Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 05/11/1989 APPROM MINUIES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, May 11, 1989 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers, 7600 Executive Dr. , Eden Prairie, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Steve Longman, (Chairman), Bill Arockiasan Michael Bozonie, Dwight Harvey, Scott Anderson, John Freemyer, Neil Akemann STAFF PRESENT: Don Uram, Planning & Sharon Swenson-See' BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Arockiasamy, Akemann I. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairmand Longman called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. Roll Call: Harvey, Freemyer, Longman, Bozonie. Anderson arrived at 7:40. All Present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. II. MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 1989 Harvev noted that on page 11, item C, the motion had been made by Harvey and seconded by Longman. Harvey suggested that on page 5, his summarization of the motion regarding Fountain Place apartments signage be precisely stated and a listing be made of signs to be removed(and replaced with the 32 sq it directional sign that was being approved.) MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve the minutes with the corrections suggested above. Bozonie seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. III.VARIANCES A. Request_ #89-171 submitted �X Bergin Auto Body for property located at 7690 Corporate Way, Eden Prairie Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter � _ Section 1.7017 Subdivision 4Z E, to ermit a wall sign of 12f-Z5 s uare feet. Ci ty Coe maximum tt size sign permied in the Inning District iss uare feet. The variance request has been withdrawn. ^. Request #89-18, submitted � Ter_rence P.- Mar o for property located a�60 West 66th Street Circle, Eden Prairie Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Cha ter Section 1.02, io Subdivisn 2, 6, to permit a deck/buildin addition I from a side lot line. Cjty Code requires a minimum ' side and Seteacc� with a total of 25' in the R1-13.5 7onin_-- District. Terrence P Margo appeared to present his request for a variance. He explained that the old deck will be torn down and replaced with footings and foundation walls for a future addition to the home. On a sketch he showed the angle of the deck. The home had been built in 1979. The deck would encroach about 18 sq. ft. City property 2 lies to the north of the lot line. At the present the addition will serve as a deck only, but he intends to add to the family room in the future. * Anderson arrived (7:40 PM) Bozonie had no problem with the variance and said he had no questions. Harvey asked if there were any originals of the photos that had been reproduced in the staff report. Margo said he had turned them over the the Planning Dept. Harvey noted that the proposed addition is to be 12'by 21' . An alternative would be 12' by 17' and would be within code. Margo said it would not be practical when adding to the home. It would make a 3' jog necessary. Harvey responded that similar issues have come up to the Board before. Freemyer asked if the entire wall would come out when the deck becomes an addition. Margo answered that it would. The area would be an extension of the family room. Freemyer said he did not have difficulty with this variance because of the open space on that side of the home. It will always be open space there as it is difficult to develop. If there were another developed lot there, he would have problems with it. Margo said that the variance would be 18 sq. ft. out of 250 sq. ft. He had maintained the City property for the last 10 years. There were no plans for that property. Uram agreed that the area would not be developed. Anderson said he had driven by and could see no problem because of the public lands. However, that is not the issue--hardship is the issue. If code were complied with, Margo would be adding a unique structure versus a nice, square addition. He added he had a hard time seeing a hardship in the matter. Margo added that he needed storage space, he liked Eden Prairie, and would like to live here--he would like to be granted the variance. Anderson answered that he understood--but someone else will come before the Board and ask for the same variance if it were to be granted in this case.He could see no negatives, but no hardships either. Freemyer said a hardship needed to be defined. Bozonie said he felt the placement of the home on the lot was a hardship. Longman said the placement is not unique--although it may be a hardship to the owner. He asked how wide the family room(now in existance)was. How large will it be be comple Margo answered it was presently 11' wide. When completed, it will be 21' by 231 . There will also be a second story addition with windows. Longman felt these were large rooms. He asked if other options had been explored. He asked for input from the audience. There was none. 3 (i Freemyer said he could understand Margo not wanting the jog in the proposed room. How about going out 101? Margo answered that originally he had wanted 21' by 18'--but 18' went into the utility easement. Bozonie noted that it appears that any addition with a straight wall would cause a variance to be requested. Longman said he felt the members of the Board would like a compromise. He felt other plans could be explored. Fie asked Margo what his time frame was. Margo answered that he would like to submit his plans as soon as the variance was granted. Anderson asked about architectural plans. Margo said he did his own. Anderson asked if Margo had looked at 18' addition following the encroachment line. Margo answered that he had looked at other options--but felt this was the most practical way. Freemyer noted that regarding the lot--the side lines are not radial to the curve. • He felt the home had been place incorrectly on the lot--a poor decision had been made in placement. The sides should have been parallel with the side lot lines. Bozonie felt there were not radial lines because of curve layout in the road. MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board accept the variance 89-18 as stated. Hardships were identified as follows: 1. The layout of the lot is unique--the sidelines are far from being radial to the curve. 2. Placement of house is neither radial nor parallel to sidelines. He added that the encroachment is within City land and not adjacent to another homeowner. Bozonie seconded the motion and it passed 4-1. Harvey voted nay. C. Request #89-191, submitted �J Michael Halley Homes, Inc. for Pro ert located east of Juni er Lane and north of Pioneer Trail , Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Cha ter 1� Section 11702, Subdivision 2 z —ToPermit proposed Lot 11, Block Woodland Ponds Addition with 59' of frontage _on a public road. City Code re uires76'of frontage on a ublic roan i.n the R1-9.5 Zoning District, ands ro osed Lot 8, Block 4i Woodland Ponds Addition with 67--of frontage on a ublic road. City Code requires 10' of—fro—ntage on a public road in the R1-9.5 Zoning district. — — John Uban appeared to present the variance requested by Halley Homes. He explained that the property in question was a twenty acre piece north of Pioneer Trail. There was a Condo development to the west and a park to the north. A wet area was on one side and a shopping center had been proposed nearby. There were many constraints on the property including: 1. Access to the public road was only 4 allowed in one spot. 2. The Park Department wanted full dedication in the park land. 3. The area does not drain well--as a result there were grading restraints. They had thought the process would be ordinary, but it turned out to be difficult. 4. The curves needed specific curvature (according to City Engineering Dept. ) Two variances were needed. He noted the two interior lots (reverse pie shapes). One was 11,000 sq. ft. and the other was 21,000 sq. ft. All lots have 30' as a setback, including the two in question. Those two are 70' wide at the setback line. They had adjusted the plat to come up with only two lots that needed variances. He felt it would be a good development. Uram noted that the City has been in the process of looking at less frontage on curved roads for some time. Anderson asked if there would be any variances necessary regarding construction of the homes. If this was approved, would Uban agree to no additional variances on Uban answered that there would not be an necessary. lot 11? pattern and it has been provided to the City. Yes, heTwoulda agree sptoc that. hHesing noted that ordinance requires 70' at frontage, and these lots are 70' at setback. Freemyer felt the curve looked severe. Uban noted that it had been O.K. 'd by the City. Uram added ttat the City did not require the curve, but did review the plans as • submitted and approved them as they are. Harvey asked how many lots had been dropped. He noted that the area did have a lot of water two years ago. He felt the situation was unique and had no problem because of the curvature of the streets and the decision in the number of lots which had been reduced to 49. Bozonie felt he was in favor of the variance. Longman asked about the bracket of the homes. A representative from Halley Homes replied $140.000 to $230.000. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve Variance Request 89-19 subject to the following conditions: That no additional variances be allowed for Lot 11 , . B lock 12 or Lot 8 , B lock 4.The situation was considered unique because of the curvature of the streets---creating a hardship. Harvey seconded the motion and added the additional hard- ship to be noted as drainage constraints. Motion passed unanimously. D. Request #89-209 submitted_ Hansen, Thorp, pellinen Olson Inc. for Cabriole Center II for ro er-ted at West 78th _Ttreet, E e�n Prairie, Minnesota. The re uest is for a variance from City Code. Cha ter 111. Section il_03� Subdivision 2 B 1 existing office building on ro ose of �--t1�+ 10- eraits he l� and setback of 2 feet, Cjty Code re uires 20 feet, 2 Subdivision H� 5, d to ermit off-site arkin for ro osed Lot Block C Code re uires off-street arkin facilities to be on the same arcel they shall serve, 3 ubdivision 3 H 5 b to permit 5 surface parking 0' from a side lot line for existing arKin on proposed Lot 1, Bloch: City Code re wires a 10' side yard setback, Section 11.03, Subdivision 2 _ erm- _aidingit bu hei htt of 52 feet for the existinq building on proposed Lot 1, Block 1. Ci' Code ermits a buildin h—eig tt of 30 feet in the Office Zoning District, Section .50, Subdivisions—B to ermit the existing building on ro osed Lot 1, Block with Fb uildinq height of 52' within a Shoreland area. City Code maximum building height within a Shoreland area is 3 ' . Joe Ryan of Lexington Company appeared to represent the owner of Cabriole Center. The parcel in question is approximately 10.5 acres. They had acquired the property about 4 years ago. The project had been built 10 years ago. They are requesting a subdivision of the lot (basically in half) to about 4.5 and 6 acres. The existing financing on the lot is through Travelers Insurance Co, and they want to divide the financing between the lots and proceed with the development of the second phase. Travelers Ins. Co. does not wish to expand on the loan. Harvey noted it was a unique lot line between the two lots. He asked if the applicant had read the Staff report. Ryan answered that he had read it briefly. Harvey asked if Ryan had considered the option of retaining the property as • one lot and condominiumize the lot. Ryan said they had discussed that option with City Staff and decided it was not an option. These condos do not work well in commercial projects. It is also important to keep the lots separate from a cost standpoint. Harvey asked if the property at 169 and Valley View Road was a condo office project. Uram answered it was--the property was a townhouse development. Anderson asked if City West Parkway was a condo development. Uram answered yes, it has a common parking agreement. Uram introduced Rick Rosow, City Attorney for Eden Prairie. Harvey asked Rosow what was available in terms of condominiumizing the property- this an option in this instance? It would avoid many variances. Rosow said it could be done legally. The move would create the current unit as one building and create a footprint of a:-second unit. The remainder would be a common area. The problem would be that adhering to that footprint can be difficult to do-The current buildiing could also be condominiumized and create a second unit. There is no legal description to sell it off. Legally, it can be done, but practically it is expensive. Ryan's assistant, Paul Thorpe , came forward and stated that the reason for having the lot line as it is was the parking lot/ramp. The ramp will be built over a portion of the lot. 6 • Anderson stated that he understood the need for this change to accomodate long term goals. He felt that the situation created would create problems with the tenants. Lot 1 would have the building and Lot 2 would have the parking. Ryan stated that easement and access agreement is being drafted. He cited many others who have such situations. Anderson said he believed all those had 100% use of common area. Ryan said it was important that they own all the property so no decision making problems arise with others. Anderson asked if Travelers was the lien holder. Ryan answered yes, but they are no longer financing real estate in this area. There is a release provision in place. Harvey asked if Travelers would allow the division. Ryan answered that they would allow it as long as there was cross access. Anderson asked if a subdivision could be created now for construction purposes and condo type platting be effective later. He felt that would be easier to manage and would create a variance that would be conditional on 1 or 2 years . Harvey asked if the green and parking areas would not have to be sold or dedicated to the association. Rosow said it would have to be dedicated. He did not think the Board had that kind of authority to do as Anderson had suggested. Ryan said it would make it complicated for the lenders also. Freemyer asked if the ramp will require a variance. Ryan's assistant, Paul Thorpe , answered that it would. Freemyer asked if the .line parallel to the building could be pushed in a north easterly direction. Ryan's assistant, Paul Thorpe stated that it will require a variance one way or the other. Harvey asked what the minimum lot size in that district is at this time. Uram answered it is 20,000 sq. ft. Ryan noted that they had tried to bring as much parking as possible close to the building. Longman felt it was unusual to grant a request creating five variances to accommodate financing purposes. He felt it was not a viable hardship. He asked for input from the audience. _ 7 Dale Hubred, neighbor to the east of the property, came forward. He explained that he had moved in in 1976 and at that time the property was rural. The first builder took two years with his project and took down many trees. The building was made larger than it should have been and there were not buffers as had been promised. He said that the matter was going to the Council on the 16th and it had not yet gone to the Planning Commission. He felt the process was being skirted on some issues and that condominiumizing the area would make more sense. How about fire lanes, drainage? He felt Ryan was asking for the variance from himself and there was no one to protest. He mentioned a possible building (65,000 sq ft) to be built. Uram noted that this item had been to the Planning Commission two times. A public hearing had been held for the preliminary plat. He added that enforcement had been less than expected regarding the issue of trees being taken down and that Ryan would be expected to plant additional trees. Harvey asked if landscaping ordinance would be complied with on both lots. Uram answered that it would. Rosow asked who the purchase agreement was with now. Ryan answered they would keep the entire ownership of lot 2 and would be strongly g y involved in the project. (the P J he other lot) Harvey clarified that after the possible lot division, Ryan's client would still be a party of both parts. Ryan affirmed the statement. Rosow said while he did not feel it would be a problem legally, the Board should keep in mind it would set a precedent for future variances. The hardship would be how the city approved the lot split. Anderson outlined how the real estate taxes and differences in value would cause problems and objections with the tenants. Ryan answered that the same situation existed in other cases. Longman said the Board has not allowed for financial hardships in the past. Harvey added that economic hardship alone in not considered a hardship--wh1 t else exists here? If the varJMnce were nut granted,-the property couia still be fully utilized. Rod Pauser came forward from the audience and said he was concerned about the aesthetics. He said there had been no attempt to plant additional trees and some of the small ones had already died. He said he had a good relationship with other nearby developers, but felt this developer had not done much. Ryan said he did not realize the hardship was necessary and/or re He said he did not build the original building or cut down the trees. He did 8 not know what would be built there at this time. Regarding the 8 �; landscaping matter, the people here had not come to him about it. He agreed it was a financial situation, and if it was not allowable, possibly they were out of luck. He asked if he should withdraw the request. Longman answered that the Board could act, or Ryan could get a continuance. If the Board should turn the matter down, it could be appealed to the Council. Uram added that if Ryan withdrew the request, he would need to come back to the Board before he could go to the council. If it were denied, he could appeal. To summarize, the three options would be: 1. Continuance:(no purpose) 2. Withdraw- could feel out the Council's thoughts on the matter and come back to the Board. 3. Decision this evening: if denied, appeal to Council. Ryan said he preferred option U. MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board deny variance request 89-20 and not create the five variances on the grounds that the only hardship demonstrated was economic & that was not considered a viable reason for a hardship according to code. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Anderson noted that the variance had not been turned down because of the quality of the project, but because of the hardship issue (which had not been demonstrated. ) • Recess taken from 9:10 to 9:20. E. Request #89-21, submitted � Crosstown Investors for ro ert;Test st of Shams Oak Road and south of Crosstown #62, Eden ram irie, Minnesota. The re uest is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 1 ,-Section� 1172, Subdivision 2 B Lot Chasewood Addition at .26 acres permit ro osed Chasewood Addition at 1.52 aT To cres. City Code ermit uiresroaosedaLot minimum in the Nei hborhoodEre Commercial Zonin District. Jj To �ermit a lot width of for ro osed Lot CitY Code re wires Jim Ostenson, a partner in Chase Point, came forward and showed the sketch. He explained that it include future extension of City West Parkway. The parcel consists of 7.9 acres and a rezoning for commercial property was desired. There were plans for a gas station/convenience store and day care center.The original property was 5 acres. They have dedicated property for the extension of City West Parkway and other property in the Crosstown revamping. A variance was needed to allow for use of property under 2 acres and 184' frontage. (as opposed to 200' ) The lot line would be created for ownership purposes. He cited the hardship as: 1. The land has been subdivided and condemned so many times--it was too small for a PUD. 2. Three smaller parcels were desired rather than one larger one for ownership reasons. 3. The property was in close proximity to three major roads. 9 Freemyerasked if any additional variances would be required. Ostensen answered no--he added that the sketch he displayed was only depicting Possibilities and he did not know for sure what would be required. Bozonie asked why development of 4 parcels had not been considered. Ostensen answered that they wanted 2 parcels and an outlot. Bozonie noted that the parcels that are being divided up now seem too small for neighborhood commercial parcels. Ostensen said that the variance was needed because of division for ownership spli Harvey asked if other variances would be needed for parking, etc. Ostensen said he felt not, maybe only a cross easement. He said they meet all parking ordinances and set backs. Uram said the lot with the variance was created by the location of the private drive--the City is requiring it in this case. Anderson noted that he would be abstaining. Longman asked for input from the audience. • There was none. Longman closed the public discussion on the request. Bozonie said he did not see a need for the lots to be this small. Longman said that three roads on three sides were restrictive. He felt a hardship was demonstrated. PUD does not apply to the parcel. Harvey asked if the City was reviewing the entire parcel as one chunk of land as a neighborhood commercial property. Uram answered that was true. Harvey asked about FAR. Ostensen answered 6% daycare and 9% service station/convenience store. Harvey felt there was a trade-off. The intended uses were lower .than could be utilized. MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve variance request 89-21 because of the following unique circumstances: 1. The amount of road dedication over the years has reduced the size. . 2. Proposed uses are substantially below FAR allowances. 3. Lot with variances created by placement of private drive into the project(based on the City Engineer's requirements.) Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed with all in favor except Anderson, who abstained. 10 • F. Re uest #89-22 submitted tted by Fortier & Associates for Viking Press for ro ert o is f at Wash_ink n qv_ outh, Eden Prairie Minnesota. The re uest is for a variance from Cit,� Code, Cha ter S ction .02, Subdivision 2, B,7lj To ermit a Base Area Ratio BAR of .427. Cit Code maximum isO, �Topermit an—access r structure rear and tom ' of 2 City Code re wires 3 ermit single scored con—ncrete block. City requires 1 ck to be scored at least t_ _ Darrell Fortier, representing Viking Press, came forward to present the requested variances These would be regarding: I. Base area ratio 2. Single score concrete blocks. He explained that Viking Press was short of room in the facility and can add square footage by going up, but the presses cannot function by being on an upper level and there was the difficulty in transportation of materials. He noted that they were seeking no other variances. There is 35-40% more parking than required. The single score block is requested to match the existing building. He added that Jim Wendell, V.P. of finance was present to answer questions. , Uram said he had reviewed the site and facility and would answer any questions directed to him. . Anderson agreed that"presses upstairs"was impossible and difficult. Freemyer asked what the hardship would be. Fortier answered:l. The need to grow 2. The uniqure nature of the business. 3. The difficulty of having the presses on an upper level Harvey said he had no problem--he felt the site could not be utilized if the code were to be strictly interpreted. Longman asked for input from the audience. There was none. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve variance request 89-22 with the following findings: 1. All existing and proposed rooftop mechanical equipment be screened with the new building addition. 2. No additional parking, 'larking setback, or building setback variances are required. 3. Split work shifts are utilized to reduce traffic and parking congestion. • 4. ''.e landscaping currently on the ro increased or improved to comply with city code requirements. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 11 G. Request #89-23, submitted !�y DPC of Milwaukee, Inc. for ro ert located at 6251 Bury Drive, Eden Prairie. Minnesota. The re Testis for a variance from Cjty Code, Cha ter Section .03,3u6division H,�, to ermit a 30' front yard arkin setback: City Codes re Tires a 50'front ia& arkin setback. Jim Diamond, property manager for DPC of Milwaukee, appeared variance. He displayed a sketch and explained that additional bushesi putthe in with the new plan and retention of the berm had affected the parking--and there was not sufficient parking for the tenants there now.Since there was a steep hill on the back side of the property, there was no alternative. They are making an attempt to resolve the parking issue, but some tenants have 4 year leases and cannot move now. He feels the problem will be solved by this proposal--it is not an indefinite problem. He wants a minimal impact and does not want to disturb the desires of the City. Agreement for additional evergreens would be made as a trade off for extra parking area. According to neighboring tenants, the auto leasing facility has not used the designated spaces recently--there has been an excess of cars parked in that area. Uram noted that the situation is not unusual, the staff looks at the number of spaces per 1,000 feet. Hearing Technology has designated (25) off the site. He questioned the need for that. Parking spaces Larry Heffler pointed out that the question of designated spaces regards certain tenants and indicated which tenants have them. • Diamond says there are times during t he this parking load needs to be dealt withday when the lot is completely full and Heffler felt the tenants that had designated spaces would notallow their spaces to be available for others use. Anderson said he would abstain, but would like to note that he felt it was a good idea for double loaded parking. Uram said he believed the parking spaces would be screened 100%. Harvey felt it was a self inflicted wound--how much of the problem was created after this recievership? Diamond said none of the problem was created after this recievership. Harvey said there was a problem, but there were alternatives--he was not in favor. Bozonie agreed with Harvey and added that the wrong way. tenant mix was allowed to go the Longman said he believed the owner would lease to those who want to rent-He felt this was an inherited problem and the solution does not have a large negative impact on the area. • Harvey said tenants can be bought out of leas es. Anderson said if the use was changed, there still would be a problem-the need for more parking. 12 Freemyer felt there were alternatives. The City sets down the minimum ratio of parking spaces.For those who adhere, it is unfair. Bottom line seems to be an economic hardship. Diamond said he appreciated and recognized these issues. A distinction should be made between a true self inflicted wound and one you assume. Tenants could be moved and a warehouse made--the improvements are already there--some type of tenants will be there. Enough money could solve the problems, but the cost would be substantial. He want to spend on landscaping and parking and not let it go bad. They are trying to resolve the problem in a reasonable economic way without disrupting the tenants. Harvey said they were not trying to identify Diamond as at fault, but the hill was there before--the problem had been created by the mix of tenants. When does the parking difficulty occur? Diamond answered it was at several times during the day, especially later morning and mid-afternoon. Sometimes all the spaces are full. Freemyer said 16 stalls were to be built. There were 19 off site. Wasn't this a band aid solution? Why not wrap parking around further? Diamond said it was because of the sloped terrain. In most cases, the land on the west side of the building could be used and the hardship here is that it cannot. • Freemyer cited a project near Edenvale Boulevard which had unique parking. Diamond said the hill was 60' high. Such parking ep ansion would A retaining wall would be much less attractive tthanhidden parkingespacesrous. Bozonie asked how heavily the truck service court was used. Diamond said it was used less than the rest, but access for trucks was needed. Longman said he felt logic and good sense had been displayed here. There was not much impact on the site. Freemyer asked how Longman would reply to other applicants. Longman answered the hardship would be topographical restraints. (Hillside) Harvey asked about the footage occupied by the Jazzercise business. Diamond answered it was about 8%. Parking percentage was 48%. - Harvey noted that one tenant will elMminate the parking problem. Anderson felt that if Jazzercise moves out, Hearing Tech will move in and use those spaces anyway. . Harvey felt there was an alternative--we know which tenant causes the problem. Diamond said the information on the percentage of parking for Jazzercise is not correct--it was not 30-40%, but more than 8%. 13 Harvey said green space would be lost if the variance were to be granted. Diamond reminded the members that Jazzercise is permitted under code. Harvey said he knew that there were no illegal tenants, but felt Jazzercise probably had the least improvements. Diamond agreed that was probably so. Freemyer said maybe if he had more accurate numbers, he would reconsider the matter. Tonight he would deny it. Diamond asked if the variance were to be continued, what information could he present to the Board at at future meeting? Would the tenants need to be removed? Harvey asked if that avenue had been pursued. Diamond said it had not. He felt there would be many unhappy tenants if this variance were not granted. He would like a reasonably simple solution that would solve the problem without major changes-He cited the two issues as: 1. The hill problem 2. They did not contract the tenants. Harvey suggested Diamond talk to the tenants about the possibility of moving. Possibly Diamond will be able to come back with some information. Diamond said there was a contract right for the off site stalls. Freemyer felt if these stalls were lost for that use, the problem would increase greatly. Uram suggested owner and manager speak with the tenants to get accurate numbers designated for each lease holder. Diamond requested a continuance. MOTION: Harvey moved that variance request 89-23 be continued to the next meeting. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed with Anderson abstain.i.,Ig. H. R nest #89-24, submitted b Hustad Develo ment for Property located north Of luestem Lane and west of 6ennett lace enn7rair -'re uest is for a variance from Cit Code Cha ter 1e Minn— e=—� Subdivision 2 6 to ermit ro osed Lo 5 g1= �'g�ffs�estC—dd�tion with ! ' of frontage own a ub11c road, Cites, Code re uires $3' of frontage on a ublic road i the R1 Zo�ino Otstrict. �'— — o- ontage Mary McCauley appeared to represent Hustad Development. She displayed a sketch Of the site and explained that a variance was needed for one lot. The City requires a 85' frontage and this lot would have 691 . She added that the sq. footage is over the required amount and the setback exceeds the other lots. Hustad Development would like to explore the possibility of extended • lots in the area. A lot of trees would be saved. A 30' wide easement has been provided to nearby lots. Bozonie asked if this would become a corner lot. McCauley answered no, it would not. 14 Longman noted that the property to the east would be landlocked McCauley answered that the land is already platted--this makes it difficult. Freemyer asked if the private drive could become a public road. Uram said the staff has no concerns. Harvey asked about squaring off the lot and still providing the easement. McCauley said it would possibly involve a legal problem. Uram said an easement could be provided to adjacent property if the owners agree to it. MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve variance request 89-24 as submitted due to unique circumstance of lot being on a curved street. Exceptions we made on curved streets. Bozonie seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. V. OLD BUSINESS Harvey noted the June 13 meeting with the City Council. More information later. VI. NEW BUSINESS none VII. ADJOUR ]ENT MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board adjourn. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:10.