Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 08/09/1990 APPROVED MENUM BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJLJS-Z=S • UMSDAY, August 9, 1990 7:30 P.M. . City Hall Council Chambers, 7600 Executive Dr. , Eden Prairie, M 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS %LM-MgRS Dwight Harvey (Chairman), Arthur Weeks, Bill Arockiasamy,' Scott L'u:derzo ., Jot,--I Freemyer, Neil Akemann, Mike Bozonie STAFF PRESENT: Steve Durham-Planning, Sharon Storholm,Sec'y BOARD MEIMERS ABSENT: Scott Anderson 1. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7:30 PPL. Roll call was taken as noted above. All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. II. MINUTES OF JULY 12, 1990 ?LOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board approve the minutes of the July meeting as submitted. Bozon!ie seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. �II. VARIANCES A. VARIANCES 90-20 Withdrawn B. VARIANCE 90-22 withdrawn C. VARIANCE 90-23 withdrawn n. Recruest #90-24 , submitted by St. Andrew Lutheran Church for property located at 14100 Valley View Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 Section 11 03 Subdivision 3 H, to permit a narking area without a hard surface City Code requires asphaltic or portland cement Pastor Rod. Anderson appeared to present the variance request. He said that there have been previous presentations to the Planning Commission and City Council on the request. They have been at the present site for 10-11 years, and the congregation is continuing to grow. They have acquired some additional land and would like to • utilize it for parking at the present time. However,they are in the planning process now, and are undecided if they will expand or relocate. Since that decision has not yet been made, they are asking for a temporary variance for a gravel surface for 2 or 3 years. The Planning Commission has passed the request and given approval for 18 months of gravel surface. Since the reason for the gravel surface on a temporary 2 • basis had not been clear, he had written a letter in which the reasons were specifically outlined (the reason: they are in the planning process at this time). If they do not remain at this site, the property may be sold and developed into multiple housing. It would seem unnecessary to put down asphalt,only to have it removed at a later date. Durham stated that the Planning Commission was satisfied with the screening that had been proposed and recommended approval of the request for an eighteen month period. The Council went along with the Planning Commission on the decision. Historically, when churches are expanding, they are allowed to extend the period before hard Surfacing for 3-6-9 months (with a bond). This request is different in that the period of time is much longer. Staff felt uncomfortable with the time element, and so it was brought before the Planning Commission. Multiple housing in the area would require other zoning. Bozonie asked why the parking at the site is insufficient at this time. Anderson answered that on Sunday morning there are three services--they are con- sidering four services. They have six services on Easter Sunday. The busiest traffic days are Rally Day and Mother's Day. They would like to begin construction next week to have the additional parking area by Rally Day. They have considered shuttling and also have tried to acquire adjacent property. Freemyer asked if the request was for 18 month Was there a: committee for this • expansion project? Anderson answered that yes, eighteen months was what was being asked for at this time. They had originally wanted 2-3 years, but the Planning Commission had suggested eighteen months. Yes, there is a committee working on the expansion program. Freemyer asked if a decision could be made in 12 months. Anderson answered that it would be difficult since they would probably have to operate from both sites for a white until the transition is made to the new site. Two or three years would be better. Anderson said that if they did decide to relocate, they would probably sell the church site to another congregation. . ?resently, they would like to get the cars off the street. Freemyer asked if the same problem could come up with another congregation. Anderson answered that it could go either way. Possibly not, if the congregation was smaller and grew to just fill the church. Possibly yes, if growth would go beyond capacity. He explained that an additional problem had been created by the City when they had put in a 24" water main. The parking lot was divided into three different segments. Weeks asked what was meant by phase I and phase II. • 3 • Anderson said that this was suggested so that they could do the smaller, less expensive phase now. He doubted that phase II would ever happen. Weeks asked if more stalls could be obtained in the present lots. Anderson said they have been unable to do that. Weeks asked if the, neighbors were in approval of the plans for gravel. Anderson answered that they had held a reception for the neighbors and interested persons in order to get their input. No one had come to speai: against it. They had also spoken with the neighbors. Durham noted that no one had called in to the City regarding the request. Weeks asked what was meant by temporary. Anderson answered that if they decide to stay at this site, this lot would be used permanently (and finished at that time). They would need to ask for vacation of the streets and water line relocation. It is more likely, however, that they would begin to function in another location. Arockiasamy said he has lived one block from the site since 1971. He is familiar with the area and the traffic and feels that the request would give the church additional time to plan. He would vote in favor of the request. • Akeman asked what constitutes"crushed rock." Would this be visible from Baker Rd? Anderson answered that it would be class five. Durham said that the lot sits higher than Baker Road, but there is screening. Akemann said that a crushed rock surface may be a liability. He asked what the hardship was in this situation--uncertainty is not a hardship. He said he would be opposed. Harvey asked what the cost of the asphalt would be. Anderson said he had not gotten a bid at this time. It is not just a financial issue--it is not good stewardship. Asphalt is not necessary at this time. Harvey said that the additional cost may not be that much after considering the investment in grading and rock. Either asphalt or rock would have to be removed if the property were to be resold. He said he has a problem with the temporary nature of the solution. What will be done differently if the property is not sold and the congregation stays there? Anderson explained some alternatives that would be possible if they stayed on this site. Major re-excavations would need to be done. On September 30, the committee would like to bring before the Church Council a recommendation on • whether or not to move. If that is passed, they could be operating on two sites within two years. 4 Harvey asked about the cost of the crushed lot parking lot. Anderson answered that he did not know that cost alone, as there were other costs included: excavation, seeding, sodding, planting. All together with these items, the cost is near $30,000. Harvey said he had a difficult time with this request. It would set a precedent. There is not sufficient justification to allow this to go beyond. the code guidelines. Anderson said that staff will park at beginning and ends of the rows on the proposed asphalt to guide other cars. In this way they could get good order in the way the cars are parked and define the rows. Without the stripping commonly used on asphalt surfaces, they may not get all 41 cars in the lot that are intended, but will use "center car" signs. Harvey asked how temporary this would be--with possibly nominal additional expense it could be brought up to code. There is a reason for the code--including visual and maintenance reasons. Anderson said that the cost is not a hardship--it is just that in the midst of planning the next expansion, it is not good stewardship to install asphalt and remove it again shortly. Bozonie asked if they had considered spawning the congregation. • Anderson said that would be the decision and work of the national church body. They have considered it. Bozonie asked if the 15 minute time period between services could be increased. How about car pooling? Anderson said they have considered car pooling and brought it up, but is has not been effective. Freemyer said that regarding the cost: Asphalt can be used in granules(as fill ) on the same site. After class five sits for many years, it is not recommended to use it as base. It may need to be retilled--this could mean additional expense down the road. He would consider a shorter time period. Regarding the stewardship matter, he would recommend not putting in the lot at all and using the $30,000 towards some other property. Arockiasamy said it seemed as if he was outnumbered.He felt there may not be much difference in the 12-18 month issue. Is there a temporary hardship? Are the cars on the street a problem? Is there a benefit to get them off the street? This request should be looked at carefully. The areas has gone through much change in rerouting the utilities. They are looking for a time period to sort things out and get the cars off the streets. The hardship is that the City installed utilities which made the parking situation difficult. He felt that the request was valid. • Harvey answered that the issue is what kind of parking lots are allowed in the City. Maybe the installation of the temporary parking lot should be delayed 5 until after September 30 meeting. Precedents would be set if this were granted. • What is unique about this property? Weeks said it is not a big construction project. Asphalt topping is not a great increase in cost. He is concerned on precedent setting and would vote against it. MOTION: Akemann moved that the Board deny Variance Request 90-24 finding a hardship has not been satisfactorily substantiated. Bozon ie seconded the motion and it passed 5-1 with Arockiasamy opposed. E. VARIANCE REQUEST 90-25 Moved to later in the agenda. F. Request #90-26 submitted by Century Bank Limited Partnership for property located at 11455 Viking Drive Eden_ Prairie. Minnesota The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11 Section 11 70 Subdivision 4 B. to permit a around mounted sign 5 ' from a street right-of-way lot line City Code requires a 20 ' setback from a street right-of-way lot line Greg Madsen appeared to present the request. He explained that the reason for the request is that the property line is 35' from the curb of 169. This would place the sign at 55' from the street. They would like to have a visible, pleasing sign. He indicated the site on the map for the sign that was under consideration. • Harvey asked if a retaining wall would be built 5' from the property line. Mattson answered yes, it would. Durham confirmed that a retaining wall can be built at the site. The site is zoned C regional service. Code allows for free standing or ground mounted signs. They have chosen the monument sing. It could be raised up to 20' (as an alternative). There is a 20' setback. .Madsen said that they would like prominence, but do not wish to block the building. Akemann asked if there was an additional pylon sign. Arockiasamy asked if they were going to install both signs. .Madsen answered that the pylon sign was not shown on the site. Yes, they would like to install both signs if possible. Durham said that the pylon sign would require another variance if the applicant installed it as shown. Madsen said that 55' is too far away to be visible. They are under the sa. ft. alhtmentfor signs. The purpose of the monument sign is to identify the building. The pylon sign is to identify the tenants. • Weeks asked about the elevation of the roadway. 6 Durham answered that the roadway is 910' . The parking lot is 9061 . The sign • location is 9081 . Weeks said that he does not understand the visibility problem. There is a building ,sign. Madsen said that the building sign attracts people from a distance. The ground sign attracts people in the immediate area. The sign would be masonry (red-brown brick) and would be front lit. Weeks said that the sign could be raised and increased in size. Freemyer said that is it uncertain what MST DOT will do in the future (regarding the 20' setback). . Durham said that the roadway is as it will be for the forseeable future. Akemann said the hardship could be the property line and the curb distance--but maybe it is a common distance to other properties in the area. Bozonie said he was not in favor of signs that varied from code. Arockiasamy said he was confused on the possibility of two variance requests. Before long, they could be looking at a second request. Could they be combined or continued so they could be considered at the same time? Durham said a loose agreement was developed when the Marriott was proposed for • this area. Harvey asked if the total signage was within code. Durham answered that it was. Madsen said that the original approval plans showed pylon signage at the location they are indicating. They had assumed that is was approved, but it was not. Durham said that if the request was continued, it could be all brought together at the September 13 meeting. The application would need to be in by tomorrow. Madsen said he would like a continuance. Harvey said that the purpose of the signs would need to be explained. Arockiasamy asked if it would be possible to combine two signs to accomplish the same purpose--or--why not? Harvey said a hardship needed to be identified. Why is this property different? Akemann asked if the variance could go with the use or ownership of the land. Freemyer said the degree of variance is considered. This varies in excess of 100%. Possibly it could be brought closer to code. 7 • MOTION: Freemyer moved that Variance Request 90-26 be continued to the next meeting. Arockiasamy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. E. Request #90-25 submitted by William S. Reiling for property located west of Highway 4169 east of the Columbine Road/Garden Lane intersection Eden Prairie Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11, Section 11 03 Subdivision 3 H to permit parking 10 ' from a front lot line on a street frontage City Code requires a parking setback of 17. 5 ' in the Office Zoning District when there are two street frontages. Durham represented the applicant for the request, since no one was present from the postal department. He said the site was on 169 north of Anderson Lakes Center. On June 25, the Planning Commission had reviewed the request and recommend approval. On July 17, the Council had approved the request. A variance for parking is being requested. This -would involve eight stalls adjacent to 169. There is a large right of way there. The required set back should be 17.51and the applicant is requesting 10' . The Staff has worked with the postal service and feels that this is the best solution. Bozonie asked about parking for compact cars only. • Durham said that there are no provisions for compact parking in Eden Prairie. Akemann asked what hardships or alternatives there were. Durham said they are proposing an expansion area and those spaces may eventually be removed. Then, other future parking would meet code. Bozonie asked if it could be backed up a couple of feet. Harvey quoted from the packet" Compliance is not legally mandated." Durham noted that the fence will be 6' high with plant material. Freemyer said he did not think this variance was necessary. Durham said if there were another option, they would not have applied.Staff has worked with the applicant. Harvey noted that the plan was prepared by a federal employee. Durham cited two other instances that were similar: One on Hwy 212 and the other on Valley View Rd. Other such variances have been granted. The right of way is 751 . Harvey noted that the Board has no control in this instance. Elevation or final building plans have not been submitted. However, the post office has done more • than they normally do. 8 • Arockiasamy said that Staff has worked with the applicant, and even though the Board does not find hardship to it's satisfaction, to deny the request may jeopardize the good relationship between the City and the postal service. They have had a hard time finding a suitable location and the variance is small. Freemyer agreed with Arockiasamy, but said that trade off should be stated: berms, fencing, screening, vegetation. Hardship could be stated as :the parcel would be larger if it were not for the large right of way. Harvey noted that considering the total parking spaces of 100, only 6 would be granted a variance. There may be enough mitigating facts so there will be no need to identify a hardship. MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board approve Variance Request 90-25. Although there is no specific hardship, the Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed and approved the site plan. The mitigating factor between the parking stalls and 169 road bed is 75+ or - feet. A 6' fence will be installed for screening and the parking from Hwy 169. Since the post office has agreed to do the things suggested by Staff, and because of the supremacy of the postal department, this variance should be granted. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV. OLD BUSINESS • Harvey asked about the moving of the home in Eden Prairie (Request 90-13) Durham answered that the applicant was written a letter today. This had just been approved in mid-July by the Army Corps of Engineers. Also, the moving of trees was a factor. Harvey asked about the status of the Pan request/denial. Durham answered that nothing more had been done. The denial stands. Durham reviewed the agenda for September. V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Bozonie moved that the Board adjourn. Freemyer seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:38 PM.