Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 11/09/1989 APPROM BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THMSDAY, November 9, 1989 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers, 7600 Executive Dr. , Eden Prairie, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Steve Longman (Chairman), Bill Arockiasamy, Michael Bozonie, Dwight Harvey, Scott Anderson, John Freemyer, Neil Akeriann STAFF PRESENT; Jean Johnson Swenson-Sec BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: n e Steve Longman I. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEC,LANCE Acting Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Roll Call: Anderson, Arockiasamy, Bozonie, Harvey, Akemann, Freemyer All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. II. AIINLTCES OF OCTOBFR 12 1989 MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve the minutes of October 12, 1989 • as submitted. Akemann seconded the motion and it passed unanimously with Arockiasamy abstaining. III. VARIANCES A. Req #89-51, submitted by Transtar Development for property located at 9969 Ben_. ett OPlace, Eden Prairie,'Minnesota. The re best is for a variance from Ct Code, Cha ter 11, Section 11.03, Subdivision 2B, To ermit roposed Lot 3, Block 1 Moorhead Addition with a lot width of 75' at the street. C Code re uires 85' . 2 To ermit ro osed Lot 4, Block 1, Moorhead Addition with a lot width of 15' at the street. City Code re uires 85'— - - Peter Knaeble appeared to represent Transtar Development in presenting the variance request. He explained that there were two variances in the request. The City Council has already approved the request. City Staff felt the variances are appropriate and meet the interest of City Code. He added that the variance for Lot 4 will be eliminated eventually when development takes place. Johnson said that she would recommend that a condition be added that required that Lot 4 have an address marker clearly positioned on Bennett Place for identification purposes. Bozonie had questions concerning the S.E. corner of lot 4. • Knaeble said that a sliver of land there would be donated for future needs of the Citv. Akemann asked about the width of the driveway to lot 4. He questioned where cars will park when there are several at the home. 2 • Knaeble answered that the width was 121 . The front of the lot is flat and he felt that area could be utilized for parking if necessary. MOTION: Akemann moved that the Board approve Variance request 89-51 on the following findings: 1. A hardship exists on the development of this property. 2. The variances will be eliminated when surrounding homes are developed. 3. A turn around would be installed for Lot 4 when home is constructed. 4. Address marker will be installed for Lot 4 on Bennett Place. 5. Additional right of way at the S.E. corner will be part of the Johnson plat. Arockiasamy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. B. Request #89-52, submitted by Church of the Jubilee for property located at 6500 Baker-Road.-Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Subdivision 3K to permit a building addition with I_JIo stucco. City Code does not permit more than 25% stucco in the Public Zoning District. Michael Buettner appeared to present the variance request for Church of the Jubilee. He noted that the location was one half mile south of Baker Road and Highway 62. Access is from Baker Road. The congregation needs additional teen and classroom • space. The addition will consist of an additional 3,150 square feet which will include a large teen room, two additional classrooms and a prayer room. They are proposing 75% stucco and and 25% split face concrete block.The existing structure is 60% dryvit and 40% split face concrete block. The new addition will have the same roof, shingles and windows as the existing structure. Roger Davis, Pastor of Church of the Jubilee, came forward and noted that there had been some concern for off site glare from the parking lot. They had tried to remedy this problem and are in the process of manufacturing shielcb for the lights on the building. He had spoken with NSP and they had come and turned down the parking lot lights and installed shields for them. At this time they are waiting for a site inspection. They are open to discussion on the request. Johnson noted a letter from Mitch Wason who was concerned with light glare and the possibility that the improvements on the site would interfere with the flood plain. The fence on the ball field is partially on City property, Johnson continued. She did not feel this was a significant factor and the flood plain was referred to the Watershed District in 1987 and they have not heard any negative comments from them. She feels the situation is acceptable with the Watershed District. Harvey asked if the parking lot was on the flood plain. Davis said he felt it was farther to the south west. • Harvey suggested that an easement be given by the City for the use of the part of the ballfield that is on City property. Johnson said she felt the motion should state that all off-site glare will be dealt with. 3 Johnson noted that the Planning Commission has approved the request and the Council will consider it on the 21st of November. Glass is acceptable building material and rock face block is acceptable trim. At the present the request is 32% acceptable materials and it should be 75% acceptable. Accent material should be 25% and the church is asking for 68%. Bozonie asked if parking would be adequate with the expansion. Johnson answered that it was adequate. Freemyer said he would like the hardship issue defined. Buettner answered that the church would like to relate the structure to the existing building. The existing building consists mostly of dryvit and concrete block. He realizes that the porportions are greater than current code allows, but the stucco looks most like the existing structure and would tie the two together. Johnson said that dryvit is not acceptable material now, but it was in 1977 when the existing building was built. Arockiasamy felt that dryvit was unacceptable as it breaks up and stains. Stucco is no better-it will crack also. He could see a hardship in that they are trying to relate to the existing building, but his concerns were how it would look in the future. Buettner noted that they had placed a base on the building to help with durability. • Arockiasamy felt a better ratio of stucco to split face was needed. Anderson agreed with Arockiasamy concerning the problems of stucco. The only buildings he had ever encountered problems with were constructed of dryvit or stucco. There is the possibility that in the future, there would be requests for more additions and the problem would come up again. Maybe this is the time to break away and make the entire facility look better. Maybe brick would be the way to go now and lessen some of the maintenance problems in the future. Davis said it was not necessarily an economic problem, but they would like the addition to look like the existing building. Anderson suggested brick in this addition and also phase 3. Harvey suggested the addition of glass to the structure, or brick t'o improve the looks of the building and bring it closer to code. A savings can be realized if the church buys the materials instead of the builder. Up to this point in the discussion, he felt there was not much support for the ratio of unacceptable materials. Davis said he would be willing to do it with split face block or brick, but they would like it to be compatible with the existing structure. Anderson suggested more pole lights in the parking lot instead of on the building. • Akemann asked if there was a building permit issued. Johnson answered that an early grading permit was issued. 4 • Akemann said he was not in favor of the request as presented. The site had been in disrepair until this church bought the building. It is a possibility that the Board may be asked again to grant the use of non-conforming materials on this property. If compromises were made, he could grant the variance. No hardship can be seen other than aesthetic. He added that he felt there should be more windows. Buettner said the building was originally designed for a gymnasium-so there were few windows. Harvey felt the hardship was that the building existed prior to code. In spite of that hardship, most members seem to feel that the current ratio is unacceptable. There are options: 1. Press for the present requests. 2. Continue to the next meeting for another proposal 3. Get some ideas from the Board of what would be acceptable. Davis said he felt they should withdraw the request and make the effort to meet City code as far as materials used in construction. Bozonie said if the proposal is continued, they can still meet City code and may never need to come back to the Board. Another option is to try to find a compromise and bring that proposal back next month. Harvey noted that the Board is looking at the matter from a . e point of view. He felt that the applicant should try to minimize theluse nofcunacceptable material as much as possible. Davis said that they had hoped to go before the Council for final approval in Nov. Arockiasamy suggested that the Board give the Church some guidelines or limits to help .them keep in the time frame. He would suggest the 40% range. Akemann said that the request could be withdrawn and a permit obtained per code. Later, they could come back and ask for modifications. Harvey felt a continuance is probably the best option. He could see a hardship, but felt a look should be taken at the existing structure to try to make it look better. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board continue variance request 89-52 to the December 14 meeting. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV. OLD BUSINESS Johnson noted that the variance request 89-46 for a swimming pool setback on Village Woods Drive had been withdrawn. V. NEW BUSINESS • *Bozonie was excused from the meeting. Johnson noted the zoning bulletin information included in the packet. 5 • Discussion of Variance Request 89-43 Jim Sackrison of Beltline Construction appeared before the Board and explained that he and Mr. Jack Hulbert were recently at a meeting of the Board regarding variances for property owned by Mr. Hulbert in the industrial district. Since that time, PIr. Hulbert has asked for another change--he would like a 11'4" by 23' area for a pick up truck. Johnson noted that Hulbert would like to get an indication of how the Board feels on this additional request and if it is favorable, it will be published for the next meeting. Harvey said that the Board had previously been concerned for snow storage and now that area is being used (if this were to be granted). Freemyer felt that Hulbert should file again and come before the Board. Sackri-son quoted from a letter by Hulbert: City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Mn 55344 Attn: Building Inspector • We have talked with Chris Engler in regards to additions variences, he says he would be required to complete Building in accordance with submitted plans. We would like to proceed with plans as submitted, but would not hold the City of Eden Prairie liable should the Variance Board not approve said changes. As to the following: 1114" x 23' Additional garage space on South Eastern corner of new addition 4' 6" x 15' Addition of Garage Area Both of same as denoted in attached print of shaded areas. in erely, Jack L. Hulbert CC: Chris Engler Steve Durham • Anderson said he would not give an indication this evening. He felt it result in pressure next month, g would only • Akemann felt the same and would not give an indication this evening. Arockiasamy felt there had already been concessions by the Board and was opposed. Harvey said he was opposed. Freemyer had no comment. Vi. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board adjourn. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:55 P.M. •