Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 09/09/1993 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 91 1993 7:30 P.M. , CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: WILRUS (Chairman) ,WEERS,DYE, ANDERSON,LYNCH,VASALY,ARGUE STAFF PRESENT: JEAN JOHNSON, PLANNING DEPT. SHARON STORHOLM, SECRETARY BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: ARGUE, VASALY, DYE I. CALL TO ORDER -- ROLL CALL - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Wilkus called the meeting to order at 7: 30 P.M. Roll call was taken as noted above. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Agenda approved as submitted. III. MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 1993 MEETING MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve the minutes of the August 12, 1993 meeting as submitted. Wilkus seconded the motion. The motion carried 4: 0:2 (Lynch and Weeks abstained) . IV. VARIANCES Wilkus explained the order of the variance proceedings to those in attendance. A. Request #93-41 by Tames and Rhonda Grimm of 6810 Sand Ridge Road for approval to construct an 8 foot high fence for a length of 70 feet along the property's rear lot line (Code maximum is 6 foot high fence). Rhonda Grimm came forward to present the variance request. She said that they wish to construct a privacy fence around the back yard. Reasons for this are: 1. They have a large dog, 2. They would like a noise barrier from Baker Road. 3. There is a high point in the back yard and then it drops off steeply - a higher fence where the lot drops down would make ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 1 • it more uniform and level. The entire length is 143' and the section to be constructed 8' high is about 70' of that. Johnson noted that there was a location map in the packets which illustrates that the property backs up to Baker Road. There is a dip in the back yard and the proponent believes that by using this 8' section, the fence would be more uniform. Alternatives are to fill in the back yard to grade level or install a retaining wall. Trees may be damaged and the drainage would be affected with these alternatives. A letter from the Homeowners Association has been received that is in approval of the variance request. There have been no letters received in opposition. Lynch asked if the fence would be constructed of wood. Grimm answered yes, it would be of wood construction using the straight board on board method for more privacy and noise protection. Weeks asked how high trees were in the back yard. Johnson answered that they were from 10-12 feet high. Weeks asked if the 70' section in question was on the northwest part of the property. • Grimm answered yes, it would be located on the northwest corner of the property. Johnson asked if the remaining sections of fencing would be constructed at 6' height. Weeks asked the proponent what the hardship was in this instance. Grimm answered that the property backs up to Baker Road, also there is a running track near their pool - this fence would achieve privacy and relate better to the dip in the back yard. Lynch said that the contour of the property seems to be a problem. If the lot were flat, no request would be necessary. Wilkus closed the public hearing. Anderson asked if any input had been received from neighbors. Grimm answered that neighbors on each side had written • letters of approval and five others approved of it verbally. The Association was also in favor of the request. ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 2 • MOTION• Lynch moved that the Board approve Variance Request 93-41 citing the current contour of the land as the hardship. The alternatives were not feasible because of probable tree loss and drainage problems. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. B. Request #93-42 by Mark A. Wilson for 6485 Promonotory Drive to construct a single family home at a 19 foot front yard setback (Code requires 30 foot front yard setback). Mark Wilson and Sean Hallet (Engineering Design Group) came forward to present the variance request. Wilson said that because of problems encountered with the contour of the lot, the steepness of the lot, and an electrical tower, they are making this request. The developer did not give him the correct contours for the lot. He has already had to take down some trees that he did not wish to remove. Johnson noted that there were photos in the packets. The subdivision was approved in 1987 and at that time 21 of the 40 lots got a 25' setback variance along Pinnacle Drive. The lot has been excavated about 701 back from the curb. If the 30' setback is enforced, additional grading into the side of . the hill will be necessary. The variance was published and some people did come in to review it. The garage portion will be 42' back from the curb. This should be adequate room for car and guest parking. If the variance is granted, the side areas can be planted or graded to minimize the affect of the portion of the house that would be brought forward. Wilson said he will grade the area between the house and the neighbors so it is aesthetically even and would plant trees. He would incur all expenses for that. Weeks asked about the setback of the adjacent houses. Johnson answered it was 30' minimum. Portions are greater than 30' . Hallet said the problem is that part of the lot is on a tangent and part of the lot is on a cul de sac. If this is done the way the City wants it, the result would be a 6-8' back yard. Weeks had questions on grading and retaining wall placement. Wilson and Hallet explained the grades and retaining wall placement. • Weeks asked if the neighbors were concerned about drainage. Wilson said that the drainage would be directed toward the ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 3 • street and he had not heard any concerns from the neighbors concerning drainage. Weeks asked how high the home would be. Wilson said it would be 30' high. Weeks asked if option two were used, would the wall be higher than the house? Wilson answered that it would be higher. Weeks asked if the terraces would be landscaped. Wilson said there would be erosion control and vegetation. Anderson had questions regarding the 19' setback. Was the 19' setback included in option 1 and the 25' setback included in option 2? Wilson answered that was true, at the closest point. Anderson asked if Wilson was aware of the problem when he purchased the land. Wilson said that they had taken the developer's word for the measurements of the lot and the topography, and it was in error. Hallet noted that the work has already been done to place the house where it should have been according to the developer's measurements. David Schwam of 6489 Promontory Drive (south of the property) came forward and asked what the purpose of a 30' setback was. Johnson answered that the purpose is to preserve the uniformity of the street and it places garages 40 to 42' back from the curb. He said he sympathized with Wilson's problems as he had similar ones. He is concerned that this house will be out farther than the others. He would request that no more than 25' variance be granted to keep in uniform. Darrell Baltzer of 6481 Promontory Drive (other side of lot) came forward. He said his concern was that the trees be saved to help hide the power line. Wilson said as it sits now (option 1) the trees will be saved. Schwam asked if the trees would be saved with either option. Wilson answered that option 1 would save the trees, but ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 4 • option 2 would not save them. Discussion took place on the positioning of the house and tree preservation. David Luce of Arteka Natural Green noted that the proponent should make sure the roots of the trees are protected. Weeks had questions on contours depicted in the packet information. Hallet said he had modified the contours to what they are now - the original contours were not correct. Wilson said that the original contours have been submitted with the permit. Wilkus asked how the lot was staked. Wilson said it had been staked for the original 30' plan. Weeks said that the landscaping is critical - the neighbors prefer to maintain the landscaping. Have the neighbors expressed an option preference? Wilson said no, they had not expressed a preference. • Weeks asked how many feet it was to the front door. Wilson answered it was 221 . Anderson said that she would abstain since she lives in the neighborhood. Wilkus said that he was in favor of the request. Several years ago, 20 of 40 lots were given variances in order to maintain the trees. Weeks said that in both option 1 and option 2 there are hardship conditions - the key is screening and landscaping and preserving the side yards. He favored option 1. Johnson suggested that the City could approve a landscape plan and could discuss it with the neighbors in order to come to an agreement. Schwam suggested the inclusion of the City Forester's advice when making these decisions. Johnson said that the Forester could be included in the discussions. • Anderson said that she felt that the hardships were the loss of the trees and the contour of the lot. ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 5 • Wilkus noted that the City has taxed the lot as a buildable lot. MOTION• Weeks moved that the Board approve Variance Request 93-42 for option 1 as depicted in the plan of August 17, 1993. The hardships are the pre-existing conditions: 1. Contour of the land 2 . Power line The proponent would like to preserve the landscaping to detract from the power line and to improve the aesthetic appeal of the sideyards. The variance is granted on the condition that the proponent submit a landscaping plan for review by Staff and neighbors. Lynch seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0 with Anderson abstaining. C. Request #93-39 by Arteka Natural Green Corporation of 15180 Martin Drive to use part of the site for 5 years to store vehicles in excess of 3/4 ton and to allow part of the storage area to be improved with rock instead of asphalt. Wilkus noted that he would abstain on this request since he had consulted with Mr. Luce on the proposal. • David Luce came forward to present the variance request. He noted that he is pleased that Arteka has realized success in its business. At this time they are allowed 8-9 trucks over 3/4 ton for outside storage. They have not acquired any trucks, but do have additional help. He had been concerned about the appearance of the business site from Highway 5 and Mitchell Drive, so he had signed a purchase agreement with a developer across the street. He had understood it was open storage property. Now, he is proposing a temporary concrete screening that will, in the future, serve as a building. It will be constructed of prestressed concrete and would make a possible building measuring 80 by 200 feet. He would do all that is required by ordinance as if it were a building. He showed a diagram of the planting that would be installed on Corporate Way and on Bergen's property. Weeks asked if the panels would be installed on footings. Luce answered yes, the panels are 22 1/2 to 30' and would go into the ground whatever depth would be needed (maybe 1/3 of the length in the ground) . Johnson noted that this parcel was zoned industrial in the early 19701s. The soil is poor and there is a NSP substation to the west and an old railroad track bed nearby. Some . residents' yards are within 500' (homes are approximately 650' away) and were notified of the request. There was a previous variance request granted for a five year period ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 6 that stated that no more than 8 vehicles over 3/4 ton should be stored outside. That previous variance had a landscaping plan that is 95% completed. The present request is for a five year period to store the same vehicles outside. The concrete walls will screen the outside storage. There is a drainage concern and the parking areas should be paved. There should be no outside storage on the Class 5 area on the site. The conditions in the staff report are as follows: 1. Variance to be granted for a five year period commencing September 9, 1993. 2 . Screening panels should be painted in a compatible color and repaired where necessary. 3. Prior to permit issuance for required footings or other construction,there shall be a landscape bond submitted to the City ensuring the berm and planting work to be completed within one year. 4. No equipment, parts, materials, refuse or supplies be kept outside the screen walls on the property. 5. No vehicles in excess of 12' in height be stored within the screen walls. 6. The non-conforming asphalt driveway along the east property line be removed within 6 months. 7. The variance shall be conditioned upon the City Council's approval of the Arteka site plan request. An additional condition should be added to state: 8. The office trailer shall be removed no later than October 15, 1993 since it does not meet requirements. Johnson noted that there have been no calls or inquiries regarding the request. Lynch asked how high the screening would be. Luce said he is hoping the maximum would be 22' high. Lynch asked what if Luce did not want to convert this to a building after five years. Johnson said it could remain up as long as the structural integrity is O.K. Lynch asked if the conditions were acceptable to Luce. Luce noted that a removal deadline for the office trailer of November 15 would be better for him. Anderson noted that Luce has done a nice job with these plans for the site. • Johnson said that the request has not gone to the Planning Commission, but as soon as the plans come it will be scheduled. ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 7 • Luce said his intention was to make a more corporate facility. There will be only 8-9 cars on the site at one time. Johnson said that the five year period commences this evening. Luce requested the five year period. Weeks asked what would happen after the five year period. Luce said that this is hard to predict. For example, he has other property where a County Road is coming through and other impairments are affecting it also. Such circumstances are hard to predict. Johnson said Luce would need to come back in five years and ask for another variance if he would wish to continue with the same use of this property as granted by this variance. Johnson requested the Board void Variance 92-01. Weeks asked if there would be an inspection program for the concrete panels. Luce noted that he has 4-6 extra replacement panels if any are defective. • Wilkus closed the public hearing. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve Variance Request 93-39 with the nine following conditions: 1. Variance to be granted for a five year period commencing September 9, 1993. 2. Screening panels should be painted in a compatible color and repaired where necessary. 3 . Prior to permit issuance for required footings or other construction, there shall be a landscape bond submitted to the City ensuring the berm and planting work to be completed within one year. 4. No equipment, parts, materials, refuse or supplies be kept outside the screen walls on the property. 5. No vehicles in excess of 12' in height be stored within the screen walls. 6. The non-conforming asphalt driveway along the east property line be removed within 6 months. 7. The variance shall be conditioned upon the City Council's approval of the Arteka site plan request. 8. The office trailer shall be removed no later than • November 15, 1993 since it does not meet requirements. 9. Variance 92-10 shall be voided. ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 8 • Lynch seconded the motion and it passed 3-0 with Wilkus abstaining. V. OLD BUSINESS A. SATTERSTROM REQUEST Johnson noted that the Satterstrom request went to the Council and an 8' extension was granted. Wilkus suggested a joint meeting of the Council and the Board of Appeals. Anderson said she was concerned on this particular variance request that was granted. Weeks said although he was not at the meeting, he had reviewed the material and it was clear to him that there was not sufficient hardship to approve the request. Anderson felt a joint meeting needed to be set up. Johnson said she would check on that. The Council usually prefers to meet prior to the regular City Council meetings. • B. CITY OFFICES MOVING Johnson noted that the City Offices will be moving the end of October or middle of November. C. ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS Wilkus mentioned that the meetings of this Board would benefit greatly if all members would attend. Anderson said she felt a letter regarding attendance should be sent to Board members. VI NEW BUSINESS A. SPECIAL MEETING REQUEST Johnson noted that a request had come in from the St. Clair's for a special meeting. They cite adverse weather as the reason for this meeting. The lot is vacant, but it is in the shoreland setback. If this request were published next Thursday, the meeting could be held Sept 27-30 at any time . of day. ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 9 • MOTION• Weeks moved that the Board hold a special meeting on September 27 at 7 P.M. at City Hall. Lynch seconded the motion. B. NEXT MONTH AGENDA Johnson said that there was one continued item for next month's meeting. If this item is withdrawn, no meeting will be held. VII ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board adjourn. Weeks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9: 15 P.M. • • ---- Board of Adjustments and Appeals ---- 10