HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 06/10/1993 • APPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1993 7:30 P.M. , CITY HALL COUNCIL
CHAMBERS, 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344
BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: WILKUS (Chairman) ,WEEKS,DYE,
ANDERSON,LYNCH,VASALY,ARGUE
STAFF PRESENT: JEAN JOHNSON, PLANNING DEPT.
SHARON STORHOLM, SECRETARY
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: WEEKS
I. CALL TO ORDER -- ROLL CALL - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Wilkus called the meeting to order at 7:32 P.M.
Roll call was taken as noted above.
iII. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION•
Anderson moved that the Board approve the agenda as
submitted. Vasaly seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
III. MINUTES OF MAY 13, 1993 MEETING
Anderson noted that on page 8, under item V, she was
nominating Wilkus for Chairman.
MOTION:
Dye moved that the Board approve the May 13, 1993 minutes as
amended. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed with
Vasaly abstaining.
IV. VARIANCES
Wilkus explained the order of the variance proceedings to
those in attendance.
A. Request #93-15 by Freeburg/Perkins/Feltl of 7010 Willow
4 Creek Road is requesting the resubdivision of three
acres into three lots which include the following:
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 1
• - shoreland Variances
1. Lot 1 - 1.04 acre shoreland lot size
versus 5 acre requirement.
2. Lot 1 - 220 feet of lot width at
building line versus 300,
requirement.
3. Lot 1 - 80 foot setback from Ordinary
High Water Level versus 100,
requirement.
4. Lot 2 - 1.24 acre shoreland lot size
versus 5 acre requirement.
S. Lot 2 - 170 feet of lot width at
building line versus 300,
requirement.
6. Lot 2 - 40 foot setback from Ordinary
High Water Level versus 1001,
requirement.
7. Lot 2 - 0 foot setback for existing
screen porch at Ordinary High Water
Level.
S. Lot 3 - .72 acre shoreland lot size
versus 5 acre requirement.
9. Lot 3 - 120 feet of lot width at
building line versus 300,
requirement.
10. Lot 3 - 145 foot lot width at
Ordinary High Water Level versus 150,
requirement.
Other variances
11. Lot 1 - No frontage on a public street.
12. Lot 2 - No frontage on a public street.
13. Lot 3 - 70 feet of lot width on a public street.
(90, required)
Johnson said that this request may be revised. The
applicant has requested a continuance to the August 12
meeting.
MOTION:
Dye moved that the Board continue Variance Request 93-15 to
the August 12 meeting. Lynch seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
B. Req_uest #93-18 by Michael and Patricia Loosen of 6200
Old Shady Oak Road to Permit construction of a single
family home upon an 8 acre rural lot. Two acres of the
lot were taken for County Road 62 upgrading. (Code
• requires 10 acre lot size in the Rural District,
Mr. St Pierre came forward to present the variance request. He
said he was representing Michael and Patricia Loosen. They
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 2
. would like to construct a single family home on an eight acre
parcel. The city has a map of the location of the home, well,
septic field and driveway. The Fire Marshal has suggested
three possible options for the property and the Loosens have
chosen option 2 (fire sprinkler system in house) .
Johnson said that in their packets, each Board member has
received a sketch of the area, a copy of the Fire Marshal's
letter, a location map and a rendering of the structure. The
area is zoned rural and could be used for low density
residential use in the future. When changes were made to
Crosstown and Shady Oak, this property was left with a road
easement. If this variance were to be granted, Staff would
recommend allowing only one structure on the property that can
be lived in. (Loosens have agreed to remove an existing
smaller structure) . More detail in the driveway design and
retaining wall system would be required so it could be
adequately reviewed. There have been some comments from
interested parties.
Anderson asked what the precedent in similar situations was.
Johnson said she did not recall any in the past 4-5 years for
this area, but they have occurred on Hwy 5 and 169. The
variance requests were granted in those instances.
Lynch asked exactly where the property under consideration was
located.
St Pierre said it was in the southwest quadrant of Shady Oak
and 62 near a day care center. He added that the driveway plan
would be provided with the permit application.
Dye asked if the driveway to the home would be private.
Johnson answered that it would be a private driveway off an
access easement.
Vasaly asked if any work had been done on the driveway plans
to determine if the driveway is feasible.
St Pierre said that no survey or topographical work had been
done at this time, but he felt it was likely that it could be
formulated to satisfy City requirements.
Johnson said that she had spoken to Mr.Loosen in general terms
regarding the driveway. She told him that plans must meet
building and planning department codes as well as Fire
Marshall requirements before a building permit will be issued.
Jim Ostenson, who owns the building adjacent to the east, came
forward to express his opposition to the request. The access
easement goes over his property. He is opposed to the request
for many reasons:
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 3
• 1. Sewer is available
2. Development is eminent
3. There are health reasons for developing this as a sewered
property.
4. The property is less than 10 acres. The owner was
compensated for the land that was lost through negotiation
with Hennepin County.
5. He is concerned about a residential driveway in a
commercial area.
6. There is no real plan for the property.
7. Where is the access, where will the sewer be?
8. Where will the streets align?
9. No tree surveys have been done.
10 It is a hilly site (100' difference from bottom to top)
and the driveway will be very steep.
11 He had concerns regarding a satisfactory sprinkling system
Phil Schmidt came forward and said he was familiar with the area.
Although he has not seen the paperwork regarding the driveway, he
would like to second Ostenson's statements. He is a friend of a
family who lives on a neighboring property. This area will be
changed eventually. One or two years down the road, rezoning may be
necessary.
St Pierre said that Mr. Loosen is not a developer, but only wants a
• single family home for his own family. They enjoy nature.
Regarding the concerns on the sewer, this issue would have to be
addressed at a future point in time through building permits, etc.
Wilkus closed the public hearing.
Anderson asked when the owners purchased the property.
St Pierre answered that they purchased it about 15 years ago and
had been living there before condemnation started.
Johnson said that this area is zoned rural and they area allowed to
have a private septic system.
Vasaly asked when condemnation occurred.
St Pierre answered that it occurred in the mid 1980's.
Vasaly suggested a continuance to see what the driveway design will
be.
Wilkus said that a successful civil engineering design for the
driveway will need to be provided or the variance will not be
granted.
• MOTION:
Anderson moved that the Board approve Variance Request 93-18. The
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 4
hardship is that the area is less than 10 acres due to Hennepin
County condemnation. Conditions of the approval are:
1. Any dwellings currently on the property shall be removed.
2. A driveway plan shall be submitted for approval.
3. The building should hook up to municipal sewer and water.
4. Requirements of the Fire Marshall shall be met.
Dye seconded the motion. *(amendment and approval below)
Lynch noted that municipal sewer and water may be very expensive to
install.
Wilkus said that the Board cannot deny reasonable use of the
property.
Anderson noted that it seems to be a concern of the neighbors that
the building is hooked up to municipal sewer and water.
Ostenson said the sewer has been extended to where they could
access it from his property. He said he is paying about $18,000
each year for sewer into that area.
Vasaly felt that the Board would be allowing the owners to continue
the rural character of the property. Allowing a septic system would
be consistent with that approach.
• Argue asked what the intent of the owners was when they purchased
the property.
Johnson said that they had been living there for about 14 years
when the house was removed. They still own the property.
Ostenson said they have not lived there since 1989.
St Pierre said that they purchased the property in 1978 and lived
there until the mid 1980's when it was condemned by Hennepin County
Dye felt a hardship does exist for the owners.
Argue said that he is in favor of the ordinance, but cannot vote
that they be hooked up to municipal sewer and water without a site
impact study.
Lynch agreed with Argue.
Anderson said that the Board has the prerogative to make certain
requests of the owner. She felt the sewer/water hook up should be
done if feasible.
*AMENDMENT TO MOTION:
• Argue suggested an amendment to continue the request pending
completion of a site impact study and determination of the
feasibility of sewer/water hook up. Vasaly seconded the amendment.
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 5
• Anderson and Dye accepted the amendment.
Motion passed unanimously.
Variance continued to the July 8, 1993 meeting.
C. ReqUest #93-21 by Eden Prairie Ford of 12790 Plaza Drive
for (2) approval for a 375 sq.ft. flag (Code maximum is
100 sq.ft. . ) ; (2) approval for an 8 ft. high fence (Code
maximum is 6 ft. ) ; (3) approval to utilise a 4.4 acre
commercial lot for Eden Prairie Ford car storage and
Qisplay. This area exceeds the 10% of the base area of
the building Permitted for outside display of merchandise.
Joe Clement, a landscape architect, came forward to present the
Variance Request for Eden Prairie Ford. He said that the facility
was built on two parcels and now they would like to expand by
adding a third parcel (4.4 acres) located to the north of the
present facility. This would front on Valley View Drive and would
be combined with the other parcels. The requests are:
1. Allow a 375 square foot flag.
2. Allow an 8' high fence. Berms would be used also. The
fence would be on three sides on top of the berm.
Screening would be provided by a series of plant materials
two rows thick.
• 3. Allow outdoor car display greater than allowed by code.
Lynch asked how much over the allowable 10% was being requested.
Johnson said that the original proposal was 8 acres. Five acres of
this was for car storage. Now there will be 8-10 acres of car
storage and the total site will be 14 acres. There is a lot of
information in the packet including previous variances on the
property in 1990 and 1992. The Planning Commission had a lot of
recommendations on the original proposal. An updated Staff Report
was done on May 21. The Planning Commission has acted and the
Council will review it on June 15. Basically, there are three
parts to the request:
1. Flag variance
2. 81 high fence variance
3 . Car storage variance
If the Board should approve the request, Staff recommends:
1.That no vehicle over 3/4 ton be stored outside and no
recreational vehicles be stored outside.
Clement said that there is a standard pickup that exceeds that
weight (it is one ton) .
• Johnson said that the requirement can be modified to say one ton
instead of 3/4 ton.
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 6
• 2. Only Eden Prairie Ford vehicles be allowed in the area.
3 . The road to be used for delivery and pick up use only.
4. No speakers allowed on north storage lot.
The original agreement showed a flag display area in front of the
building and a flag was installed that exceeded maximum of 100 sq.
ft. Sometimes flags can be used as more of an advertising device
than a patriotic symbol.
Dye asked if there was a height limit.
Johnson said that there is a height limit, but this one is O.K. per
the developers agreement.
Another representative of Eden Prairie Ford noted that they sell
American made vehicles and want to display that.
Vasaly asked if there had been any investigation of environmental
problems that may be caused by run off from the bituminous surface
area that would exceed 10%. Are there any underground tanks?
Clement said that the Engineering Department had reviewed this and
a pond would treat sediment and pollution from urban sources. This
is only a storage lot, so there should be very little pollution
from the area. The height of the fence may vary from 6-8' by
request of the Planning Dept.
. Johnson said that 6' height has been code since 1969 for
residential areas. There have been higher fences allowed for
screening and security reasons.
Dye noted that the pond was at a fairly high elevation and there is
much drainage coming from the Menard property. A hardship could be
that they do have the property and would like to exceed the
allowable 10%. Also, an 8' high fence only makes the property more
appealing.
Lynch asked if a non-paved storage area was possible.
Clement said it was not allowed by the Engineering Dept and the
owners do not want it because of the difficulty of keeping the
vehicles clean.
Johnson said it was better to contain and direct the run off.
Anderson said that she could understand the enthusiasm for the flag
variance, but what is the hardship for the flag size?
An Eden Prairie Ford representative said that it is important to
communicate that they sell American made vehicles. If the flag
size is compared to the size of the overall property, it is not so
• large. There are no flags on every light post or balloons hanging
all over as some other dealers. They like to feel that they have a
tasteful display.
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 7
• Anderson said that she still did not see the hardship for the flag.
She felt it was used as advertising.
The Eden Prairie Ford representative said that if it were only 100
square feet, it would not be seen by anyone.
Another Eden Prairie Ford representative noted that they are
allowed two flags: one American flag and one State flag. They have
elected to combine them into one.
Anderson asked what the original agreement for signage had been.
Johnson answered they were allowed a 20' high pylon and a wall
sign. No signs on cars, no balloons, and no multiple flags were
allowed.
Dye felt that the flag did not seem objectionable.
Anderson said a hardship was needed. Others want more flag signs
also. We need to follow code.
Clement said that most other dealerships do not have the restraints
that this one does. That is a hardship in his estimation, although
they are pleased to live in the order that Eden Prairie provides,
they need to compete against advertising of other dealers.
• Argue asked about the entrance/exit on Valley View.
Clement said that detail has not been work out yet, but the gate
will be electronic and metal.
Argue said he commends Eden Prairie Ford for the berm treatment and
screening.
Wilkus asked if this 4.5 acres was part of the original
development.
An Eden Prairie Ford representative answered that they had hoped to
sell some of this land to recoup some of the cost, but business did
so well that they now need it for more storage area.
Wilkus asked why the flag was placed where it is instead of as it
as shown on the developer's agreement.
The Eden Prairie Ford representative said he was not involved in
the placement process.
Wilkus asked if the proponents expected further variance requests.
The Eden Prairie Ford representative answered no, they did not.
• Vasaly had questions regarding environmental impact from spills of
oil and gas, etc.
The Eden Prairie Ford representative noted that these would all be
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 8
• new vehicles, each only containing 3-4 gallons of gas and with no
oil leakage. The pond would take care of any problems.
Wilkus closed the public hearing.
Argue said he commended the owners for a high quality development
and he said likes the large flag.
Johnson said the flag size is not inappropriate for the entire
site of 14 acres and it could be allowed in lieu of additional
flags.
Vasaly said that she did not see how this business is any different
from any other business. The flag is a wonderful symbol but not to
be used as an advertisement. She would suggest that the flag
variance be denied.
The Eden Prairie Ford representative said that they had over 70
employees, (in response to a question from Argue) .
MOTION:
Vasaly moved that the Board deny the flag variance request for Eden
Prairie Ford. Anderson seconded the motion. (*Vote below)
Anderson asked what amount of signage is allowable on the entire
• site.
Johnson answered 80 square feet of free standing signs and another
sign of 36 sq. ft. 15% of the first 500 sq. ft. of wall space, then
5% after that.
Dye asked if one or two flags were allowed.
Johnson answered that one American and one State flag are allowed
(each 100 sq. ft in size) . If it is denied this evening, the
proponent can appeal to Council.
Argue said he agrees with the ordinance to restrict the size of
flags, but he thinks this is a hardship case. They have done a
tasteful job and it is an excellent marker for 494 and 5. The flag
compliments the area. He opposes the motion.
Wilkus said he could refer to work he has done in the past. A
restaurant was proposed with a 600 sq. ft. flag and it was opposed.
Lynch felt the ordinance should be amended.
Anderson said she plans to vote in favor of the motion.
Vasaly said that Eden Prairie Ford has done a remarkable job. Can
. we grant this request because they have done a remarkable job?
There is still no hardship.
* Vote on MOTION above:
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 9
• Motion passed 4-2 with Argue and Dye opposed.
MOTION:
Lynch moved that the Board approve an 8' high fence at Eden Prairie
Ford. Dye seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The
hardship was stated to be that the plan could not meet requirements
without the 8' high fence in certain areas.
MOTION:
Anderson moved that the Board approve utilization of a 4.4 acre
commercial lot for Eden Prairie Ford with conditions 1-7 as stated
in the Staff report as amended this evening. Amendments to report
are that one ton vehicles be allowed and item 7 in the Staff report
shall read as a May 21 date. Other requirements include: provide
lighting plan, modify landscape plan, submit fence detail, submit
storm water run off and soil information detail, and give 48 hour
notice and pay park dedication fee. Vasaly seconded the motion and
it passed unanimously.
D. Request #93-22 by Hennepin County for Philip and Katherine
BBen of 9785 Brookview Circle to approve a 4.7 acre Rural
lot size for the existing home site due to County Road 18
Upgrading. (Code requires 10 acre lots in the Rural
• District. )
MOTION:
Dye moved that the Board approve Variance Request 93-22 with the
hardship being that the County Road 18 upgrading took property from
the proponent. Lynch seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
E. Request #93-23 by Hennepin County for David and Patricia
Smith of 9780 Brookview Circle to approve a 4.6 acre Rural
lot size for the existing home site due to County Road 18
Upgrading. (Code requires 10 acre lots in the Rural
District. )
MOTION:
Dye moved that the Board approve Variance Request 93-23 with the
hardship being that the County Road 18 upgrading took property from
the proponent. Lynch seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
F. Request #93-24 by Hennepin County for Gensmer-Williams of
9599 Bluff Road to aRRrove a 5.8 acre Rural lot size for
the existing home site due to County Road 18 upgrading.
(Code requires 10 acre lots in the Rural District. )
• MOTION:
Dye moved that the Board approve Variance Request 93-24 with the
hardship being that the County Road 18 upgrading took property from
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 10
the proponent. Lynch seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Q. Request #93-25 by The Pemtom Land Company for 6911-6951
192nd Avenue West to germit a 25 foot front yard setback
for one of the 9 proposed lots (Code requires 30 foot
setback. ) ; and to allow two lots to have 98 foot and 92
foot lot width at the building line. (Shoreland Code
requires 120 feet. )
Dan Herbst of Pemton Company came forward to present the Variance
Request. He described a map of the site in question and noted the
surrounding areas: Highway 101, a retired couple's 2 acre property,
Purgatory Creek, and Lunzer property. The original and preliminary
plat applied for 10 single family home lots. The variance came
about because of a quirk in the creek (shoreland area) . These lots
did not meet code, although all exceed 13,500 sq. ft. (the average
is about 15,000 sq. ft) . The hardship is that this is a small
subdivision and it would not be feasible if another lot were taken.
This involves a meandering creek and a shoreland ordinance.
Johnson said the packet includes the May 7 Staff report on the
request and rezoning of 2.5 acres. The average lot size is almost
16,000 sq. ft. House pad areas are adequate. Planning Commission
and Council are familiar with the request. There have been no
comments or inquiries.
• Lynch noted that the creek bend creates the hardship. The street
will be dedicated. A two acre parcel will be dedicated to Eden
Prairie.
Dye had questions on the outlot (1.3 acres)
Vasaly asked why there was a 30' setback.
Johnson answered for aesthetics, site lines and uniformity.
Johnson said that the request has been through the Planning
Commission and had the 1st reading at the Council.
Herbst said that this would not make sense if it consisted of eight
lots, based on the costs involved.
Johnson said that shoreland code has been in effect since 1982. The
DNR has a new shoreland code since 1989 and the City is reviewing
theirs to match the DNR code.
Wilkus closed the public hearing.
MOTION:
. Argue moved that the Board approve Variance Request 93-25 with the
hardship being the creek* on the property. The approval is
contingent upon the conditions of the Planning Commission on pages
4 and 5 of the Staff Report. Lynch seconded the motion.
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 11
• Anderson said that she felt the hardship should be stated more
exactly and suggested that "the unique configuration of the creek"
be cited as a hardship.
*Argue accepted the amendment.Hardship to be stated as "the unique
configuration of the creek. "
Motion passed unanimously.
H. Request #93-26 by Independent School District #272 for
8021 and 8051 Wallace Road to permit the construction of a
school bus garage and parking area with an impervious
surface of 71%. Moreland Code limit is 30%.)
Steve Thompson of Cunningham Architects came forward to present the
Variance Request. The proposal involved relocating the bus
facility. The problem was caused by Hwy 212 right of way. The
current facility needs to be moved. There is substantial work
being done around the schools, kindergarten and administrative
center. They have been working with MN DOT and the City to relocate
the bus garage facility to Wallace Road. The through drive at the
Middle School will be taken away for safety reasons. The request
has been to the Planning Commission and the Council. The request
has to do with impervious surface. The entire hard surface area is
draining away from the pond towards two man hole locations and to a
drainage pond at Wallace Road and 212. There will be no dangers to
• the pond inhabitants.
Johnson said that the proposal has been routed to the DNR and
Watershed District. There have been no objections. Berming was a
concern and that has been resolved. Air quality was a concern but
that individual is not here this evening.
Vasaly asked if the approval of the run off was done with changes
to the area in mind.
Thompson said yes, that the work needs to be done now. It will be
finished next year. MN DOT has vacillated somewhat. This is
primarily a problem between the City and MN DOT. The hardship is
that they did not want to move the facility. They have little
control over when MN DOT will do the work.
Wilkus closed the public hearing.
MOTION:
Vasaly moved that the Board approve Variance Request 93-26. The
hardship is that the Hwy 212 project caused the relocation of this
facility and it needed to be close to the school. Run off will move
towards a drainage pond. Lynch seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously.
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 12
J
V. OLD BUSINESS
Wilkus asked if the Bryant Lake request would be heard on August
12th.
Johnson said that it was a possibility.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
Johnson said next month's variance requests include:
1. Garage addition
2. Second story addition
3. Shoreland
4. Continued Loosen request
Discussion took place on flag sizes.
Argue had questions on Suburban Chevrolet signage.
VII ADJOURNMENT
MOTION:
Anderson moved that the Board adjourn. Vasaly seconded the motion
and it passed unanimously.
. Meeting adjourned at 9:35 P.M.
BAn%JFAN%OA\S6EPMQi
---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 13