Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 03/14/1991 APPRNM mnu= BOARD OF A.PPEAT S AND GSM= THURSDAY, March 14, 1991 7:30 P.M. City Efall Councii Chambers, 7600 Executive Dr., Eden Prairie, MN 55344 BOARD OF AP-PEALS MEMBERS Harvey, Freemyer, Wilj.us, I Akemann, Anderson, Weeks, : Arockiasamy STAFF PRESENT: Steve Durham-Planning, Sharon Storholm,Sec k BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Weeks 1. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF Ar. SC IANCE Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7. 30 P.M. All present recited the Plege of Allegiance and roll call was taken as noted above. II. SWEARING IN OF NEW OFFICERS/ELECTION OF OFFICERS Durham swore in new members of the Board--Wilkus and Anderson, and Freemyer and Akemann were reappointed to the Board. Election of officers took place as follows: • MOTION: Akemann nominated Harvey for the position of Chairman. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Nominations were closed and Harvey was elected chairman. MOTION: Freemyer nominated Arockiasamy as vice chairman. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed MOTION: Arockiasamy nominated Akemann as vice chairman. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed. Nominations for vice chairman were closed and Akemann was elected vice chair by a 4-2 vote. MOTION: Arockiasamy nominated Freemyer as secretary. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Nominations were closed and Freemyer was elected secretary. III . MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14 , 1991 MEETING Akemann noted that on page 1, motion under II was made by Freemyer. On page 2 , (6th paragraph from 'the botton) it should read "Akemann' s statement. " On page 4, the three items listed were noted by Akemann. • ' MOTION: Akemann moved that the Board approve the minutes as amended. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed. IV.. VARIANCES Chairman Harvey explained the order of presentation for each variance and the order-in -which persons attending would be heard. 2 - • A. Request 091-006, submitted by Peter Andrea Company for property located north of Welters Way, south of Sunnvbrook Road and west of Olympia Drive. Eden Prairie Minnesota The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11 Section it 03 Subdivision 2B (1) to permit proposed Lot 4 with lot frontage of 20 ' City Code requires 55' of frontage on a cul-de-sac (2) to permit Lots 5 6 and 7 with front yard building setbacks of 25 ' City Code requires a front yard building setback of 301 . Jim Ostensen, representing Peter Andrea Company, came forward to present the variance request. He noted that they will be developing Welter, 6th Addition and indicated the area on the map. -The proposal is to extend Welters Way. Several items need to be considered, but the most important are: 1. The 25 ' front yard setbacks: The area is consistent with other lots. There are at. least fifteen lots that have had the same setback granted to save trees and wetland areas. 2. Cul De Sacs: The second variance requested concerns: the cul-de- sac .frontage. The DNR controlled the pond area that was high- lighted in blue on the sketch. There are lots of trees in the area and 296" of trees will be removed. One third of these trees are located at' the corner of the area. The second concern was the ridge line. Their concern was intrusion, development, and • increased run off. They wish to do as little grading as possible in order to minimize the number of trees lost. Sufficient building size can still be achieved to be compatable with the rest of the area. Durham added that many design factors are related -to the toppgraphy and environmental concerns. A 25 ' set back is consistent. Wilkus asked if the structures were moved forward to maintain the wetlands, what would prevent the construction of larger homes? Ostensen answered that after soil testing, it was deicovered that there was 20' of peat. They are bonded for tree replacement. Also, there is a scenic easement on the back of the property. Durham noted that all the homes have been built at 25 ' set backs. In response to a question from Wilkus concerning the depth of the homes, he answered that there could be a condition added that the homes be no more that 60 ' in depth. Freemyer said he had no concern o:1 the 25 ' set back, but was con- cerned about the 20 ' lot. Obviously, the developer would like as many lots as possible to offset the cost of the development, but why not one larger lot instead of two lots? • Ostensen answered that the City has a policy of not having long cul-de-sacs. The Planning Commission had wanted a through road. His company is not asking for 14 lots . If they can get seven lots and save some trees , that is fine with them. Regarding the City' s tree ordinance, the Board will be seeing more requests for variances in order to save trees. Choices will need to be made. They are 3 • substantially under the density allowed on this site. Freemyer asked if the driveways crossed over the drainage and Utility areas. Durham answered yes, they need to be 3 ' from the lot line. Harvey said he had no problem with the 25 ' set back, but does on the cul de sac. On lot #5, could the northern line be moved farther to the south? On lot #2, could it be moved further to the west to open the area up? It would give more frontage on lot 4 . Behind lot 7 is a soil boring which shows 18' of peat. A 20 ' easement on the south side (part of the trail corridor) had been spoken of-ridge line needs to be considered also. He can understand the developers desire to not encroach on the ridge. Can the- lot line be moved without affecting the ridge? Granted, it would create a variance on the next lot, but not 175% as this one is. Freemyer said the suggestion for a cul de sac requires two variances . Durham agreed it would mean two variances, but only one had been published. It would mean republishing. Possibly adjustments could be made so this could be decided this evening. • Harvey said his concern was the 20' lot. Durham said that flag lots are usually created for topographical reasons. Akemann felt the amount of the variance could be reduced. Harvey noted that he appreciated Ostensens concern for trees. Ostensen said he could possibly shift lot lines to pick up another 5 ' . If there were no trail, they could move the line closer to the evergreens. Harvey suggested some lot line. moves and suggested that 10 frontage could be added to lot 4 by• shifting lot lines. Ostensen said they have redrawn and reshifted many times already. Wilkus noted that the lots -were 14- acres. Durham added that this is a low density area. Ostensen said he could understand the concern on the degree of variance. There will be more requests . Why should all lots be 55 ' if this creates a tree loss? • Akemann felt the hardship should be defined. MOTION:Wilkus moved that the Board approve Variance request 91-006 with regard to the 25 ' front yard set back on the condition that the building pad size be limited • 4 to 60 ' in depth. This would help to mitigate the width variance. The 20 ' front yard set back on the cut de sac shall be approved because of the amount of trees involved • that would need to be removed and replaced. Also considered was the amount of grading imposed by increasing the front yard set back and the financial hardships involved in the above considerations. ( * Two amendments to follow) * Freemyer added that this was a. 25 ' set back neighborhood and that several other homes have the same setbacks. Also, the Board is allowed to grant variances based on topographical reasons. Arockiasamy suggested the removal of the word "financial" from the motion. Freemyer said it could be included as a reason, but must not be the only consideration. * Harvey noted that the lots were largely oversized for the district. The area could be zoned R-122. This compensates for the width. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. B. Request #91-007r submitted by Super Valu for property located at the northwest corner of 78th Street and Prairie Center Drive and south of Leona Road Eden Prairie Minnesota. The recruest is for a variance from City Code Cha ter 11 Section 11.03 Subdivision 2B. (1) to permit a front yard building setback of '14 5 feet City • Code requires a 35 ' front yard setback Section 11. 70. Subdivision 4B 2 Section 11.03 Subdivision 2B to permit-1 Base Area Ratio of . 237. City Code maximum Base Area Ratio is .2 . 3 to ermit wall signs on the west elevation of 493 .86 square feet City Code maximum-permitted is 325 square feet 4 to permit wall signs on the east elevatiiht of 596 scruare feet City Code maximum permitted is 300-square feet. 5 to permit a second free-standing sign. of 80 square feet. City Code maximum size sign for a second free- standing sign is 36 square feet (6) to permit two sign bases of 69.96 square feet. City Code maximum sign base permitted is 40 square feet. (7) Section it 50 Subdivision ' 7A to permit a structure 14.5' from a road right-of-way Citxr Code re ires a 50' setback according--to,, the the Shoreland Mana ement* Code. 8 to hermit impervious surface for the site greater than 30$ City Code maximum impervious surface coverage in a Shoreland area is 300 MOTION: Akemann moved that the Board continue Variance request 91-007 to the April llth meeting. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. C. Recruest #91-008 , submitted by Jim Nehl The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 9 Section 9. 65 to Permit use' of to 25 horsepower motor on Mitchell Lake City Code permits a maximum 10 horsepower on Mitchell Lake • Jim Nehl came forward to present the variance reqeust. He said he had moved on to Mitchell Lake in 1986 . He wanted a pontoon to enjoy the lake more fully. He had been looking and finally found one, At that time he was not concerned with the motor size--just the price of the pontoon. The pontoon was to his liking and it came with a 25 horse power motor. Now, he is - V 5 • here to ask for a variance to allow the motor. Harvey asked if the deposit was refundable. Nehl said he was unsure of that. Durham noted that the code was created in 1989 to limit the size motors to 10 HP. This was intended to help reduce the noise. Some exceptions are included and these were noted in the last variance request on this issue. He has received some letters in opposition from W.J. Moran, Roger Larson; and other residents whose signatures appear on a petition circulated by James Brennan. Arockiasamy noted that the motor had been purchased after the ordinance was effective. Can the motor be removed from the boat? Is it dedicated to use on Mitchell Lake? Nehl said the motor was dedicated to the pontoon. He had no other boat to transfer it to. Arockiasamy said that the two criteria that had been established at the last consideration of such a request were: 1. Date of purchase of motor 2. Size of motor. The Board needs to look at the general picture and needs to draw a line somewhere. How much difference in noise is involved in 20 vs 25 HP motors? • Akemann said that would depend upon the make of the motor. Nehl said that there was a difference in noise, but it was not distracting above 20 HP. He does not intend to open it up full throttle, but to just move slowly about the lake. Arockiasamy asked if the deposit could not be refunded(since delivery 'has not taken place. ) Nehl said there was probably a chance of that refund. Arockiasamy said that there were two items that were difficult to overcome: 1. Date of purchase 2. Is it a reasonable variance from 10 HP? He felt it would be best to stay close to those variances that have already been granted in order to justify it. Freemyer noted that Nehl knew of the ordinance. Criteria states that if the--proponent knew of the ordinance when the variance was created, then no variance shall be granted. Wilkus asked if all motors were to be 10 HP by 1995 . Durham said that the two variance that have been approved for more • than 10 HP must conform to the ordinance by 1995 . Akemann said it is not unusual for Eden Prairie to make property non conforming. It needs to be grandfathered in. Regarding the other two instances, those motors were purchased before ordinance was enacted. 6 . Akemann noted that 10 HP is not enough for pontoon boats. He suggested that the City consider making one ordinance for pontoons and a second for other boats. He asked if granting the variance for 20 HP would be acceptable to Nehl.. Nehl answered that it would be better than nothing. Akemann felt it was not appropriate to tell people that they could only have 10 HP--it is not enough. Harvey noted that this is a self inflicted wound. Akemann noted that 10 HP is not practical for pontoon boats. Freemyer said that it is not the Boards place to question the ordinance. Arockiasamy said that the variance cannot be granted because of violation of criteria. The consideration of the issue if 10 HP is enough is a different issue the City needs to consider. Nehl said that Harvey was correct on the self inflicted wound statement. He did,however, move on to the proper�y before the ordinance was enacted. He had supported the ordinance, but feels that there should be exceptions for pontoons. • Harvey said the Board needs to deal with the ordinance that is in effect now. The property is not entitled to grandfathering because the use of the property is not denied. MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board deny Variance 91-008 on the grounds that the property owner did have notice of the ordinance being passed prior to the purchase of the boat with a 25 HP motor. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Nehl asked if he could resubmit for another variance if the boat could be fitted with another motor. Harvey noted that those who were granted variances had owned the motors before the ordinance was effective. Durham said he could speak with the Park and Rec Board to see if they would consider permitting 20 HP motors . D• Request #91-009 , submitted by The Pemtom Company for proper located at Timber Lake Drive and east of County Road 44 Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11. Section 11.03 . (a) Subdivision 3K to permit 75% wood exterior elevation in the RM-2 5 Zonincr District City Code requires 75% brick, stone or glass (2) Subdivision 3H to permit • parking 5' from a front lot line City Code requires a 35' front yard parking setback in the RM-2 5 Zoning District (3) Subdivision 2B. to Permit side yard setbacks for the proposed buildings of 101 . City Code requires a 25 ' side yard setback in the RM 2 5 Zoning District, i Dan Herbst of Pemtom Company came forward to present the request. ` 7 He noted that they were proposing 4 four unit buildings (16 townhouses ) . Three variances would beinvolved. The first • request deals with City requirement for 75% brick, stone, or glass. They are proposing a predominately wood building with brick at the entrance. The other two requests have to deal with setbacks: To permit parking 5 ' from a front lot line, and to permit side yard setbacks for the proposed buildings Of 10 ' --City code requires 25 ' side yard set backs. The variances are required as a result of the existing ordinance. Durham noted that this area was blanket zoned in 1969. It is high density. The plan shows the area as medium density. This development does not have mass--wood is appropriate in this district. The driveways would house two cars. The side yard set back areas are for larger buildings--this is a smaller building. Harvey noted that the density is 6.5 . Durham added that it is less than 17 units per acre. Variances had been granted in 1983 and 1984 for basically the same type of variance. Freemyer asked if this was a true condominium--was it expandable? Herbst . answered yes, it was. Wilkus asked if a part of the request could be denied. . Durham answered yes, that was possible. ARdis Peterson, treasurer of the condominium association, came forward and said that she was in favor of the requests. MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board approve Variance request 91-009 as submitted. Anderson offered an amendment stating that the request is consistent with variances approved before: 83-36 and 84-62. Akemann seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. ** VARIANCES POSTPONED TO PAGE 8 IN ORDER TO WAIT FOR THE DESIGNATED TIME FOR VARIANCE REQUEST 91-010. V. OLD BUSINESS Durham noted that regarding the Beach Road house, he had met with the waste control commission and they had determined that the sewer easement was way too large. The home will prc on that site. There may be a way to fit it on the lot, but the owner is not always available. He added that the City receives 3 or 4 house moving requests a year. 75% of the moving costs are required: 1, 000from mover, 1, 000 from home owner and 75% of the estimated cost. • Durham stated that the recreational vehicle code is in place. It allows some limited storage, but cannot legally restrict. VI. NEW BUSINESS Durham said that there were four variance requests for next month: 1. Sign variance for Cub, 2 . Subdivision of Property, 3. House in rural zoning wants 30 ' set back versus required 50 ' set back, 4. McGlynn Bakery regarding set backs--they would like it on record that their parking areas do not meet code in case they want to sell the property at a future date. Mortgage companies usually want all this in order. Freemyer asked about the proposed mural on Cub Foods building. Durham said it was proposed to promote downtown Eden Prairie. Cub is entitled to a wall sign-as a trade off, they would have a sign to promote Eden Prairie. Freemyer was against the idea of a mural there. Durham said he would check to see when the first reading would take place. Freemyer said that Staff usually does an exceedingly good job--but he disagrees with this . Durham noted that it had not been determined exactly what it would be. * Arockiasamy left the meeting at 9 : 05 PM. (New Business continued ** IV.VARIANCES (continued) on page 9 ) .. E-Recruest 91-010 submitted bir Glenn and Ph llis Peterson for i5roverty located at 16769 Pioneer- Trail Eden Prairie Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11 Section 11. 03 Subdivision 2B ail to permit a rural lot size less than In acres. P o osed arcel A of 2 acres. acres. C'tel B of 3 Code re ires a 10 acre . minimumslot ed in the Rural District. (21 To permit proposed parcel A with a lot width and lot depth less than 300' City Code requires a minimum lot width a de th of 300' 3 City Code C a ter 12 Section 12.30 Subdivision 12A to nemit the proVosed 2 acre arce without f onta a on a ublicall dedicated street. Cit Code re ires frontage on a street Bill Scheebler, a neighbor, appeared to- present the variance request for Glenn & Phyllis Peterson. He stated that he and Glenn had subdivided the land in 1981. Five acres were permissible then. Glenn has a recurrence of polio and Phyllis has an ulcer. They • had intended to hold the land but are being forced to sell off to pay medical bills . A close friend of Scheebler's has bought the property pending the Board' s approval. The friend has received an inheritance and wants to invest it. He has no intention of building on the land. i 9 • Durham noted that this area falls within the MUSA line. Wit hin the next 10-15 years it will be serviced by city water and sewer. Then, homes will be able to be developed. If it-were outside the muci line, it may not be appropriate. The Board could require that no building be done on this parcel until city water and sewer are avaialble. The Engineering Dept does require (on all county roads) that a 17h' set back be dedicated for right of way purposes to the City. In response to a question from Anderson regarding the 10 acres, Harvey answered that if the density outside the muci line were to be reduced, sewer and water would be needed. This is not in the plans for at least 10-15 years . Freemyer said the main reason was for. safety and health--regarding wells and septic systems. Scheebler said the hardship in this instance would be that the couple would be forced to sell their home. In Cedar Forest Addition, there are many wells and septic systems. Freemyer asked Scheebler if he had seen the Staff report and the four conditions. Scheebler said that those conditions were acceptable to the owners. • MOTION: Akemann moved that the Board approve Variance Request 91 010 with the following conditions: Condition - (1) Parcel B may not be developed with any residential structure or building until such time rezoning to Ri zoning occurs and City sewer and water is available at the site. (2) Future subdivision of the property would require Planning and City Council, review. (3) An administrative division or other division process be applied for and approved within one year of the variance. (4) Applicant submit that Proof, Final order #91-olo has been filed on the properties at Hennepin County. (5) ,Applicant prepares easement to dedicate 17.5 ' of proposed Parcel B to the City of Eden Prairie for road right-of-way. Scheebler asked about item #3. Durham answered that Scheebler should go to the Engineering Dept. They will have an application. The properties will have two property identification numbers. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously Harvey suggested that items 3 and 4 be taken care of as soon as possible. VI. NEW BUSINESS (continued) Harvey suggested a work meeting with the City Council. Meeting have been held once every two years between the Council and the Commissioners. Over the last 5-6 years there has been a change in the frequence of granting variances. The Board has become much more conscious of their responsibility. Some on the Council remember- C 10 the rubber stamp days. Many denials have been appealed. Some • Council members have reacted negatively. There have been mis- understandings. The Board has consistently asked the Council to provide reasons for the overturning of decisions. The Board needs understanding of the reasons . Hopefully, this can be communicated at the April meeting. It has been difficult to get the Council to' respond. Anderson asked what percent are overturned. Freemyer said he had figures over the last 36 months. The percentage of denial is low as the Board can negotiate to lessen the severity. Anderson felt it was important to formulate the questions. for the Council in advance. Freemyer said that thane have been cou5-Luctive work sessions with the Council. Anderson said that the Board needs to understand their responsibility as a group. Harvey said that they have requested that, but are not getting the information. Feedback from the Council is needed as to the reasons why decisions are overturned. Durham said that the joint session is not an open session. • Anderson said that boundaries and foundation and framework need to be defined before specific cases are discussed. What is the legal responsibility? Freemyer noted that the Council does not need a Board of Appeals and Adjsutments. They can do this themselves or have the Planning Commission hear the requests. No matter who hears the requests, the decisions need to follow the same criteria--not different ones . Harvey reminded the Board of the importance of attendance and notification of absence. He will acknowledge each Board member on each request. Freemyer noted that the estimated time by each variance was a good addition. Durham brought up the matter of going to the Park & Rec Dept with the pontoon/motor issue to see if. they wish to revise it. Anderson suggested that the number of motors should also be limited. It may create loop holes . VII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board adjourn. Wilkus seconded the motion and the Board adjourned at 9: 38 PM.