HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 07/13/1989 •APPRaVM IrIIN[=
• BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
THURSDAY, July 13, 1989 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council
Chambers, 7600 Executive Dr. ,
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Steve Longman (Chairman), Bill Arockiasamy
Michael Bozonie, Dwight Harvey, Scott
Anderson, John Freemyer, Neil Aker-mm
STAFF PRESENT: Jean Johnsorr-Planning,Sharon Swenson-Seo'r
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Arockiasamy, Longman
1. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Harvev called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.
Roll Call: Harvey, Freemyer, Bozonie, Anderson, Akemann (arrived at 8:00 P.M. )
All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
• II. MINUTES OF JUNE 82 1989
MOTION: Freemyer moved. that the Board move the approval of the minutes of the
June 8 meeting to the end of the agenda in order to insure a quorum.
Bozonie seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
III. VARIANCES
A. Request #89-23, submitted �y DPC of Milwaukee, Inc. for property
located at�S.Bur Drive, Eden Prairie. Minnesota. The request is
Cha ter - section .0
for a variance from City Code, �_
Subdivision 3, H, 5, to ep rmit a 30' front yard arkin setback.
City Codes re wires a 50' front ward oar setback.
Jim Diamond of DPC of Milwaukee, Inc. appeared to present the variance. He said that
the company has requested an additional 30 day continuance to resolve issues related
to the variance. The property owner has changed. It will not be possible to go in an
easterly direction for parking. He will come with more information in 30 days.
MOTION: Bozonie moved that the Board grant a 30 day continuance on variance
89-23. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed with Anderson abstaining.
B. Request #89-26, submitted by Steven John Erickson for property
located at 7353 Bridlewood Curve, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The
request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.03,
Subdivision 2, B, to permit a deck addition 5' from a side lot line.
• City Code and Developer's Agreement requires a 10' setback.
var;.ance was �ithdr_atm as the applicant decided to build a grade
level patio.
C. Request #89-28, submitted �j Scenic Heights Investment for property
located east of County Road #4- and north and east of Lakeshore
Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The re nest is for a variance from
• City Code, Cha�ertl, eecct-itd 11.0�, 1) To ep rmit proposed Lot 4i
Block 5, Lot 1, Block 3, Lot 2, Block 3 with lot sizes less than
of22,00022,000 s urae fet. City Code requires a minimum lot size
theR1�Zoning— istric , Tpermtsot
square feet in r o
2, Block 3 with lot frontage of 82' . City Code requires lUU� or
frontage on corner lots, a Section 11.50, Subdivision 6, B to
permit an existin residential structure 40' from the Ordinary high
Water Mark of Red Rock Lake. City Code requires a100' setback from
the Ordinary High Water Mark
Bill Gilk of Scenic Heights Investment appeared to present the variance. He
noted that this request has started with 5 variances and now was down to
two variances: To permit Lot 4, block 5 with lot size less than 22,000 square
feet, and to permit the existing home 40' from the ordinary high water mark
of Red Rock Lake.
s
S Anderson felt it was a simple issue overall and should be supported.
Freemyer asked what hardship was demonstrated.
Gilk answered that they were not involved in the original planning for this--
it was a seven lot proposal by someone else. Scenic Heights Investments had
reduced this to make it workable. Five lots are needed to break even. The
existing home cannot be easily moved. The undersized lot is 18,972 sq. ft.
• There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve variance request 89-29
with modifications to permit lot 4, block 5 to be less than
22,OOp square feet and to permit existing residential structure
to be 40' from the high water mark. The hardship demonstrated
is that there is no other viable use of the property. Freemyer
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
D. Request_ #89-29, submitted by Ronald E. Nelsen for property located
a 045 Pioneer Trail , Eden Prairie, Minnesota, legally described
as: See reverse. The request is for a variance from CitY Code
Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Subdivision 3, H, 5, BI to ermit
parkingto be 0' from a side lot line, City Code requires 100 ; and
2 Subdivision 3, H, 6, C, to ermit the end of a driveway OZ from
a side lot line at the interesection of a right-of-way line. City
Code requires 10' This variance request is an extension for
variance re uest 88-18 ranted July 14, 1988.
Ronald E Nelson was not present.
Johnson said there had not been much change in the circumstances in this
variance and the same conditions would apply.
Dale Harrison came forward (oim.er of building next door) and
• asked if there would be curbing along the lot line to deter trucks from
driving on adjoining property.
Johnson answered that there was no curb shown or discussed.
3
• Harrison stated that regarding the trees required by the City--the signage
on his property has vision only from the east and his concern was that it
.remain visible and does not become blocked by the required trees. He did
not object to berming.
Johnson said that trees would be planted with Harrison's approval.
MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve variance request 89-29
as submitted. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed 3,,0 4ith!.
Bozonie opposed.
Akemann arrived at 8:00 P.M.
E. Request #89-30, submitted by Randy Rannow for property located at
5906 and 5908 Cedar Ridge Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, legally
described as: Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Eden Hills First Addition.
The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter�� Section
T7.03. Subdivision 3, H, 5, C, (1) to permit a driveway without
hardsurface. City Code re uires asphaltic or Portland cement binder
2 Subdivision 2, A, 9, to permit a driveway 0' from the lot line
for both arcels describea above. City Code requires a 3' side yard
setback (3 Subdivision 2, B, to ermit a ara a addition 14' from a
side lot line. City Code requires a 1�' side yard set ack in the
Ri---Zoninq District. — —
• Randy Rannow appeared to present the variance. His concern was the hill connected
to the driveway and the parking problems in the garage area. Snow has also
been a problem in the area. He wanted enough room for a 20' double garage
on the site. The driveway would be used for unit 908, unit 906 has a separate
driveway.
Johnson identified other alternatives such as constructing a single car garage
with no variance required. That would give this lot three garage stalls. She
did note that the area seems to have mostly double garages.
Harvey noted a similar driveway at 15810 Coral Lane that has a similar grade
and is hard surfaced.
Rannow said that if there were a single car garage,the turn around space on
the bottom of the hill would be eliminated.
Harvey asked if there were a single car garage put in and the driveway were
to be moved 3' from the side lot line, would there be enough turn around room?
Rannow felt there would not be enough room for a turn around.
Johnson noted that a T turn around area could be constructed.
Anderson asked if a surveyor could look into these ideas,and the variance be
continued until the next Meeting,. Then more information would be available
• to assist the homeowner in considering alternatives. Possibly the need for
a variance could be removed.
Freemyer felt the surfacing issue was the most important of the variances
requested.
4
Johnson said that the City records call for a hard surface driveway.
Rannow asked why other gravel driveways were permitted in the area.
Johnson answered that some were constructed in the early 1960's. She could
look tip any Rannow has questions on if he-would furnish her with addresses.
Rannow asked why he was not asked to comply until 1985.
S Anderson answered that these matters usually came up on a complaint basis.
Johnson said in this case it had been a building inspection.
Harvey noted it had taken five years to build the house and the Staff possibly
had not been aware that there would not be a hard surface driveway.
Freemyer said that some hardsurfaces can be installed that reduce slippage.
Bozonie said he was not in favor of any of the variances.
Freemyer said that under certain conditions, he would consider certain isolated
parts of the variances.
Rannow said the variances were not meant to be a package deal--the variances
are separate considerations.
• Discussbn took place on the driveway and garage size.
S Anderson said he could not approve the variance requests as presented.
Akemann said he was not in favor of the variances.
Harvey told Rannow that the likelihood of this being granted was limited. He
could bring more information to the next meeting and modify his request.
Anything without a hard surface driveway would be likely to fail.
Rannow asked for a continuance.
Ed Martin of 15810 Cedar Ridge appeared and said he was a representative of the
Homeowners Association. He cited landscaping plans which had been submitted in
1984 that had not been completed--some areas not even started. The applicant
has not complied with the request for a hard surface driveway. In 1986, the
Homeowners Association had sent a letter to Rannow regarding the maintenance
of the area and the driveway. They had received no response. The architectural
committee had made an offer of voluntary labor and it had not been accepted.
The covenent states that no lots are to be used for anything other than residential
purposes. Both these units are rental units. The area is zoned for single family
dwellings. This variance request will allow continued parking in the street. The
garage at 15908 has never been used as a garage, it is just a storage area. He
is asking that the variance request be denied and Rannow be required to install
a hard surface driveway. Ile also felt that the lot line/driveway set back
• variance be denied. There was no reason for a driveway to 15906 as there was
no garage there. Regarding item 3, he felt the distance should be 19' instead
of 20' and the garage would fit perfectly. A stall could be added on the north
side of the existing garage.
5
Robert Gibson of 15737 Cedar Ridge came forward. He requested a vote on the
request this evening as he felt the needs could be filled within the code
requirements.
Ray Rannow came forward and said that he and Randy Rannow have discussed the
road for 6 years now. He clears the driveway in the winter and said that
it is too steep and. dangerous. It should go out to County Rd 4 where there
is level land. The paving will be done, but it need to be decided where the
driveway should go. 14hen they had stated to dig after the permit was granted,
there had been intimidation by the neighbors.
Ed Martin asked why more fill could not be added to reduce the slope.
Ray Rannow said that this was not practical.
Ed Van Rosen of 15901 Cedar Rd came forward and said that 15906 does not
have a complete hard surface driveway. What wouldthe Board do on that matter?
Problems could arise with joint driveway. There were 8 cars there tonight
and three cars in the front. The garage was not used.
Rannow came forward and said he had heard a lot of things, and felt it was
important to stick to the matters at hand.
Freemyer asked if this was rental property.
Rannow answered that one unit was rented to 5 persons.
Richard O'Brien said he opposed a continuance. Tonight there is consideration
of three variances--if another is requested, let Rannow make another request
at another time. To continue the request is to start over.
MOTION: Frreemyer moved that the Board deny variance request 89-30 because:
Regarding item 1--no hardship was demonstrated
Regarding item 2-Problems could arise from potential sale of the
property and no hardship was demonstrated.
Regarding item 3-There are alternatives.
Bozonie seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
S Anderson noted that he had suggested a continuance because he
had hoped to work with Rannow and give him an opportunity to
improve the situation.
Johnson noted that the applicant has until July 30, 1989 to install
the driveway.
F Request #89-31 submitted �J Clayton Freeburg for property located at
7010 Willow Creek Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota legally described
as: See reverse side. The request is for a variance from City Code,
Cha ter 1� , Section 11.50, Subdivision 6. ( To Pe_r.mit proposed
Tract A at 1.06 acres; permit pro osed Tract 8 at 1.19 acres; permit
ro osed Tract C at 0.83 acres. City Code requires a 5 acre minimum
lot size.--M— To ermit Proposed Tract A with a wWici th at t 5 e
building line of 268' ; permit p ro osed Tract B with a width at the
6
building line of 270' ; �er�m"t Tract C with a width at the building
line of .—City C227ce re uire a minimum wicTth at the building
• line of 300' . 3 To ermit ro osed Tract B with as minimum width
at the Ordinary Highh Water Mark at 80' . —City Code re uires 15�
ToPermit ro osed Lot C with a buildinq setback 75' from the
Org.exists n High Water Mark. City Code requires 100' . 5 To ermit
existing septic s stems on proposed tracts A and C within 00' of
the Ordinary High Water Mark. Code re uires a 10-�setback.
To ermit an existing tennis—court—on proposed tract B within 15 '
of the Ordinary Water Mark. City Code requires 150' . 7 To
Permit an existing accessory structure on proposed Tract C within
of the Ordinary Water Mark. City Code requires ': — 8 To
permit proposed Tract B with lot frontage on a Public street of 70'
Ci ty Code requires 9V. City Code, Chia ter - Section-T2��
Sub—division to ermit proposed tract aA nd C without frontage on
a Rublic street. City Code requires properites to have frontage on
a public street. — —
Clayton Freeburg appeared to present the variance. He explained that
this property is unique--it is on a cul de sac on a high bluff. It has
2 existing homes on the parcel A & B and he would like to build a home
on lot B . The home would be on a hill quite a distance from the lake.
As far as he can see, many subdivisions do not adhere to codes. The
cul de sac is old and established. They tried to divide the parcel according
to the lay of the land.
Johnson said she has applications for platting the property that go back
• to the 1970's. There is more detailed information now.
Bozonie asked if the property was now one lot with two homes.
Freeburg said yes, according to the courts.
Johnson noted that the Council did have action to approve a two lot sub-
division. Now the three lot request had been approved by the Planning
Commission and the Council.
Attorney P,osow stated that it is now three lots with 2 houses after the
Council action taken in June.
Freemyer asked if Council reviewed these variance requests. The one concerning
the septic tank is the most troublesome.
Freeburg said the location of the septic tank was the main issue. It
should drain to the peat bog and not the lake.
Johnson displayed a map showing the location the the drain field and septic
system.
Harvey had concerns on the septic system--If it should fail, where would
it be moved? Is there room on tracts A & C?
• Johnson felt there was room there, or possibly an above ground facility
could be used,or holding tanr.s.
S Anderson asked how the City Council and Planning Commission responded
to the alternatives.
Johnson said that they did not feel it would make a difference.
7
The Council had looked at the neighborhood and considered the reasonable
use of the land. Council felt it was similar to the surrounding use.
Freemyer felt possibly many properties in Eden Prairie were similar.
Other people will want to do the same. Unique circumstances need to be
identified.
Rosow said he felt this was unique and the survey had been approved and
recorded. Then, the court found it was illegally done. The time involved
prevented the owner from dci.ng a nything further with the property. The
City did not properly approve or manage the process. The owner ma de a
number of applications
cations to obtain the
application. The court
PP pp found the
original sub-division flaw. It found that the property had never been
properly platted.
Harvey asked when sewer would be available from the City.
Johnson said she did not know, it could be part of the long term proposal
in the future.
Freeburg said it would be very difficult to change the roads without changing
lots and destroying trees. It is a high hill with many oaks.
Johnson said some other similar interior lots could be divided, but
not lakeshore with similar size lots.
Rosow said that the two lot subdivision was filed. "In 1972, the city
approved the division of 3 lots, A,B, & C, but there was no hearing.
Freeburg noted that the lines have never been changed at all.
Harvey suggested that a condition could be added that all three lots hook
into City sewer when it becomes available.
Johnson said that possibly "when needed" could be added to such a condition.
Harvey asked how many other lake lots violate setbacks regarding high water
marks.
Bozonie responded there were sixteen, counting Freeburgs three.
Freeburg asked if the existing dwelling on lot A is a well kept home.
Freeburg answered that it was, his parents have lived there for 19 years.
Stewart Nolan came forward. He lives at 7020 Willow Creek Rd and feels he
is more affected than anyone else. He is against it for the following
reasons:
1. Septic tank: No place to relocate the tank for the older home. Above ground
is expensive. If Freeburg builds the proposed home, the tank will drain on
• "Nolans property.
2. Setting a precedent: There are a lot of lots that could be subdivided,
including his own. The average lot is 1.5 acres. This subdivision would
have smaller lots. He could do the same thing, but does not want to
increase the density.
8
3. Council did not consider the 11 variances.
4. Failure to see the hardship here--there are two homes and two lots.
Harvey asked if the existing homes are on the illegally subdivided land.
Rosow answered that they were.
Johnson said that there are many setbacks that drain fields must meet.
If there were any problems, any neighbor should contact the City and
tests will be made. Regarding the Staff reviewing the lot sizes in the
area--they did not go on lot size alone, but the dep-h and also the
location of the home on the lot.
Mrs Freeburg came forward and stated that she would like it if the
Board would come and see the lot. They have gone through a lot to get
this _lot cleared.
Astelle Knutdson, a resident of Willow Creek for 28 years came forward
and said she was concerned. Many would like it if she would sub-divide
her land too, but there are ordinances that must be adhered to. If so many
variances were required on a property, something must be wrong with the
property.
Jim Perkins came forward and said that nineteen years ago this family brought
the division of the property to the City. The City said it could be split
• into two lots rather than three. The Court said the City did not act properly.
The property is porous and sandy--it drains well. This process would not be
necessary if it had been handled properly years ago. He stated he could
understand the Board's concern with so many variances.
Harvey asked if the shoreland ordinance of 1982 was applied to existing lots,
how many would comply or fail?
Johnson said they have looked at it concerning lot size and width.
Harvey felt that if the neighbors had made improvements to their lots
(had to wait until 1989), many variances would have been required also.
Freemyer asked if it could be grandfathered.
Rosow said variances would be needed--grandfatheriing could not be relied upon.
Officially there were now three tracts.
Akemann felt there were definite hardships here as some varainces have
no alternatives. It is difficult to ascertain which are appropriate.
Johnson said that in the Staff report of June 10, the variances are itemized.
There still would have been 9 variances even if the City did not approve
the three lots. Now there is a three lot subdivision.
Rosow said if the variances are not approved, the lot cannot be used.
Freemyer asked why some of the variances should be listed if the
Council approved the 3 tract registered land survey with no contingencies.
9
• Harvey asked if the Council approval of the 3 tract registered land survey
was based on Staff findings.
Nolan said 8 of the 11 variances concern 1932 shoreland ordinance. He
believes the Freeburgs had the ability to come back before the Council
before 1982.
Perkins said at that time, a number of neighbors were upset and they felt
it was not the time to do it.
Freeburg said that City records should show that an attempt was made in 1980.
MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board deny variance request 89-31
as presented. No hardship was demonstrated and precedents may
be set if it were to be granted. Applicant may take the appeal
to the City Council. Akemann seconded the motion and it passed
4-1 with Harvey opposed.
Recess called at 10 P.M.
Meeting reconveyned at 10:13 P.M.
G. Request #89-32, submitted by U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service for
propertylocated at 9601 Riverview Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota,
legally described as: See reverse side. The request is for a
• variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Subdivision 2,
BL to ermit a Rural Lot size of 4.33 acres. City Code requires 10
acres. The variance is related to acquistion of property associated
with the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge.
Ross Grimwood of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Dept appeared to present the
variance. He had been working with the owner. The land is in a flood plain
area. It will be managed for wildlife and kept in a natural state.
Harvey asked if the variance was for the remaining land.
Grimwood answered that it was.
Johnson said that the City has endorsed these plans in Eden Prairie--this
is the fourth such variance. The remaining tract of land will be consistent
with surrounding properties.
Grimwood said that they were considering one other such area to the west,
Nt at the present time have limited funds.
MOTION: Bozonie moved that the Board approve variance request 89-32
as submitted with findings in support of approval. Freemyer seconded-
the motion and it passed unanimously.
;. Request #89-33, submitted PX Marvin and Magdalene Miller for
ro ert located at 7293 Gerald Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota,
lei described as: Lot 20, Block 1, Topview Acres 3rd Addition.
The request is for a variance from City Code, Cha ter 11, Section
03, Subdivision 3, E, to permit a fence height of 2 .
City Code maximum fence he_ fight is 6' .
10
Marvin Miller came forward to present the variance. He showed a photograph
of how he would like to have the fence constructed. It would be located
5' in from the freeway fence. There had previously been a hedge there
which had become diseased and no longer functioned as a barrier. He had
surveyed the neighbors and found that there were none against the construction
of the fence.
Harvey said that he had been by the site and walked to the back yard
where the fence is proposed. He had noted the planting of a number of
spruce trees there and also a top deck with a four season porch below.
The 12' fence would not screen the upper deck.
Miller responded that he was more interested in the lower area.
Harvey said that a 6' fence would provide screening for the lower area
from the freeway and wondered why a 12' fence would be selected.
Miller said that a 12' fence would screen all of the freeway and a 6'
fence would screen only part of it.He added that a 12' fence would cut
(ff additional noise and noted a similar fence on Valley View.
Harvey told Miller that he was requesting a 100% variance from the code.
Without a continuous fence in the neighborhood, what would be accompolished
as far as noise control?
• Miller responded that one neighbor has pines and the other cedars--this
provided them wi':h a barrier.
Harvey said that unique circumstances were needed to grant a variance.
If this were to be granted, precedents would be set for future requests.
lie had difficulty finding unique circumstances in this situation and was
not convinced that a 12' fence would solve the problem.
Bozonie felt a 12' fence was large and did not know what effect it would
have on the problem.
Freemyer asked who would maintain the area between the proposed fence and
the freeway fence and if the proponent had considered having mature trees
planted in that area.
Miller answered that he would maintain that area between the fences and
felt that he had already spent a lot on. the trees that he has had planted
at $250.00 each for 30 of them.
Mrs Miller said that the traffic is an eyesore--even the patio door
overlooks the freeway. They were unable to hear each other's conversation
when they are in the back yard.
S Anderson said he knew what the Miller's were speaking of as he lived
• in a similar traffic situation at 6825 Stonewood Court. However, the
freeway was there in 1970 when the Millers bought the home. It would
be very difficult for the Board to approve a 100% variance. He felt if
3 or 4 neighbors were to ask as a group, it would be easier to approve.
11
Mrs Miller asked if the board would consider a 10' fence.
Akemann said that he could see the Miller's point of view, but it is
the nature of the property--when you choose to live by a freeway. A
noise barrier fence is not effective- unless all in the area have one.
He felt there was no hardship demonstrated.
S Anderson suggested the Millers contact the rest of the homeowners
association. If more homes were to have such fences installed, the Board
may be more receptive to such a request.
MOTION: Akemann moved that the boara deny variance request 89-33
finding:
The use of the property as a residential use may continue without
the fence.
The property is not unique from other residential properties which
abut I-494 or other land uses which are not necessarily compatible
with residential use.
Additionally, hard no hardship was defined.& the fence as a single
unit would be ineffective, but a barrier on a cooperative basis
could be effective.
• Bozonie seconded the motion and recommended that the City look
into a sound barrier for the entire area.
Motion passed unanimously.
I. Request #89-34, submitted �y Kuo and Min-Chih Chang for property
located at 952 Weston Bay Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, legally
described as Lot 10, Block !—, Weston Bay. The request is for a
variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Subdivision 6,
Ito ermit a deck ao�ition I�6' from the ordinary high water marTc
of Mitchell Lake. City code requires T .
Mr Chang came forward to present the Vari nce. He explained that he would
like to add a deck and three season porch. He was concerned with preserving
the beauty of the neighborhood. The present three season porch was built
between the garage and the house--there was a limited view. He did not
feel that having it at grade level was good for elderly relatives that
would visit the home, as steps down to it would be needed. A railing would
not be used as the deck would be only one foot above grade level. The
home is 20' higher than the lake and boats cannot get close in as the
water is too shallow. These requests would enable them to enjoy the outdoor
life and at the same time not affect the neighborhood adversely.
Johnson said the deck depth could be reduced by 2 or 4 feet--or-- a ground
type patio could be used. A proposed change in the high water level is
being reviewed by the Watershed District.
Bozonie noted that the picture showed a porch with patio doors-- this did
not agree with the drawing.
12
Chan explained the locations of the
g p porch and patio door and decks.
S Anderson noted that if this were to be buil on grade level of wood or
concrete, a variance would not be needed. He felt that size was not the
issue here--the issue was determining a hardship.
Chang said he wanted to preserve the beauty in the neighborhood and make
his house even with all the rest,which had decks.
Akemann asked if Chang could berm up and install the deck on top of the
berming.
Johnson answered that he could do it that way, but a land alteration permit
may be needed. (Needed when you move or bring in over 100 cubic yards of fill.)
S Anderson noted that this would not be a problem if a hardship were shown.
Something unique to the property was needed. How do the neighbors feel about
this variance?
Chang said they were all in agreement with the proposed work.
Harvey said he felt the problem was in doing it twice--Nahy not just do the
work off the three season porch?
• Chang said there was a walkway in between the proposed structures--and it
should be thought of as one structure.
Freemyer said he felt there was no hardship involved and that Chang should
try to work with Staff to come up with an on-grade deck.
Bozonie said a large deck can be designed within code.
Akemann said he did not think the request would pass and suggested a
continuance. Then Chang could come back with alternatives and possibly
a solution could be reached.
Anderson suggested that Chang speak with another designer and possibly even
consider a two level deck.
Chang agreed to a continuance and asked for some guidelines.
Harvey said that the Board would like the minimum variance that was possible.
MOTION: Bozonie moved that variance reqeust 89-34 be continued to
the August meeting. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
J. Request #89-35, submitted by Robert H. Mason, Inc. for property
located south of Mitchell Road at the intersection of Mitchell Road
and Twin Lakes Crossing, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, legally described
as: Outlot E, Boulder Pointe. The request is for a variance from
City Co_e, Cha ter 11,Section ll�,7udivision T,A, to permit an
area identification sign of 45 square feet. City Code permits a
sign of 24 square feet.
13
Randy Travelle presented the variance, representing Robert H Mason, Inc.
He explained that the parcel under consideration consisted of 150 acres
located on Red Rock Lake. Signage for that parcel was the reason he
was requesting a variance. This project was a long range plan and the
first phase was under construction, which consisted of 61 home sites.
He showed a Platt and the site of the proposed entrance monument.He said
that a 24 square foot sign was allowed at each entrance to each subdivision.
Instead, they chose to do a significant statement at the main entrance to
the neighborhood. They would like it to be back off the road (more than
actually required) with significant plantings--there would be $175,000 worth
of plantings in the first phase. He felt that one master sign was better than
a number of smaller ones. They would be careful to make sure no site lines
were impaired.
Johnson said that they had done a computer search for other examples.
There had been one in 1977 for a temporary sign. The proposal does have
merit in that other signs are limited. However, if part of the property
were to be sold off, more signs could be put up.
Harvey asked where the 24 sq. ft. signs would be permitted.
Johnson answered at the entrance to the developments.
Akemann asked what the purpose of the sign would be.
Travelle said that people need to see what the development is--the
• sign allows that to happen. It helps marketing and sales for the homes.
Akemann asked who would maintain the sign five years from now.
Travelle said the homeowners association would take care of maintenance.
There is an assesment of $100 each for the first year. Besides, the company
will be active in the area for seven or eight years. The sign would be
3'by 14'--not that large for that far off the road.
S Anderson noted one addition in Eden Prairie that donated money for a
larger, more impressive sign, however, he felt a hardship should be
stated. Possibly the Council should be the body to decide on this matter.
It should have been part of a PUD. If the Board approves it, it will set
a precedent.
Travelle said when this was advanced as a PUD, it was suggested that
the company choose one of the alternatives for signage and present it--
that is what the company did--and now he was presenting it.
Freemyer asked if the company could have 2 24' signs?
Johnson said yes, they could do that.
Travelle said they would forgo the 2nd 24' sign.
• Freemyer said he could consider a 36 Sq. ft. sign--would Travelle consider
reducing the variance?
14
• Travelle said they would forgo the sign at Pioneer Trail and Mitchell Rd.
(the 24' sign). They have studied this very carefully and it is not a whim.
Bozonie said he liked the sign, but it could be 3/4 of the height and
3/4 of the width.
Harvey asked if there were two area identification signs allowed on the
lst platt or the entire 150 acres.
Travelle said there would be no more significant signage. The collector
street is Mitchell Rd. No road systems have been developed as yet or
lot configurations laid out. This sign would be the master signage for
Boulder Point.
Anderson noted the following from the Staff `report:
uonaitions• i -
No additional Boulder Pointe signs within the 150 acre PUD be permitted
except for a 24 square foot sign at the Pioneer Trail entrance to Boulder
Pointe.
Travelle said more signage riay be needed at the Twin Horde section of the
development.
Bozonie felt that the liked the sign, but not the size.
• Akemann said he was in favor of the sign, but saw no hardship. He liked the
idea of a trade off, but not for just one sign. Possibly there should be
an ordinance change.
Harvey said he had a problem with large signs unless something is given in
return--and one sign is not enough. Ile asked Travelle if he could live
with one other sign at the Twin Home section besides the one being proposed.
Travelle answered yes.
Akemann said he was undecided.--according to the code there was no hardship.
MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve variance request
89-35 under the conditions that there be no additional
signage within the Boulder Point addition be permitted
except one additional sign up to 24 sq. ft. (area identification
sign) to be located at the developers d4 scretion. r^reemyer
seconded the motion and it passed 3-2 with Bozonie and Akemann
voting nay on the grounds that no hardship was demonstrated.
(One original sign and one additional sign granted for 150 acres)
S Anderson added that the City should look into a modification of the PUD
rules so issues like this do not come before the Board. This should be a
part of the PUD.
• K. Request� #89-36, submitted by Bradley P. Kuyper for property located
a o534 South Manor Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, legally
described as: Lot14, Block 5, Timber Creek Woods 2nd Addition.
The request is for a variance from City Code, CCh_a tamer 11, Section
11.02, Subdivision 2, B, to permit a deck addition �I' from the rear
lot line. City Code requires. 20'
15
Bradley Kuyper appeared to present the variance. He stated that the
lot was unique as it is perfectly square--the rest are rectangular.
As such, it allows only 11' in which to build a deck. Part of the
proposed deck will be turned into a -porch in the future.
Harvey said he felt the size of the request could be reduced.
P-kemann said he was not In,favor of passin; anything this large-=possibly
a continuance should be granted.
Kuyper asked how the Board felt about 16' . Then he asked about 14' by 141 .
MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve variance request 89-36
with modifications:
That there be a maximum of 17' setback from the rear lot line,
or a total variance of 3' into the rear yard set back area.
Grounds for this motion were the unique nature of the lot,
the structure creates no negative impact, the lot is square,
and the constraints placed on the ability to construct a
deck. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed 4-1 with
Akemann opposed.
. L• Request #89-37, submitted �y James and Pauline Borucki for property
located at M7 Rowland Roa-a,—Eden r� airie, M—esota, lega l
described as Lot 5, Block 2, Carmel Addition. The request is for a
variance from City
- .02, Subd
o Code, , ivison 2,Bi t
ro osed 2.arcel B of=,7 square feet. City
Code re uires500 s uare feet in the R - 3.5 Zoning District.
to permit the existing structure 1T.70' from the front lot line.
City Code re uires a 30' front yard setback. a—to ermit
Pr o osed tract B with an average lot width of 771 . City Code
requires 88' — — —
James & Pauline Boucki appeared to present the variance request. He
explained that the variance request as follows: 1. To divide lot
5 into 2 parcels, (A & B), with lot 5 maintaining the existing home.
The number of driveways would remain the same. The density of homes
along Roland Rd would have only a 1% increase. He asked th9 Board to
consider the following: The setback from the road.. The square footage--
he would need to purchase _land and the NE side is part of Carmel Drive
(this would be impossible) and the east side is much too steep. If a
new home were to be built on the lot, it could not be brought to the
lot line to create a crowded situation. It would not create a precedent
in the area, because it is a unique situation (being a triangular lot).
The variance would be for lot B only--lot A is to code.
• Johnson explained that this proposal is before the Board prior to the
Planning Commission review. A driveway to a possible new home nearby
would have poor site lines unless it was placed on the corner of the
property.
Harvey asked when the Borucki's had acquired the property and why they
were seeking to subdivide it.
16
• Borucki answered that they had purchased it three years ago. They were
seeking the subdivision partially to reduce the financial pressure and
partially with the idea of building a new home.
Akemann asked if the lots were divided, would Borucki's retain ownership?
Borucki answered that no decision had-been made yet.
Harvey felt that there were a number of lots in the City that could ask
for the same variance if this were to be granted.
Borucki felt this was a unique east lot because of the steep east boundary.
Harvey said he would like to see the lot lines redesigned and have the
only variance requested be the one concerning the setback on the existing home.
Ed Sieber of 11792 Dunhill Rd came forward. He stated that he was in
opposition to the request and added that when Roland Rd expands, there
will be less land. He said that in 1984, Carmel Platt went through due
process and was approved. When the Borucki's bought in 1986, they were
ai-7are of the layout of the land. It would drive the density up. There
are now cars from 115 homes that drive by the site in question. This
would mean that four cars would be backing out on Roland Rd--safety should
be a consideration here.
Jim Carroll of 11815 Dunhill Rd came forward and explained that his
• property butts up to parcel A. He said he is opposed to the division
because he wants privacy in his lot and had paid a premium price for that.
The exi_stinn home is lower in value than the others within one quarter mile.
He had questions on what would be built on the other lot.
Don Dom of 11789 Dunhill Rd came forward and stated that his major concern
was the possible rental of the home and that it may become run down.
Borucki stated that the density on Poland Rd will not be affected much
by one additional lot.He plans to build a $150,000 home on the property.
Sieber said if all lots in Carmel utilized their space like this, the
density would be over 3. Roland Rd is a high volume street and these
entries would be unsafe to Roland Rd.
Borukci said that the road would need to stay within the easement
Harvey said that the matter needs to go to Planning for approval.
Borucki asked for a continuance.
MOTION: Bozonie moved that the variance request 89-37 be continued
co the next meeting. Freemyer seconded the motion and it
passed 4-1 with Harvey voting nay.
• IV.OLD BUSINESS
Harvey reminded the members to make a listing of the ordinances they would
like to see changed.
17
II. MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 1989 (Moved to the end of the agenda)
MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve the minutes of the
June 8, 1989 meeting as submitted. Freemyer seconded the
motion and it passed unanimously.Anderson abstained.
V. ADJOLTUTM, IT
MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board adjourn. Bozonie seconded the
motion and it passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 1:15 A.M.
•