Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 08/10/1989 APPROVED MINUTES . BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTME`*1TS THURSDAY, August 10, 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 Akerlann STAFF PRESENT: Steve Durham-Planning,Sharon Swenson-See'r BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Bozonie, Anderson, Longman I. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF A=TANCE S Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Roll Call: Harvey, Arockiasamy, Freemyer, Akemann All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. II. MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 1989 • It was decided to move the approval of the minutes of the end of the agenda.(See page A) III. VARIANCES A. Request #89-23, submitted by DPC of Milwaukee, Inc. for property located at 6251 Bury Drive, Eden Prairie. Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Subdivision 3, H, 5, to permit a 30' front yard ark ing setback. City Codes requires a 50' front yard parking setback. Wi_the r_awn R. Request #89-34, submitted by Kuo and Min-Chih Chang for property located at 16952 Weston Bar Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, legally described as Lot 10, Block 1, Weston Bay. The request is for a variance from City Code, Cha tamer_ 1� Section 11.50, Subdivision 6, B, to ermit a deck addition I40' from the ordinary high water mark of Mitchell Lake. City code requires 150' . Withdrawn C. Request #89-37, submitted �y James and Pauline Borucki for property located at 6517 Rowland Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, legally described as Lot 5, Block 2, Carmel Addition. The re west is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 1, Section 1�.02, Subdivision 2, • B, = to R2.rmit proposed arcel B of�2,71-7 square feet. City Code requires 13,500 square feet in the R1-13.5 Zoning District. (2) to permit the existinq structure 17.0' from the front lot line. City Code requires a 30' front yard setback. 3 to permit ro osed tract B with an average lot width of 77' . City Code re wires 88' — — 2 • Harvey noted the variance called for three separate items concerning, lot size, lot width, and setback. Borucki stated that the Board had suggested the replating of the lot to meet code and submission of only one variance request. This had been done and the request is now for one variance--front yard setback of 17' . Durham noted that the plat submitted does meet code. The only variance now being requested is for a front yard setback. The plating of the property will now go to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Ed Sieber came forward and referred to the letter he had presented to the Board. He requested that the variance be denied. His reasons were as follows: 1. The Carmel Subdivision had been approved only five years ago after expensive study and reviewal. There are 87 homes and 65 acres plus a park, which yields a density of 1.388 homes per acre. If this were approved, the density would rise to 3.226 homes per acre on lots A & B. 2. Traffic on Rowland Road is heavy now--Seiber estimates a traffic count of easily 1,000 cars per day. 3. The safety factor: Eastbound traffic does not have over 150-200 feet of visibility, and westbound traffic had limited visibility plus several other entries. 4. Regarding the possibility of a hardship if Rowland is expanded to serve the park: • He had spoken to the Engineering Department and there are no plans-yet to do so. When a plan is laid out, an assessment method fair to all will be laid out. Harvey noted that now all three lots conform to code. The only variance is for a setback on an existing structure. He understood Sieber's concerns, but added that one variance only was being considered-The hardship the Board needs to deal with is the house being 17' from the existing road. He felt Seiber's comments were relative to the subdivision process rather than this variance. Durham noted that when the lot was plated, there was no variance granted for this house being within the 30 front yard setback. It would validate the matter for the City Records and the owner if the variance were approved. It would bring non- conforming property into conformance. POTION Freemyer moved that the Board approve variance request 89-37 to permit the existing structure 17' from the front lot line. Items 1 and 3, dealing with lot size and lot width are to be deleted. The hardships demonstrated for the variance on item 2 ane that the home is existing, the use is non-conforming, and there is no other viable solution. Arockiasamy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. D• Request #89-39, submitted by Alex Dorenkemper for property located at 18390 Dell Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The re uest is for an interpretation and/or variance from City Code, Cha ter 11, (1 To determine if the existing garage on the existing house is considered an accessory structure requirinq a minimum side and setback of 10' from a side lot line. 2 City Code section 11.03 subdivision 26 if the garage is determined not to be an accessory structure, to permit Thouse 10' from the proposed side lot 3 line. City Code requires 15' in the R1-22 Zoning District. JL To permit • ro osed Lot 2, lock B Crestwoodd 89 at 1.36 acres. City Code requires 10 acres in the Rural Zoning District. n To ermit an average lot width of 202' . ijty Code re u�res 300' . 5 To ermit an average lot depth of 296' , City Code re uires 300' . — — — Alex Dorenkemper came forward to state that he concurs with the Planning Commission and Staff recommendations. He was in full compliance with the setback when the house was constructed. Durham noted that in 1973 (when the 1969 ordinance was in effect) all homes in R1-22 with attached garages required a 15' side yard. If the garage was detached, 10' was acceptable. The ordinance may have been interpreted differently for this particular case in 1973. Harvey said he felt the garage was not an incidental use of the main structure.It is part of the principal structure. Since it is not an accessory structure, the Board must consider the remainder of the variances. An alternate solution that can be considered is to purchase 5' from the adjacent outlot, however, he felt that this would be a heavy penalty for one who had been a resident since 1973. MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board approve the request, items 2-5 only, and that the following Staff recommendations be included: Staff would recommend approval of variance request #89-39 excluding request • #1. The positive recommendation is based on the following (1) Planning Commission review and approval, (2) to facilitate clearing of an existing title problem, (3) the developer shall enter into a land hold agreement which stipulates that no building permit will be issued for proposed Lot 2 until public sewer and water is extended to serve the property, and (4) contingent upon City Council approval . Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. E. Re uest #89-40, submitted �j Cliff and Mary Anderson for property located at 14960 Ridge Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The re uest is for a variance from City Code, Cha ter l�ection 11.03, Subdivision 2, 8, to permit an existing home 28' from the front lot line. City Code requires a 30' front Yard setback in the R1-22 Zoninq District. Bob Smith, representing Cliff and Mary Anderson appeared to present the variance. He presented a drawing to illustrate the area. It is a site comprised of 2.17 acres, and they would like to make it into three lots.The existing home had been on the site since 1964 and the setback will not meet code if the lots are divided. Durham said the home was built in 1964. It would be too close to the lot line by 2' . • MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board approve Variance request 89-40 submitted by Cliff and Mary Anderson with the finding that the variance was not created by the plating of the property. Akemann seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 4 • F. Request #89-41, submitted by Eden Prairie Assembly of God for property located a 6 91 Duck Lake Trail , Eden Prairie, Minnesota, legally described as: See Reverse Side. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter, Section IT.03, Subdivision 3, K, to Rtrmit a building addition in a Public Zoning District with 1OOq wood exterior siding. City Code does not permit more than 25% wood exterior siding in the Public Zoning District. Withdrawn G. VARIANCE REQUEST 89-42 Postponed for 10 minutes in order to adhere to the scheduled time. It was decided to go to the approval of the MINUTES OF JUNE 27 and JULY 13 L II. MINUTES OF JUNE 27 and JULY 13 MOTION: Akemann moved that the Board approve the minutes of the June 27, 1989 Joint meeting of the Board of Appeals and City Council. Arockiasamy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Akemann noted that on page 2 of the minutes for July 13, the square footage in the motion should be 22,000. On page 6, the lots mention tioned in the • second paragraph should be lots A and B (not lot C). On page 9, the first motion passed 4-1. Harvey noted that on page 14 would like the minutes to clearly state that the applicant would be granted one original sign and one additional sign for the entire 150 acres. MOTION: Akemann moved that the Board approve the minutes of the July 13 meeting with the corrections as noted above. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed 3-0 with Arockiasamy abstaining. G. Variance Request #89-42, submitted !y Marcus Corporation for property located at 7808 Eden Prairie Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Subdivision 2, B TU To permit a lot size of .95 acres. City Code requires _ acres in the C-Comm Zoning District. (2) To -permit an average lot width of 165' , City Code requires 3001 . 3) To permit an average lot depth of 245' , City Code requires 300' Mark Senn appeared to represent Marcus Corporation. He explained that this variance request deals with lot size. A funeral home typically is used as a transitional use between commercial and residential. The structure will consist of 5,700 square feet. The proposal has gone through the Planning Commission and the City Council for review. It more than meets most all of the other requirements in the other areas. There havebeen some minor • modifications such as additional landscaping. Durham noted that the Planning Commission had first reviewed this item, and they had denied it. Then, it went to the City Council and it had been approved. 5 • Harvey asked how many feet were on the west side and the south side from the homes to the funeral home. Senn and Durham answered that on the west the distance was 1401 . On the south, the distance was 75-80 feet. Harvey asked if the landscaping plan on the south side had been approved. Senn noted that 6 additional trees have been added over and above what had been approved by the Council. Harvey asked how much of Elim Shores was visible from the funeral home. Senn answered that they had two barriers for screening. There is an existing barrier of deciduous trees and they would plant an additional barrier of 8-12 foot spruce trees. There is a berm already on the site which would be retained. Only the top portion of the Twin Homes can be seen from the funeral home site. Harvey asked where in Eden Prairie there was guided community commercial property- Durham indicated several sites that were guided community commercial. Freemyer felt that if this request were granted, it would create another parking lot problem. The funeral home itself is not an issue, but there • would be too much development for the site. Akemann was concerned that if and when funeral procession came from the funeral home, how would the intersection of Rd 4 & 5 be affected. Senn answered that the only curb cut would be atTerrey Pine Dr. He noted that funeral processions usually originate from churches, and only occassionally from funeral homes. When that does happen, they are .police escorted and would proceed to the south. The facility is not designed for expansion. There are 50-60 parking spaces and he could see no problem. If needed, additional parking spaces can be leased from the office buildings across the street. Akemann had questions concerning REgional Commercial or Community Commercial. Durham answered that C Regional Service Zoning requires lot sizes of 10,000 square feet or above. The zoning plan specifies that. Community Commercial sites, such as Anderson Lake Shopping Center and the Northwest Racquet Club serve more of the community �;� must have 5 acres. Neighborhood Commercial would refer to areas such as scrip centers. Senn noted that most communities allow funeral homes in any zone through special use permits. Arockiasamy asked about the seating in the proposed facility. . Senn noted that the facility is designed to meet the leasee's needs for now and in the future. Arockiasamy asked what would be done if there were more present in the funeral home than the proposed 100 seats could handle. 6 • Senn noted that most funerals are held in churches, and some of the smaller ones are held in the funeral home. Visitors to the funeral home typically come over a period of time. He felt there would be few times that the home would need to accomodate 100 people. Arockiasamy said the Board was not here to debate if the funeral home use was appropriate, just to consider the variance. Harvey noted that this was a site of less than one acre in an area that required 5 acres for such a use. This has been guided and zoned 2.5 since 1969. Although guide plans can be changed, the residents of the City have a right to expect it won't easily be changed. This would be a 500% variance and would set a precedent. Senn said that the area was originally single family residential when the home was built in 1930. The hone cannot be rented because of the location on a busy intersection. They had held a neighborhood meeting and they indicated that they did not want multi-family, commercial or office on the site. The applicant is trying to find a way to use the property. The idea that had been accepted the most by the neighbors had been a funeral home. A precedent has already been set in the area when the flower shop on the north side of highway 5 was opened. Harvey commented on the future expansion probabilities. He noted that Senn had predicted 75 deaths a year in Eden Prairie, and although this may be • the case now, the average age of residents is in the 40's. As this population grows older, that number will change. Nancy Soman of Elim, Shores appeared and expressed her concerns on the size of the lot. She noted that it was less than one acre when 5 acres were required. There is no room for expansion. 3-br each o f the possible 75 funerals each year, there will be at least 2 days use of the home. Not all will be in an orderly sequence--sometimes there will be more than one _funeral at the same time. Even if one has good intentions of scheduling visitations at the home, the needs of the family would have to be net. Many are requesting earlier times for visitation so those who cone from work can stop on their way home. Regarding the screening issue, there was an architect present to explain their concerns. George Watson (architect) came forward and showed a sketch indicating the site lines to the home from Elim Shores. Screening of 8' would be needed to screen the first floor, 11' to screen the second floor, and 14' to screen the third floor. An 3' spruce barrier would mean 50% opacity because of the cone shape of the trees. He noted that the landscaping materials at Elim Shores were adjacent to the structure, and not on the property line. Michael Peterson (lawyer) representing Elim Shores came forward and stated that the hardship is on the proponent to prove the variance is appropriate. If strict enforcement would cause undue hardship, variances could be granted, but there is no undue hardship here. • Darrell Westling of Assured Performance, a marketing firm for Elim Shores, came forward. He said they wished to establish a policy that would give the residents of Elim Shores the best home possible. He does not feel that a funeral home would be a good choice to have next door. 7 Harvey said that the land use issue cannot be addressed--only the variance. Freemyer asked if the variance were to pass, what would the hardship be? Ile could see that the development that has taken place around the property is an issue. Akemann said it would be a hardship created by zoning changes. Arockiasamy felt it could be difficult to find appropriate use for this type of property without disturbing the neighborhood. If it were a 5 acre site, the facility would be much larger with more parking and more rise. This situation seems reasonable to him. Ile added that this type of situation will come up more and more often. Each situation must be looked at separately. Some of the statutes need to be bent, it is not all set in stone. The neighbors have already expressed that they do not want multiple residential there.If the owner has difficulty in developing the site as RM-2.5, isn't that a hardship? Freemyer said the owner can still go to the Council and pursue development as RN 2.5. This is a busy intersection and anything will have impact. Akemann noted that the building was attractive and the funeral home would be beneficial, but better alternatives are available. Too much is being suggested for the property and the variances requested require a substantial variation from the code. There should be a better use than this for the property. Freemyer noted that the Planning Commission did vote this down on the basis • of C Regional Service versus Community Commercial. Harvey asked,�f, when the Council concluded it was a Community Commercial use, they were aware of the magnitude of the variance? Durham said they were aware of that, and felt the use was appropriate. Arockiasamv said he could not vote to deny the variance. He would like to hear more from Mr. Senn. Mr Senn came forward once again and stated that other alternatives have been explored and none were interested in the site for two reasons: 1. Lot size 2. The corner was too busy for residential use. It will be commercial or industrial property on that site. They had been researching and looking for solutions for this site for 12 years. There had been traffic studies and neighborhood meetings. The only opposition was Elim Shores. Regarding the regional commercial issue: the area is already that now--Super America, Burger King, etc. The people who own the funeral home will live in the home-- it will be attached. The property is now guided community commercial. They need a second reading on the rezoning and plat. Akemann felt it was an excessive variance and he was not in favor. Harvey felt it was an over-use of the property. • Soman noted that there were residents of the area who opposed the proposal and had attended the neighborhood meeting. There had been an inquiry made into the purchase of the property. They at Elim Shores were never notified of the neighborhood meeting. 8 • Arockiasamy asked what other possibilities were available for the property. Durham answered office & commercial would be the two most appropriate uses. Akemann asked if one of those two uses came into being, would variances still be needed? Durham answered if commercial was the use, variances would be needed. For office use, 20,000 square feet was the minimtmi. MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board deny variance request 89-42 based on the fact that no hardship was demonstrated. There are other adequate uses available that would not require variances to the impact of these variances. Akemann seconded the motion and it passed 3-1 with Arockiasamy voting nay. IV.OLD BUSINESS None V. NEW BUSINESS A. Sign face memo, dated Julv 10, 1989 Durham explained that a possible draft change could be expected for the • Board's review and comments in the near future regarding an amendment to the City's Sign Code regulations which limits the double faced signs to no more than 12". Staff is recommending increasing this distance to 18" to give property owners more flexibility in designing internal sign lighting sources and simplifying maintenance. Akeamnn was opposed to the increase as he felt it would only encourage requests for more than 18". Durham noted that the Board could be strict in this area, as an increase would have already been made to 18". Harvey noted that the 18" width would eliminate ghosting. Akemann asked that the Staff provide him with a listing of three signs presently in use that have ghosting and three signs presently in use that do not have ghosting. Akemann felt that there should also be an ordinance restricting the number of residential garage stalls to three or less. Durham noted that code presently states 4 stalls can be allowed. Harvey felt the dock issue should be addressed. Freemyer felt the shore line issue should be discussed. Akemann said some discussion should be given to the issue of when things are brought to the Board of Appeals. Freemyer noted that the City Council needs to work on the same criteria that the Board does. 9 Arockiasamy noted that what was discussed at the Joint Meeting was intended to give the Board feedback on why decisions were overturned. The note in the packet at this meeting (August 10) did not give that information on the Freeburg variance. Ike would like this information in the future. Durham noted that Variance REquest 89-36 (Kuyper) for a deck variance is being appealed to the Council. Harvey stated that the Council should tell the Board why decisions are overturned and a representative of the Board of Appeals should be present when these issues are discussed at Council Meetings. Durham noted that the Council gets complete minutes of the Board of Appeals meetings. Arockiasamy said the Board would like to be advised of why the Council overturned the decisions of the Board. Freemyer said he would like to attend meetings of the Council when decisions of the Board are being discussed. VI. ADJOLMI TI,=j MOTIOIT: Arocr.iasamy moved that the Board adjourn. Freemyer seconded • the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Meeting, Adjourned at 10:10 P.M.