Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 10/10/1991 1WROM 1 IN13J ES BOARD OF APPLAT S AND ADJUSTMENTS 'iTaIIRRDAY , October 10, 1991 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers, 7600 Executive Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPRATS MEMBERS: Harvey (chairman)., Freemyer,, Wilkus, Akemann, Anderson, Weeks, Arockiasamy STAFF PRESENT: Jean Johnson, Planning Sharon Storholm, Recording Secr'y BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None I. CALL TO ORDER--ROLL CALL--PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7: 30 P.M. Roll • call was taken as noted above. All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. II . MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1991 MEETING MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve the minutes of the September loth meeting as submitted. Wilkus seconded the motion and it passed unanimously with Akemam abstaining. III . VARIANCES Chairman Harvey explained the process for the presentation of the variances . A. Request #91-025 submitted by Dean Longsyo for property located at 9448 Creekwood Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 (1) Section 11 03, Subdivision 2 B. to permit a rear yard setback for existing deck of 6' and proposed building addition of 61. City Code requires a - 20' rear yard setback. (2) Section 11 50, Subdivision 6.0 to permit an existing deck and proposed addition 75' to the Ordinary High Water Mark of Purgatory Creek. City Code requires a 100' setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark. Dean Longsyo appeared to present the variance request. He said that the report submitted by Staff presented an accurate description of the request. He is a fifteen year resident of Eden Prairie and prior to living at the present address, he had owned another property in Eden Prairie which was non-conforming. He had been able to get a variance for that property and had improved it. In 1980, he 2 had looked at the property under consideration and had decided against purchasing it because of the small kitchen. Again in 1988, the property became available and he had purchased it with the intention of adding on an expansion to the kitchen. He was unaware that this would require a variance. He has already removed the existing deck for safety reasons and would like to replace it. The present retaining wall is of timber and he would like it constructed of block instead. It is located on the property line. The oversized foundation he plans to install should take care of the erosion problem and also a weakness discovered in the house foundation. The reasons he would like this request granted are: improved function, updating the property, increase the value, protect the stability of the house foundation. The property is unique and would not set a precedent, the value would be raised and protected, the creek area would not be impacted, and the erosion problem would be improved--these are all reasons why the public would benefit from the granting of this request. Johnson noted that the deck and home were constructed in 1976 . This is a legal non conforming structure above the ordinary high water mark. There are no homes in close proximity. Johnson had received one letter in support of the request from Michael and Penny Kodrich and Longsyo presented a second document with 4 more signatures in support of the request. Weeks asked if an as-built survey had been done. • Longsyo answered no, but he had the actual building plan and he had assumed it was correct. Harvey asked if the retaining wall was a keystone system. Longsyo answered yes, that it would be an intregal part of the erosion control and would protect the structure of the house (protection for the structure of the house provided by the foundation that would be installed for the addition to the kitchen) . MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board approve request 91-025 as submitted finding: 1 . The variance is not further extending any structure closer to the rear lot line or Purgatory Creek than the existing structure. 2 . The exisitng structure is being modified to pull it out of the 6 ' drainage and utility easement. The hardship in this instance is that the location of the home was not as surveyed. Akemann seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 3 B. Request #91-026 submitted by the City of Eden Prairie for property located at 7900 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Subdivision 3.F. to permit a radio transmission tower 200' in height City Code maximum tower height in the I-5 Zoning District is 65'. Gary Therkelson, representing the City of Eden Prairie, came forward to present the request. He said that he manages the communication facilities in Eden Prairie. When the city approved the 911 center, it was aware that the performance would be marginal based on the existing equipment. Funding was granted for a new tower and the existing site was not adequate or satisfactory. He had consulted an engineer and it was recommended the construction of a new tower since the present tower cannot be modified to work because of inadequate range--they cannot communicate with other counties in the state. The federal licensing process is concerned mainly with interference potential. Clearance is also needed from the FAA. The facility will have its own generator and can run on its own power if necessary. Police, fire and public works are the primary users of such systems. This is a critical need in Eden Prairie and the existing tower is designed for other purposes. Johnson said in 1982, the Board reviewed a previous proposal for • an 85 ' tower. That tower is not adequate now. The report notes other height variances that have been granted. The design of the tower is included in the packet. It will be galvanized and it will not rust. Therkelson noted that it is not a good idea to try to blend the tower in with the sky at a location so close to the airport. Johnson said it was important that the tower not show rust. The Cooperative Power Association had called and were concerned on possible interference--they did not complain or object. They have a microwave tower in the area. Staff recommends approval. Weeks asked if there had been any residential complaints. Johnson answered that there had been none. There is quite a distance to any residences . Freemyer noted that the packet stated the structure would be of aluminum. He asked if there would be any lighting. Johnson noted that the word aluminum was inaccurate and it would be galvanized instead. Therkelson said he had been concerned on visibility also, but the FAA did not require lighting. • Akemann asked about the old tower, guidelines for the new tower, possibility of additional height, and loading. Therkelson answered that the old tower would be dismantled when the new one is completed. Both may stand for about 90 days. No • 4 guidelines will be necessary--the tower will be freestanding. There is no possibility for_ additional height for the new tower-- he doubted that the FAA would grant another foot. As for the possibility of loading, there is not intent to do that as it is at the maximum. Akemann asked about helicopters operated in the area. Johnson said that they do operate in the flood plain area and the purgatory creek area--but no closer to the tower than that. Akemann asked if the State Patrol would use the tower. Therkelson answered that they do indirectly. There would be no state owned equipment installed at this tower. Anderson asked about the life of the tower. Therkelson answered that it would be used for about 20 to 30 years . Harvey asked if a red light would be needed at the top of the tower. Therkelson answered no, it would not be required. Johnson added that airplanes in that area should be 800 to 1000 feet above the ground. • Therkelson said that the FAA does not want towers painted or lighted unless they request it. MOTION:Anderson moved that the Board approve request 91-026 for construction of a 200 foot tower because of health and safety reasons. Wilkus seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. BEACH ROAD HOUSE Anderson said the work seems to be going very slowly. Staff should go out an evaluate the progress. Harvey said the back is wide open. It should be verified that Mr. Pauley is staying on top of the project. Johnson said that she can give the individual an update that progress is falling behind schedule. Harvey said that access to the structure needs to be contolled. B. GILK HOUSE MOVE • Weeks asked about the progress for the moving of the Gilk house. Johnson said that the individual has one year which will be up in March or April. n 5 C. TOUCH OF CLASS Harvey noted that the variance for Touch of Class expires on Decmeber 31st. Johnson said she will notify them ahead of time. The majority of highway 18 will be on the east side. It may be 5-10 years before the road project is completed. V. NEW BUSINESS A. FORD SITE Akemann asked if work had started at the Ford site. Freemyer said the work has started now. He was concerned on the Chevrolet sign. Akemann felt it was not a good location. . Freemyer said that Grossman was conscientious. Johnson said the layout of the signage had been explained. This is a PUD and is taken care of. B. SEQUENCE OF STOP LIGHT AT WAGNER WAY • Harvey asked if the sequence of the lights at Wagner Way had been corrected. Johnson said she did not know if it had been taken care of . C. POSSIBLE NOVEMBER VARIANCES Johnosn noted that there were several variance requests scheduled for November: 1. Shoreland setback for existing structure. 2 . Room addition setback from Shoreland code. 3 . Golf Pointe subdivision driveway setback and lot width. 4 . Preserve Village Mall signs . 5. Side yard setback for existing home on Talus Circle. She briefly discussed each request. It was noted that Akemann would not be at the November meeting. VI ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board adjourn. Wilkus seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. • Meeting adjourned at 8 : 26 P.M.