Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 06/09/1994 APPROVED MINUTES • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 1994 7 : 30 P.M. , CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 8080 MITCHELL ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: DELAVAN DYE, CORRINE LYNCH, ARTHUR WEEKS (Chairman) , MARY VASALY, RONALD MOELLER, KATHY NELSON, CLIFF DUNHAM BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: MOELLER, WEEKS, NELSON BOARD STAFF: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JEAN JOHNSON RECORDING SECRETARY, SHARON STORHOLM ZONING INTERN, ERIC SCHNEIDER I CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Acting Chairman Vasaly called the meeting to order at 7 :40 P.M. Roll call was taken as noted above. II APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Dye moved that the Board approve the Agenda as presented. Dunham seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. III MINUTES OF MAY 12, 1994 MOTION: Dunham moved that the Board accept the Minutes of May 12, 1994 as submitted. Lynch seconded the motion. Motion passed 3-0 with Vasaly abstaining. IV VARIANCES Vasaly explained the order of the Variance presentation process to those in attendance. A. Request #94-09 by Hustad Land Company for 10781 Pioneer Trail for approval to plat 6 lots proposed Lots 9 and 10, it and 12, 15 and 21 Pioneer Trail) with lot widths of: 58 feet, 53 feet, 76 feet and 35 feet respectively (Code minimum is 90 feet) . 1 Minutes Board of Adjustments and Appeals June 9, 1994 Beth Simenstad, representing Hustad Land Company, came forward to present the Variance Request. She said the development for which the variance is requested is a 27 lot development. They are asking for rezoning of this area to RM-6.5 . The City Council has approved the request. The density is three units per acre. The builder prefers platting individual lots since utility companies prefer to follow platted lines for service. If the request should be denied, all services would be installed in front of the units, which would make the homeowners unhappy. The cul-de-sac lots and lot 21 do not meet frontage requirements. Lots 11 and 12 are affected by the high elevations along the south line of the parcel. The cul-de-sac ensures that there will be not be the additional traffic that would be created if there was a street in this location instead. Simenstad noted the ponding area to the west and said that this will serve as a main holding pond. The density of these units is lower that what is allowed by code. Schneider said that the final plat will be at the 2nd City Council reading on June 14 . The plan was not to create a short cut to Pioneer Road and this caused the small frontage on lots • 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, and 21 . This is the same plan was approved by the Planning Commission. Factors that should be considered regarding this request are: two drainage ponds in the southeast corner, one drainage pond in the west corner, and the topography problems on lots 21, 22, and 23 . Lynch asked if there were any conditions that the Board should be aware of. Johnson answered that the conditions from the Staff Report from the Planning Commission will go to the City Council . Dye asked about the elevations on the drainage pond. Schneider answered that lots 9 and 10 were affected by the elevations and drainage pond. Dye asked if the ponding area pertaining to lots 16, 17 and 18 was a designated ponding area or part of the lots . Johnson answered that it was part of the lots, but the lots are covered with a drainage easement. Simenstad said that the Association will take care of mowing the area. • 2 . Minutes Board of Adjustments and Appeals June 9, 1994 Lynch noted that Lot 13 has no direct access to the street and must cross lots 14 and 15 for access . Simenstad said that the driveway goes over the other lots . There is an Association and easements that will handle the drive access . This type of plan has been done twice before in PUD's and worked very well. Johnson noted that sheet 4 shows a ponding easement and the other sheet shows utility easements around building pads . Dunham asked if the cul de sac was a public street. Simenstad answered that it is a public street. Dunham asked if the townhomes owned the driveway. Simonstad answered yes, they owned the driveway and the Association will take care of it. Dunham asked how the lot frontage was determined. • Johnson said in a multiple family district, code requires 901 . In duplex lots, the minimum frontage of the two must be 901 . In this instance, the staff looked at clusters of units and grouped them together to determine the frontage. Vasaly opened the public hearing. No one came forward. Vasaly closed the pubic hearing. Lynch said she felt this was a creative way around a natural problem. MOTION: Dye moved that the variance be granted subject to Council approval. Lynch suggested an amendment noting two hardships: the topography and drainage pond. Dye accepted the amendment. Dunham seconded the motion as amended and it passed 4-0 . • 3 Minutes Board of Adjustments and Appeals June 9, 1994 B. Request #94-10 by Joseph L. Swanson of 10425 Purdey Road for approval to construct an inground pool 20 feet from the Riverview Road fron property line (Code requires a 30 foot setback. Mr. Swanson of 10425 Purdey Road came forward to present the variance request. He said they were requesting a setback variance for a 18 by 36 foot in ground pool. The slope of the lot and trees prevent utilization of any other location on the lot for the pool . Three points need to be considered regarding this request: 1 . 50% of the buildable area on the lot is sloped. In a 271 ' distance, there is a 88 , drop (30% slope) . 2 . The buildable area west of the pool has over 100 large trees . 3 . Three large poplar trees (over 70 ' in height) are located 15 ' to the east. • Regarding the overflow drainage, there is a 6 ' drop over a 200 , distance (3% slope) . A portion of River View Road near the home may be straightened out some day. The variance would not be needed then. Schneider noted that this property has two ravines, a scenic easement and a dike about 6 ' high that extends up from River View Road to within 15 ' of the porch. There is a rainfall drainage ditch on the south. All these conditions reduce the buildable area. If the road is eventually straightened, Swanson could purchase that land. He will need to submit a grading plan and the Engineering Department would like to make sure the pool will be stable. One neighbor has expressed concern that the drainage ditch remain unimpeded. Dye asked if the road was paved and if the drainage ditch was open or a culvert type. Swanson answered that the road is paved and the drainage ditch is open and the City would like to have it remain open. After a question from Dunham, Swanson explained where the edge of the proposed pool would be located. Dye asked about the scenic easement and if it would be possible in the future for construction to take place on this easement. 4 Minutes Board of Adjustments and Appeals June 9, 1994 Swanson answered that the scenic easement is part of his lot and that building would not take place on that easement. Schneider said that the area has a very steep drop off and he doubted that the City would approve anything that would require all the grading that would be necessary for that site. Johnson said a scenic easement prevents building, cutting, or planting on the site without City approval. Dunham asked about the pool deck. Swanson said it would be of concrete and would be 3 ' wide in most areas and as wide as allowed at the end. A fence will be put around the pool. Dunham asked if other configurations had been considered. Swanson said yes, others had been considered, but they can go no farther west (too steep) or, no farther east (large trees and ravine) . • Dunham said the site is difficult to work with, but there should be a better place to put the pool. Swanson said he has a pool at the present time and his family with three children get a lot of enjoyment and exercise from using it. It has been a great addition for them for the summer months . He considered the hardship to be that only half of the area of the lot was buildable area. Dunham asked if this was considered when the lot was purchased. Swanson said the site is a clear area with lots of sun - a perfect setting for a pool. It would look very nice in this location. When they bought the property they thought this would be an ideal place for a pool, but they were not aware of set back requirements. Dunham asked about the road next to the property. Johnson said there may be changes in two years or more at which time it will be pulled away from the property. Lynch asked if the home was built yet. Swanson said the closing was scheduled for the 20th. The home • 5 Minutes Board of Adjustments and Appeals June 9, 1994 will sit the only way possible unless the natural effect of the area is ruined. Vasaly asked if there were neighbors across River View Rd. Swanson said there were none. Johnson said that there are no plans at this time for those 20 acres. Vasaly asked if the pool would affect overflow and drainage and if any studies had been done to determine this . Swanson said the pool should not affect the overflow or drainage. The drainage is presently in place for this area without considering this drainage area. This area would be used for emergency overflow only. Vasaly asked about the pool overflow and if there were any concerned neighbors . Swanson said that the drainage from the pool went into the public street. Johnson said a neighbor had concerns about the drainage ditch but felt the situation would be acceptable if the existing ditch were maintained. Dunham asked where the filtration equipment would be placed. Swanson said there is no approved plan yet, but it would be placed where ever it has to be per code. The logical place would be somewhere off to the west side of the pool. Dunham asked if the pool was oval or circular. Swanson answered that it would measure 18 by 36 feet. Vasaly opened the public hearing. No one came forward.Vasaly closed the public hearing. MOTION: Dye moved that the Board approve Variance Request 94- 10 for a 20 , set back because the required 30 , set back would place the pool into the house area. The variance shall be subject to Engineering Dept and grading approval relative to the drainage ditch. Lynch seconded the motion. The hardship in this • 6 Minutes Board of Adjustments and Appeals June 9, 1994 instance is the topography of the land. Lynch added that the street is scheduled to be straightened within a short time and the variance would no longer be a factor at that time. Motion passed 3-1 with Dunham voting opposed. VARIANCE REQUEST 94-11 . No one present to explain the request. Lynch suggested that Variance Request 94-11 be postponed to later in the meeting. The Board agreed unanimously. C. Request #94-12 by Chapel Hill Academy of 17850 Duck Lake Trail for approval to use a 48 , x 66 , modular building for 3 years for classrooms. The building was a wood exterior (Code requires brick, stone and glass for 75% of the buildings exterior finish. • Bob Soffelt of 10508 Bluff Road came forward to present the request. He said he was representing Chapel Hill Academy, a school in Eden Prairie. The school has gone through the process of looking for additional classroom space. They built the current educational wing. Education is provided for grades K-8 and the majority of the students are from Eden Prairie. They feature a traditional program with a Christian emphasis . They would like a temporary classrooms placed on the property. Eventually they would like to make the site their permanent location and are negotiating to purchase the site. At present they have two sites : King of Glory and New Testament, but they need more space. They went through a process to secure this portable building. They wanted an attractive building that fit the decor of the neighborhood. This building has been used at Alliance Guidance for educational purposes for the past three years. King of Glory has approved the facility. The Chapel Hill corporation voted to extend the funds for a building, secure a site and meet all the requirements of the City. They held a neighborhood meeting to explain the situation and received full support from both participating families and non participating families . One family voiced concern about the children playing in the trees. The hardship in this instance is there is no classroom expansion for grades 5, 6, 7 and 8 for 1995 school year. The kindergarten has 20 students . If this is not approved, they would need another site and would have to implement busing the students, which is expensive. Their desire 7 • Minutes Board of Adjustments and Appeals June 9, 1994 is to place the portable unit on the King of Glory property for 3 years while negotiations take place for permanent residence there. Schneider said the building has a wood exterior. Code requires brick, stone or glass for 75% (this requires a variance also) . The Building Department has received plans for the classrooms and has approved them. Howard and Linda Wiebold has sent a letter in which they expressed concern about the continued diminished privacy and students breaking branches . They feel if. there are move children there will be less privacy. They would like more buffering and landscaping on the west. Dunham asked if the Chapel Hill group was in the process of purchasing the property and if funding had been arranged for. Soffelt said they are currently paying rent and payments to purchase the property would be comparable. They would need to have a capital fund drive. . Dunham asked if this property were to be purchased, would • permanent facilities be added. Soffelt answered yes, they would be added. Dunham said that the temporary structure looks permanent on the sketch. Soffelt said the logical place to add the temporary structure is on the back. Footings will need to be placed, the unit will need to be leveled and then skirting will be installed around it. Dunham asked what would happen if no agreement to purchase the property was produced from the negotiations. Soffelt answered that they do have a five year lease. Their goal is to secure a permanent location. This is needed to ensure the longevity of the school and is a priority. The fifth grade gets a recess, but the 6th grade does not, so there will be no extra children on the playground. Dunham asked if the temporary building has bathroom facilities. Soffelt answered no, it does not. The temporary unit and the church will be attached with a hallway in between in order to facilitate the use the of the church bathrooms. • 8 . Minutes Board of Adjustments and Appeals June 9, 1994 Johnson said that the Fire Marshall looks at this matter as a part of the building inspection. Dunham felt this was a lot of money to invest into a temporary building for only three years. Soffelt said if they can't come to an agreement with King of Glory, they will have to find permanent residence elsewhere. The portable unit is not inexpensive, but still less expensive than bussing students . This portable unit was not the least expensive of portable units . It is a very nice unit. Lynch asked if Soffelt had read the letter from the Wiebolds .Would the Chapel Hill group be willing to make modifications to ensure privacy if necessary? Soffelt said that Weibolds do not view the portable unit. They were at the meeting and expressed concern about children in the trees at recess . There are many trees on that side of the property already. There are recess monitors and supervisors. There is no fence, the entire bank area looks out onto • Purgatory Creek. A fence would disrupt the view. Wiebold had voiced no opposition to the structure at the meeting, just a concern on the children in the trees . Dye suggested a chalk line in the tree area to set a boundary for the children. Soffelt said they had discussed colored stakes in the ground. Dye said that he felt a chalk line would be safer.He asked if there were four rooms in the unit. Soffelt answered that there were four classrooms, 2 offices, and a locker area. The units does not require sprinkler system and will be hooked up to a fire alarm system. Vasaly asked what the hardship was and expressed concern about the permanency of the structure. She felt the group was in this situation because of lack of planning. Why was a site not found before this time? Soffelt said the school has experienced a great deal of growth - from 69 to 180 students . Their number one priority is to find a permanent location. It has only been two months since they have known that they could negotiate a purchase with King of Glory Church. This location would be the best alternative, but • 9 Minutes Board of Adjustments and Appeals June 9, 1994 there are others . When they were in the process of negotiating the lease they had asked if there was any possibility of purchasing the area. The church had until January to respond. They said they would like to negotiate the sale. It takes time to negotiate, draw a plan and have a capital drive. Classes will start the first week in September. Dye asked if this was a modular building. Soffelt answered that the building was broken down into four 12 x 66 , units. The site preparation will run about $19, 000. This building will have value after three or four years . Vasaly asked if there were any sports programs at the school. Soffelt answered that there is a soccer field out front and a gymnasium inside. Soffelt said that if necessary they would agree to Wiebold suggestion for more screening, but there are a lot of trees out there now. A committee could be set up to ensure communication if necessary. Vasaly opened the public hearing. **** Pat Sking, a neighbor, came forward to suggest that large trees could be planted to protect the look of the neighborhood. She had additional questions about the permanency of the structure and the growth plan. **** Pat Richard of 6793 Lorena Lane came forward and said that the Wiebold claims are valid. If this is denied, what is the plan? Richard said that they moved into a nice neighborhood and builds when it can be afforded. Richard did not feel that temporary structures are desirable. Quite a few of the neighbors object, but were not at the meeting. The school likes the view, but the neighbors view will be damaged. There is an uncertainty of what will happen. If it was certain that this would be there for only a short while, it would be acceptable. Soffelt answered that this is not a trailer home. It is a very nice building. As far as the growth plan, it will house grades K-8 and could hold 180-185 children. Grades 6, 7 and 8 will not have recess. Mary Studey of 9994 Dunbury came forward. She said that she is • 10 • Minutes Board of Adjustments and Appeals June 9, 1994 a teacher in a temporary building and knows what it is like to break down the school every Friday and clear it out. She is encouraged to see Chapel Hills going ahead with this . Joe Marsh of 6720 Duck Lake Road came forward and said he has three children at Chapel Hill. There have been complaints in the past from Wiebold and they have planted trees. This building would be much better alternative than bussing. Tim Johnson of 18200 Park View Lane came forward and had concerns about the building conforming to the aesthetics and the community. Theresa Brink of 6908 Barberry Lane came forward and said that she is a neighbor of Prairie View School. She has looked at a temporary building there for some time. Chapel Hill is looking at a permanent solution. She has three children at Chapel Hill and one will be in the portable classroom.Through the negotiations with King of Glory, the church representatives have mentioned the difficulty they have had in maintaining the property and the Chapel Hill group will be able to help with • this problem. Nancy Bremer of 6820 Lorena Lane came forward and said that she is in favor of the unit. She has known for three years that this land was zoned for school uses . It was expected that children would be there. She spoke with Wiebold and asked if a fence would help, he said he did not want a fence, but would prefer it natural. The exterior of the unit is wood and almost all homes in the neighborhood have wood exteriors . She would recommend approval and added that Chapel Hills has bent over backwards to satisfy everyone' s needs . Connie Michaelson came forward and said that it was in the best interest of the children to be unified on one campus . Jim Lumppio of 11921 Pendelton Court came forward. He said that he was the Chairman of King of Glory Church. The church has had on-going negotiations with Chapel Hill and has allowed them to expand on the church property. Chapel Hill would like a permanent dwelling place. Recently the church members have opened up their thoughts to selling the property to them. They may be the best tenants . The church would like to accommodate them. Vasaly closed the public hearing. • 11 Minutes Board of Adjustments and Appeals June 9, 1994 Dunham asked if the Board could approve the structure for three years and limit it to those three years. Johnson said the approval could be granted for three years, but the Board could not prevent them from requesting another variance. Vasaly said an economic hardship is not a valid hardship. The school wants to be on this particular site. No other plans have been made. Lynch asked if the exterior construction materials were the' problem (brick/stone/glass as opposed to wood) . She felt there was no sense to adding brick/stone/glass to this temporary structure. Vasaly said the only reason this variance is requested is economic. Lynch said the neighbors objected to the children around, not the brick, stone or glass . • Dunham said the fire exits and appearance are both marginal. Soffelt said this is a temporary structure to fill a need for student space. Lynch asked how Chapel Hill would feel about a two year limit. Soffelt said it would be cost prohibitive. It will run about $20, 000 to prepare the site alone. Dye said that the structure meets all building codes and will be there for a duration of three years. A period of time is being asked for because they do not have the funds to do it any other way. Vasaly said that the money issue is not a hardship. Dye answered that they do not own the property and it is difficult to build a permanent structure on someone else' s property. MOTION: Dunham moved that the Board approve Variance Request 94-12 for a temporary structure for a period of two years . • 12 Minutes Board of Adjustments and Appeals June 9, 1994 No second to the motion. Dye suggested an amendment to the motion changing the time period to three years . Dunham accepted the amendment. Dye seconded the motion. Motion passed 3-1 with Vasaly opposed. C. Request #94-11 by Resurrection Life Church for 16397 Cadillac Drive (former American Legion building) for approval to maintain the 31 foot existing building setback, the 35 foot existing parking lot setback, and to maintain (2) 32 sq ft existing wall signs for six months. Phil Predovich, Pastor of Resurrection Life Ministries, came forward to present the Variance Request. He said that they were purchasing the American Legion Club. Everything has been approved and the purchase agreement has been accepted. The set back requirements are different for public and community • commercial. Nothing else will be changed on the outside at all except the sign out by the street. There are two signs on the side of the building and one will be taken down - they are not sure which one yet - but a choice will be made before June 30th. Resurrection Life Church started in Eden Prairie and has outgrown several locations . Schneider said the signage that faces County Road 4 is 32 square feet and code allows 24 sq. ft. The other sign that faces Cadillac Road is a reader board and is also 32 sq. ft. Only 24 Sq. ft are allowed per code. They are requesting a delay of 6 month in order to decide which sign to keep. A 32 sq. ft wall sign can be allowed or it could be modified to 24 sq. ft after 6 months . Predovich said they would like a variance to permit the 32 sq. ft. wall sign on the front. The free-standing one on the site meets code. Lynch asked about the six month period. Predovich said the decision has probably been made already. Dunham asked why they felt the needed a changeable message sign. • 13 Minutes Board of Adjustments and Appeals June 9, 1994 Predovich answered that it would be used for community outreach and to advertise special speakers. Some remodeling will be done upstairs in the building. Vasaly asked when the next Board meeting would be held. Predovich answered it would be held on Saturday. Vasaly asked about the size of the sign. Are they buying the sign? Predovich answered that the sign is a part of the purchase agreement. Vasaly opened the public hearing. No one came forward. Vasaly closed the public hearing. MOTION: Lynch moved that the Board approve Variance Request 94-11 . Sixty days shall be granted in which to decide which sign shall be retained. The hardship is the pre-existing statute and conditions . Resurrection Life Ministries should not have to suffer economic hardship to rectify the situation. Dye seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. V. OLD BUSINESS A. Sherwood matter Johnson said that a visit had been made to the house on Kurtz Lane and a notice had been left to contact the City. After 5 PM on June 9th a message had been left by Sherwood on her the recorder. Tomorrow the call will be returned. The Building Inspector needs to gain entrance to determine if there are building violations . The City Attorney will put all the information together. The City would prefer no court process if possible. VI. NEW BUSINESS Johnson noted that so far there are three items scheduled for 14 Minutes Board of Adjustments and Appeals June 9, 1994 next month. VII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Dye moved that the Board adjourn. Lynch seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9 :50 P.M. BARBVEANXBOAXMIN6-9 • • 15