance is over. If another meeting
on the matter takes place, he hopes to be the first one called.
• Kaeding again said he would like to withdraw.
MOTION: H Anderson moved that the Board accept Kaeding request
to withdraw the variance proposal. Longman seconded the
motion and it passed unanimously.
10
i
• D. Reguest #88-53, submitted �X Gustafson and Associates for property
located at 6805, 6855, 6871, 688 Stonewood -Court, Eden Prairie,
-— Minnesota The request is for -a variance from City Code, Cha ter
Section M03, Subdivision 2— B, to ermit front yard setbacks
of 25' . City Code requires a 30' front yard setback in the RT-T3.5
Zoning District. - —
Ron Kruger, land surveyor, representing Gustafson and Associates
appeared before the Board to present the variance. He explained that
the request was to rezone the area in question to single family
residential in order to allow construction of single family homes.
A variance from a 30' required setback was needed, since a 25'
setback was all that was possible in the back yard because of the
slope in that area and to be consistent with the other dwellings.
Akeman asked if all the residences in the area were twin homes.
It was determined that two of the dwellings were single family homes.
Harvey commented on the issue of spot zoning. There are twin homes
all the way around the area, so this is spot zoning. It is not good
- to have twin homes mixed with single family homes. He noted that
there was already a 25' setback in the RM-6.5 zoning. It is being rezoned
to R1-13.5.
S Anderson noted that no variance was needed if the area is left with
• twin homes. One is needed only if single family homes are constructed.
Arockiasamy felt the matter that should be considered here is whether
or not the area should be left as is, not if single family zoning
should be allowed.
H Anderson felt that if the area were to be rezoned, 25' setbacks
should be allowed.
Harvey noted that Planning did not approve the zoning of interior lots.
Johnson suggested that the Board look at the matter as a structure
setback issue. Does a 25' setback make sense?
Akemann asked if the matter can be continued until the Council makes
a decision.
Johnson answered that it could.
S Anderson said that he lived near the area and the trees are c ritical.
That would constitute a definite hardship. The trees are needed.
His -own home has been for sale for 3 years and is not moving. On
the other side, near the creek, the duplexes sell without a problem.
He felt single family dwellings would be more acceptable for the area.
Akemann said that when the structure is built, it is there. He would
like to see consistency.
Arockiasamy asked if four lots were involved.
- 11
Kruger answered that it was recommended by planning that only one
lot be changed in zoning. They will go to the Council on December 13th.
Arockiasamy asked if the matter could be approved on the condition
that the City Council approve it.
Johnson answered yes.
Longman said he had received calls from homeowners in the Association.
They would like to save the trees. He did not feel the Board should get
involved in the politics of spot zoning. He had no problem with granting
the variance on the condition that the Council grant the zoning change.
Harvey said he had a comment to make to the City Council. He felt that
those three interior lots should not be rezoned. He would go with the
setback variance.
S Anderson felt that even a 10' variance would be nice. The trees are
important.
Jeffrey Gustafson, the developer, appeared before the Board. He said that
he appreciated the Board's comments. The had recently held a discussion
more than one hour in length with the City Council regarding spot zoning.
Akemann said he did not want the City Council to think the Board is in
favor of a zoning change.
MOTION: Longman moved that the Board approve variance request 88-53
on the contingency that the Council approve. It is important
to save the existing trees on the property. The matter of
the topography and the trees on the property constituted
a hardship. & Anderson seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
E.: Request #88-54, submitted by Cheryl Ann and Ronald White for
property located at 6431 Mere Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The
request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter Section 1.03,
Subdivision 2, B, to ep rmit the construction of aI season porch
addition 9' from a side lot line. City Code requires 151 , 2 to
permit construction of a new deck addition 7r from a side lot linu.
City Code requires 16''— to permit an existing deck P from a
side lot line. City Code requires as5' side yard setback in the
R 3.=oning District.
Ron & Cheryl White appeared before the Board to present the variance.
They explained that this was a unique variance and presented pictures,
drawings and blueprints to outline the matter. The said that the
home was built in 1986-87. Mr White said he felt the Builder put them
in this situation. He had written letters to the Builder and handed
out copies of it. He noted that in the 4th paragraph,the matter of
the location of the house in relation to the setback and lot lines
• was covered. White noted that regarding the original survey that
had been done on the site (Nov. 21), no set back lines were shown on
this document. If you study one done by Ron Kruger and Associates
on 9/30/88, the set back lines are shown. Had the Builder brought
this matter to the Whites attention before the home was built, the
position of the home could have been modified. The position of the
12
• home causes a hardship to the Whites, since the Builder had said
that the home would be built so it could accomodate walk-outs.
They had worked with Viking Construction recently and believe that
the company had good references and does good work. They had indicated
to White that these lines would not have to be complied with if certain
conditions were met. A deck had been built in May of 1987 and a second
deck in May of 1988 which was attached to the existing deck with a stairs
to the back of the house. A three season porch is planned off the front
of the house.So far $1,200 has been invested and not a shovel has entered
into the ground on that proposed project. A survey had been done and the
gas & water meters had been moved. The new builder had proposed full
footings and a foundation. He felt that the aesthetic value of the
property would be improved by this, rather than the lattice work covering.
A three panel sliding glass door would be included and consideration of
a deck off that porch is a possibility. That deck will be 2-3 feet off
the ground with louvered railings on the side. Eventually a hot tub may
be incorporated. White showed slides of the area and explained the
situation and plans for the future.He noted that the area in consideration
is the only place where the walk out could go. The lot chosen for the
home needed to conform to the type of home the Whites had chosen. The
builder, Rottlund, had selected the lot. White discussed other options
and explained why they are not feasible. The proposed porch would be
12-12.5' wide--no wider because of the roof line on the home. The length
of the porch would be 14' , which is important because of the need for
ample living space to fit in with the windows and doors.Bachmans had
designed the landscaping for them in the area. This porch area would
• face the neighbors garage. Approval had been received from the neighbor.
White showed drawings to illustrate the changes the home will go through.
He felt the curve appeal of the home would increase dramatically, and
the neighbors view would be accented. The rear view is not an issue
as there are woods there. He presented a letter to the Board that he
had received from Rottlund (the Builder) asking the Board to approve the
variance request. White is declaring a hardship on the grounds that they
were unaware of the setback lines-they had relied on the builder. Approval
of the variance would eliminate any legal actions.
Arockiasamy asked Johnson questions regarding the existing decks and the
matter of attachment to the home.
Johnson answered that if the decks were not attached, they were considered
an accessory structure. Then a different setback becomes effective. It
can be 101 .
Arockiasamy said that one can see that the deck is not attached only
upon close examination of the area. It appears to be attached from a
distance--Is this O.K.?
Johnson answered that it was O.K. She added that if enough homeowners do
this, the code may need to be strengthened.
Mrs White said that they were told that this was acceptable, and became
• aware fully of the situation when doing the three season porch.
Arockiasamy asked if the existing deck is non-conforming.
13
Johnson answered yes.
• White noted that the two decks were set on patio blocks and not attached
to the home. -
Arockiasamy answered that he would consider it attached for practical
purposes, even though it is not fastened.
Arockiasamy noted that quite elaborate plans had been made for the home.
He wondered where things had gone wrong.
Mrs White said that they had asked Rottlund to build the decks and porch
originally, but at the time they were not building adjunct structures.
White said when Kruger had done the most recent survey, he had asked
about the matter of lot lines and setbacks and was told that many times
the salesperson is not aware of these matters.
Mrs White said that they were led to believe that they could build to
the utility easement (the dotted line). If the home had been properly
aligned, they would not need to be at this meeting.
White said the survey originally done is what they had built from. He had
spoken with Steve Durham on the matter and he had informed White that
a Certificate Survey identifies set back lines.
Arockiasamy asked if there was enough communication with others involved.
• White answered that they were very meticulous about what they had done.
He does not think the salesperson was aware of the setback lines. They
had not been aware either, until construction of the three season porch.
Arockiasamy said he felt it was hard to put all the blame on Rottlund
at this point.
Johnson had nothing additional to add at this point in the discussion.
Akemann said the sympathizes and can see the hardship wherein the home
will not accommodate the addition that is planned. Possibly the size
of the addition could be reduced, however a precedent cannot be set.
White said no precedent will be set here as the neighbors homes cannot
accommodate a side walk out. He felt the hardship was that the house
should have been set back. They had tried to design a porch that would
fit in well aesthetically.
Harvey said that someone had contributed to .the situation and he thinks
a hardship is justifiable. He believes that the Whites had a plan, but
that the help was not as qualified as they thought. He can see a hardship
here and said the Whites have his support.
Longman said he would like to congratulate the Whites on the excellent
• presentation they had given. He felt they were victims of a bad situation.
He would consider that a hardship--the situation is beyond the Whites
control. He said he was in favor of the variance.
14
S Anderson said he agreed that there was a hardship. A good presentation
. -r had been given by the Whites. Since this type of situation is seen quite
often, possibly the staff should investigate a system that would certify
that the buyer had inspected the survey--possibly based on a certificate
of occupancy.
White said he would like such a system.
Mrs White said that if they had known the set back lines, they would
not need to be here today.
Bozonie said he felt the possibility of action against the builder should
be considered. His consideration was if there was a good enough reason to
approve the variance. Ile did not know how he would vote at this time.
Arockiasamy said sometimes there is a tendency to make the variance less
significant.
Longman noted that the variance would not adversely affect the neighborhood.
H Anderson said that he would vote for it, but would like pictures of
the neighboring homes relative to the proposed addition.
Arockiasamy asked for input from the audience.
There was none.
• MOTION: Longman moved that the Board approve the variance request
88-54 with the following findings:
The house was positioned uniouely on the lot• This unique
location infringes on building space within the required setbacks
The additions do not infringe on drainage and utility
easements.
The property to the north has a "garage side" facing the
property in question.
By default of the builder, the proposed future additions
(known at building) cannot be accommodated withi7 the
required setbacks.
Harvey seconded the motion. He also added that it should be
noted that the neighbor to the north has no objection.
*More discussion before vote. (See page 15 for vote)
Arockiasamy said he did not feel it was the Builders fault alone--it
was the fault of both parties involved. He felt it was normal to put
the house frontage parallel to the street. Something just slipped
• through in this situation.
15
White noted that the original blueprint. shows side walk-outs.
. This should be signed off before the home is built.
Arockiasamy said he was not convinced the Builder had knowledge of
what would happen in the future.
Longman said he thinks the home was turned on the lot to minimize
the excavation. Possibly it was an economic reason.
*146tion on variance request 88-54 passed unanimously.
F. ,Request #88-55, submitted y David Rathke for property located at
17308 Padons Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a
variance from City Code, Cha ter Section .03, S—bdivision
B, to eerrmitt a ara a addition 5' from a side lot line. City
Code requires T5' in the Rl---TT_ZOn i nj District,_J�) Subdivision 3z
topermit a garage addition 37' from the front lot line. City
Code re uires 39' as per the existing average setback of the legal
block. — —
David Rathke appeared before the Board to present his variance. He
explained that he wanted additional storage space. The existing
garage is 20' wide and his concern was to get the equipment inside
to protect it from ice and snow. The neighbors have all approved
the proposal. As far as alternatives were concerned, the back of
the home would not work due to setbacks. He likes the area in
which he lives and said that the addition would be on an existing
• structure. He had been unaware of the additional 2' front yard variance.
.Arockiasamy asked if there would be two variances involved.
Johnson answered that there would.
Arockiasamy asked if it would be an extension of an existing wall
on the west side.
Rathke answered that it would, but on that side there are existing mature
lilac bushes for privacy and screening.
H Anderson said he felt photographs of the next house were needed.
He said there was already a garage there the same width as what
is requested. He felt it was difficult to justify another variance
for a garage that is deeper. If the original garage had been
designed at 35' deep, the variance would not have been granted.He
said he would have a hard time with this variance.
Bozonie said he shares the concerns of H Anderson. The extension of
the side wall is not troublesome to him, but the sheer volume of
the garage does concern him.
Rathke said the reason is for storage of boat, cycle, snowmobile,
and lawn equipment.
. Longman said he thinks the Board in 1969 would have granted the
35' garage with no problem. He had no problem with the setbacks,
although the sideyard setback is extreme.He felt the massive
wall on the west side was objectionable. Variances granted in
16
1969 were extreme. Could the 35' wall be softened?
Harvey said this was the issue in his thinking also. (The massive wall. )
He felt he could approve it if- the wall were softened. Perhaps
some windows would help.
Rathke said he would be willing to put windows in the wall.
Harvey told Rathke that he must understand. that this area
could not be converted to living space.
Rathke said he understood that.
^Akemann said he felt there was not enough information on the matter--
no elevations, etc. It would be hard to rake a-decision. He_had no
problem with the setbacks, although it would be a very large garage.
Arockiasamy said he had no problem with the numbers. His concerns were:
1. The difference between convenience and hardship.
2. How will it look? Will it fit in with the rest of the houses?
Rathke said that one neighbor had commented that he liked the idea
and felt it modernized the neighborhood.
Arockiasamy said he was not fully against nor fully for the variance.
• Johnson suggested an 18' wall with a jog before the rest of the
length was constructed to break the 35' massive wall.
Longman said that he felt the damage to the property was done before.
He felt that Rathke was improving the property.
H Anderson said he had no idea of what this home looks like.
Rathke asked if he should request a continuance.
Arockiasamy felt it was a good idea.
Longman suggested Rathke provide elevation drawings and photographs.
H Anderson said regarding variances for garages, we must look at the
package--it is not automatic that one can add 15' in the front.
Harvey asked what if the existing garage were converted to living
space and then the garage was added?
H Anderson said his objection was that there was no hardship.
Akemann said he agreed.
Longman said that this is a different owner from the original one.
• Arockiasamy said the fact that Rathke is not damaging the property
but improving it, does not mean a variance should be granted.
17
Longman said that he felt this situation was unique.
• _ H Anderson said he would need a good sales pitch to accept this
r variance. Since there is already an existing garage-, he felt no
hardship was demonstrated. "
Rathke said he would like a continuance and would gather more facts.
Arockiasamy told Rathke that he should present a hardship that is
unique.
Arockiasamy asked for input from the audience.
There was none.
MOTION: H Anderson moved that the variance request 88-55 be
continued until the next meeting. Harvey seconded
the motion and it passed unanimously.
G. Request #88-56, submitted by Northwest Racquet. Swim and Health
Clubs, Inc. for ro ert located at 6233 Baker Road, Eden Prairie,
Minnesota. The re uest is for a variance from City Code, Cha ter
, Section03, Subdivision 2, B
of 33.8 . City Code ermits 20� To ermit a base area ratio
of 4— Cjty Code ermiis 4 �2 Tom ermmttaaside Tl orarrea Ratio
of IT .--City Code re u res �— — setback
To ermit ro osed Lot 1 of 2.2
acres. City Code re uires a 5 acre minimum, 5 To ermit a Of
width less than 300' . City Code re uires 30 ' . —
• Allen Kemble, from KMR Architects, appeared to present the variance
as a representative of Northwest Racquet, Swim, and Health Clubs.
He indicated the location of the property on a map. He noted
that the Health Club had opened last Fall and had been successful.
Solutions were needed now for parking areas. The proposal he was
submitting was to buy the property to the south of the existing
parcel. The problem is this is property with access to the water
tower. Three of the five requests are based on .the existing parcel.
Two of the requests are based on the parcel to be purchased. The
matter was approved by the council. The project would have a ramp
area and additional space for the Health Club.
Johnson noted that the Planning Commission and City Council have
reviewed the matter and the Planning Commission recommended that
the Council approve it. A ramp will help the parking problems
in the area.
Akemann asked what the anticipated membership was--what could the
membership grow to?
Kemble said there were no figures on those projections. Their
plans were based on experience of other Health Clubs. There
has been an upsurge in persons using these facilities. It may
moderate in the future.
. Akemann said that since membership had exceeded the available space
a ramp was being proposed. Where would it end?
18
Kemble said analysis studies had been done and those numbers had
• been looked at.
Akemann said he had a hard time to identify a hardship.
Harvey asked what the original parking space had been designed on-
what information had been gathered then?
Johnson said the procedure was to contact other cities and ask
what similar size buildings'parking, needs were. The ramp had
been a part of the original proposal, if it were ever needed.
If another facility similar in nature should apply, this will
be used as an example.
Harvey said he could understand if the two parcels were contiguous.
Would the lot be used for parking while the ramp was being built?
Kemble answered that it would be used for parking.
Johnson said it was important for the City to maintain control over
the water tower area.
- Harvey asked if the ramp were a three level ramp and also questioned
Kemble on landscaping.
Kemble said the ramp is three level and they are complying with Staff
recommendations on landscaping.
• Harvey asked if the parking site would be dedicated to the City after
the ramp was built.
Kemble answered that it would. Northwest Racquet will pay for a tennis
court to be installed on the lot and a schedule of free (available)
times will be posted in the building.
Longman said he was at the Planning Commission meeting and has no
further questions.
Bozonie had no questions.
MOTION: H Anderson moved that the Board approve the variance
request 88-56. This approval is based on the Planning
Commission recommendation and City Council approval of
first reading. Approval is contingent upon City Council
final approval and all conditions outlined with Planning
Commission and City Council approval. Longman seconded
the motion and it passed 6-1,with Akemann abstaining.
H. Request #88-57, submitted by Brauer - & Associates Ltd. SLOr Elim
Homes, Inc. for property located west of Count Road . north of
Timber Lake Drive, and south of Terre Pine Drive, Eden Prairie
Minnesota. The requeslt i s for a vari ance from C p�e, �r
• un11 ection .03, �u6aivision iTo ermit Lots 2 and
der' 25,0' uare eet. Lode re uires 0 s uare fee _
lot T 2 To ermit a buildin hei ht of—8�2° in�hei�ht�Ci�t tCode
maximum ei�t �s 45� u ia' 'sion 3z�—Ff�-to e�rmi�tparkin 17�5�
from the front lot line, City Code re wires To emit
19
covered park ing at .75 stalls er unit. City Code requires 1 stall
er unit. �t Zode�ectoo Subdivision o ermit
round decks' and 'from the Ordinar High �—
Mitchell Lake. y —9— ter Mark of
• Cit Code re uires a150' setback from the Ordinary
Hsi hh Water Mark.�b To permit proposed Loth a lot width of
11U' .-7horeland Ordinance re uires 0' . JL ermit ro oseedi
Lots 2 and� under 30,0 0 s uare feet. Shoreland Ordinance requires
�d00 square feet. Subdivision ,B 8 To ermit a building he_i_9ht
of ' Shoreland Ordinance ermits 3U'. Cjty Code Chapter 12.
subdivision ��A, oo permit proposed Lots 2 and 3 without frontage
on a public road. City Code requires lots to have frontage on a
ubic road. — — —
George Watson of Brauer & Associates appeared to present the
variance request. He represented Elim Homes, Inc. The Project
would be called Elim Shores and is planned as being a Senior
Apartment Complex consisting of 64 units. The location is
the intersection of Hwy 5 on Co. Rd. 4 near Mitchell Lake.
Negotiation has been in process for over a year to gain access
on easement rights. A neighborhood meeting had been held and
although the turn out had not been good,those that attended
had been approving. They had gained the Watershed approval
and the Parks approval, with some changes. On November 14th,
they will be at the Planning Commission meeting and then the
City Council Meeting. The site is currently zoned RM,25. The
area is neglected and unsafe the way it is presently. The northern
part of the parcel is undisturbed with a nice stand of trees --
oak, cedar, ash and basswood. They desire to save some of the
. trees in that area. Since the development is for Seniors, the
key issue is to facilitate the area for those who are infirmed.
Since some may not be ambulatory, the building was made compact.
Regarding the front yard setback, a parking commitment was trying
to be met by the builder. Covered parking is important to this
age residents, although not all drive autos. Regarding the shoreland
variance on the decks, the deck will be flush with the grade.
Variances 1, 6, and 7 deal with out lots. He feels that the requests
are justified.
Arockiasamy asked for input from the audience.
John Peaty, 7906 Island Rd, appeared before the Board. He said that
he was unable to attend the meeting held previously by Brauer
and Associates. He has two problems with this proposal:
1. The building height of nearly 60' is double what code allows
and seems inconsistent with the rest, which are not more than
2 stories high. This would ruin the beauty of the lake.
2. The set back from the high water mark of the lake is inconsistent
with the other property owners. He would like to see a development
there, but the complex is too high.
Harvey asked Peaty to indicate where he is located on the map. He
asked if Peaty would over look the complex.
• Peaty showed the location of his residence on the map. He said the
back of his home faces the lake.
Bill Tschools, 7924 Island Rd, appeared before the Board. He is
a Board member of the Timberlake Association. He explained that
Hite rnnrerns were:
20
1. Height of complex "
-.2,�_.,Setback from lake
3. Cars and parking in the area
• - He said the back of his home would face the proposed site. Even
though he has a two story home, the complex would be 20' higher than
his roof line.
4. Appearance from side and back of home.
This would be considerably higher than the rest of the commercial
complexes in the area. The appearance of the neighborhood should
be maintained.
Harvey asked if the elevation level was the same as Co. Rd. 42.
Tschools answered that it was approximately the same.
Harvey asked about the roofline height.
Tschools answered that it is hard to judge that from the front. He
felt he must be about 42' from ground at his residence and thought
the complex would be about 20' higher.
Joste Kleap of 7642 Island Rd appeared before the Board. She said they
would be looking up at a 60' building that will go over a full
grove of trees. In 1972,before building, they asked concerning the
zoning in the area. They knew the code was 30' at that time. She
• has a relative in a Senior Center who has a cane, but also has a
car. The parking concerns are important.
Lil Gulbrandsen of 16669 Terry Pine Drive appeared before the Board.
She said she would be looking over a 30' bank before seeing the
complex. It would block the sunlight. The level of the lake has
changed a lot in the past year and she is concerned with these level
changes. It is still going down in level at the present time.
Andy Eckdahl appeared before the Board and pointed out his father's
home near the site. His concern with the matter was the height of
the complex and the long term effects on the area.
Watson said that if Phase II happens, they would need to come back.
The use for Phase II has not been determined. It could be the same
as Phase I or it could be a nursing home. He did not want to
confuse Phase I and Phase II. Presently, they are under the density
and under the floor ratio. Regarding the elevations: 3 sides of
the complex will be 4 stories or 10' less than the 52' . Regarding
the setbacks: They are not violating the 150' requirement with the
main structure, just the gazebo and deck. Regarding the architecture:
They are doing their best to make the structure a residential ap-
pearing complex--not just a typical apartment complex.
Johnson said the situation was similar to that of Cardinal Creek--
the Board of Appeals was scheduled before the Council:
• meeting and any approval should be contingent upon approval of the
council. Possibly the deck could be placed somewhere else. The complex
does comply with code in some respects and she pointed out other
complexes with shoreland height variances.
4
♦ 1
The Board discussed other examples of these variances.
Johnson said the residence has a medium density of 2.5, which allows
17 units per acre.
Tschools said he could think of no building in the neighborhood with
a height variance like this one would have.
Arockiasamy outlined the neighbors concerns as being:
1. Height
2. Parking
What were the alternatives?
Watson said there was no way to reduce the height, This number of
units were needed on the site to make it financially feasible. A
compressed floor plan was desirable in a Senior Complex such as
this.
Arockiasamy felt there may be advantages to get away from that
height extreme.
H Anderson asked if it couldn't be made lower and wider.
Watson said the users need to have it convenient.
• H Anderson said the problem is height, but he has no picture of the
lots.
Watson said he did not bring a drawing of the lot division itself.
Johnson provided hers for the review of the Board, and Watson explained
the drawing.
H Anderson said if the complex were kept at this height, it would
be easier for the builder to find room for Phase II.
Bill Meyers, who also came to represent the project, said they are
trying to work with the city to make the project viable. They are
trying to be good neighbors . With the setbacks and waterlines,
they are limited as to where they could place the building. He
felt it would enhance the site. They have changed the project to
meet the concerns of the condominium owners.
Lil Gulbrandson said that the condo owners do not live on the lakeshore.
She feels there will be a trade off.
Meyers said some land will be donated to the condo association.
Watson pointed out that the lots that will be given and stated that
they are not developable pieces of land.
. Gulbrandson said she could see why the condos were for the project.
H Anderson said that the neighborhood was good. He could not see
the deck,although the rest if fine. He does not know about the
height.
• !2
John Miller, architect representing the project, said that on three
sides the height is 361 . There is an extra floor on the lake side.
Arockiasamy asked how much footage was taken up in height by the roof.
• Miller answered that 12' were used in this way.
Arockiasamy noted that it was in fact 48' including the roof.
Miller answered that it was so. A walk out was desired from the
lower level.
Bozon ie asked questions regarding stalls per unit.
Watson answered that is has been adequate in the past as it is planned
now.
Bozonie said it is hard to base needs on past figures.
Meyers said the parking ratio would be 1 to 1 above ground with
extra underground.
Bozonie found the variance that deals with parking along Co Rd 4
to be objectionable.
Watson said he did not want to alienate people on the lakeshore, but
they had to violate the setback. A bicycle lane will be in the
right of way, not in the 172' area for landscaping.
Arockiasamy said that regarding the parking space needs, we need to
• trust the developer or the staff, as we cannot judge that. The
problem here is height-this is an extreme variance. He asked Johnson
about the height of the building near the shopping center.
Johnson said it was 5 stories high, but did not need a shoreland
variance.
Longman said regarding the height, if he lived near the complex, he would
not want it there, but on the other hand the building is attractive.
Style is involved here.
Harveys' concerns were:
1. Deck: He would have a hard time approving this as it would set
a precedent.
2. Parking Stalls
3. Height
He asked about the age group of the residents.
Meyers answered that they would be 62 and over.
Harvey said he was familiar with a similar situation and that
a 1 to 1 ratio is not enough.
. Meyers said the ratio is 1.75 to 1.
Harvey asked about storage on the premises.
Meyers said that there were locker spaces available (12 Sq. Ft.each).
There is a possibility of storage in the garages also.
Harvey had concerns on the parking ratio changing. The biggest problem
is the building height. Are there 16 units per floor?
• _ Meyer answered that it varies.
Harvey asked if the complex could expand north and south to reduce
to three stories.
Watson said the concern was the view from the lake. At the
present time 3 sides are 48' high and the back is 58' high.
It is possible changes could be made, but it would reduce
the community space.
Arockiasamy noted that the height would still be the same.
Watson said yes.
Harvey said maybe some like the convenience of having the
complex more compact, but there are other similar complexes
with more length and 97% occupancy. He felt the height was
too dramatic.
Miller asked if a 36' height would be more palatable.
Longman answered that it would. He thought the concept was nice.
Meyers noted to the Board that out of 8 acres on the site, there
• are only 5 acres that can be built upon.
Harvey asked if the building could not be reduced to three stories.
Tschools said that considering the number of variances required
for the complex, he did not feel it was designed for the site.
He felt spot zoning was what was being attempted in this instance.
He said that the residents were not willing to give permission
to violate the zoning presently in effect. He felt that the parking
will look like a shopping center. It does not sound reasonable
to him. -
Longman said if it were located somewhere else, it would be a
beautiful addition to the city.
Harvey agreed that the height would be fine in other locations,
but it was too dominant here.
Watson said that the closest homes are 500' away.
Harvey said that the hardship is difficult to see. He could not
vote for it.
Akemann stated his thoughts:
. 1. Appreciation of the citizens input on the matter.
2. The city has a need for elderly housing.
3. Land use planning is the issue here.
4. There is a problem putting the complex on the lake. It is objection-
able to boaters also.
�- 24
5. He can see the difficulty in accessibility for Senior Citizens
and the handicapped--thus he can understand why the builders would
• want to go up with the structure, instead of wider. He did not
feel that this was good land use planning.
6. The parking should be sufficient. °
7. The deck is too close to the lake.
This complex requires a lot of variances. Should it be bui t?
There is the wall effect to consider. He felt he would not be
in favor of it, mostly on the basis of height.
Watson said that he would be going to the Planning Commission on
Monday and the Council on Tuesday.
Johnson suggested a continuance with Lhe proponents bringing
in site line drawings at another meeting.
Harvey asked if there were housing revenue bonds involved and if
the proponents intended to break ground before the end of the year.
Watson said the bonds were in process and it was their intention
to break ground before the end of the year. He said it was time
to make the project work.
Arockiasamy asked Johnson what would be the situation if the variance
were to be denied at this meeting.
Johnson said a letter could be taken to the City Council, which they
• could accept or reject.
H Anderson asked if the Board could turn down part of the variance
and approve part of it.
Johnson answered yes.
Arockiasamy said that several members of the Board were against
the height. The set back for the deck and the gazebo posed a
problem. The parking issue seemed to be O.K. with the Board.
Johnson noted that there were no parking problems at other elderly
projects.
Watson said that the gazebo and deck were not critical.
MOTION:Harveymoved that the Board amend variance request 88-57
as follows:
1' Th
Lot Size - e preliminary GRANTED P y plat indicates Lots 2 and 3 under 25,000
square feet. In the RM-2.5 Zoning District each lot is to be 25,000
square feet. The lots will not be utilized for building lots. The
lots are similar to outlots and will be dedicated to North Bay of
Timber Lakes condominiums as "lake access" lots. Staff believes
this variance has merit based on their intended use.
f
25
• DENIED 2.
To permit a building height of 58'2% City Code permits 301 . The
- proposed building is 4-stories with a residential character (pitched
roof). Staff believes the variance may have merit based on building
size and the architectural use of a residential (pitched roof).
City Code would pemit a 45' building height.
GRANTED 3) To permit parking 17.5' from the front lot line along County Road
#4, City Code requires 351 . This variance request may have merit by
providing parking on the eastern portion of the site removing views
of parking lot area from
the lake by the building.
GRANTED 4) To permit covered parking at .75 stalls per unit, City Code requires
1 covered parking stall per unit. Sixty-four stalls would be
required and 41 are provided. Elim Homes has indicated this parking
ratio appropriate as documented in other Elim Home elderly housing
projects in other communities. It is anticipated some residents are
not likely to operate motor vehicles. Variances have been granted
in the past for other elderly housing sites in Eden Prairie.
DENIED 5) Shoreland Variance - Decks - Two accessory decks are proposed to
provide views and access to Mitchell Lake. One deck will be a "view
gazebo" located 81' from the Ordinary High Water Mark of Mitchell
Lake. City Code requires a 150' setback.
• GRANTED 6) Shoreland Lot Width - Proposed Lot 2 will haVe' a lot width of 1101 ,
City Code requires 150' . This variance request may have merit since
it is not a "building" lot.
GRANTE') 7) Shoreland, Lot Size - To permit proposed Lots 2 and 3 under 30,000
square feet. This variance may have merit since the two lots will
not be utilized for building sites.
DENIED 8) Shoreland Building Height - To permit a building height of 5812",
Shoreland Code permits a maximum of 301 . The residential
architecture and 4-story structure may warrant a building height in
excess of 301 .
GRANTED 9) Lots Without Frontage on a Public Street - Proposed' Lots 2 and 3
will not have frontage on a public road. This variance request may
have merit since the lots are not building sites and will provide
access to Mitchell Lake for North Bay of Timber Lakes Condominimums.
The lots have access to a public road via North Bay of Timber Lakes
Condominimum Association property.
Akemann seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
*Bozonie noted that the number of parking stalls figures to be 5/8 per person.
• The number of stalls is not accurate on the report.
Tschool asked that the minutes show the hardships which were in existence in
order to approve the variances.
' 26
Harvey swnnarized the reasons:
• #1: Granted because theme lots are not building lots, but out lots.
r #2: Denied
#3: Granted as this is preferable to lakeside parking. The building will screen
the parking.
#4: Granted because the city says this is sufficient.
#5: Denied
#6: Granted as lot is not a building lot, but an access lot.
#7: Granted because the lots are not building lots, but access lots.
#8: Denied
#9: Granted because here is not a public street and the county will not allow
cuts in the outer medium.
Gulbrandsen said the sewer will be in out lot 4. She would be looking up
at more than 601 .
Longman said he felt this would have an impact on the City Council.
IV-OLD BUSINESS
+ Arockiasamy asked Jean Johnson about a site he had seen in the area that
appeared to be discharging some sort of water on to the ground.
Johnson answered that it appeared to be from a sump pump.
VI.NEW BUSINESS
Review and vote on beginning meeting at 7.00 P.M. instead of 7 30 P.M*
No action taken.
VI I.ADJOLM ME'NT
Longman moved that the Board adjourn. Harvey seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 1:00 A.M.
•