Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 10/12/1989 APPROM MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, October 12, 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 Akermm STAFF PRESENT: Steve Durham-Planning,Sharon Swenson-See'rr BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Arockiasamy, Bozonie 1. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Longman called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Poll Call: Anderson, Longman, Harvey, Freemyer, Akemann (arrived at 7:35) All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance II. MINUTES OF SEPTEPIBER 14, 1989 MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve the minutes of September 14, 1989 as submitted. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. III. VARIANCES A• Request #89-47, submitted �X U.S. West Communications for property located at 7825 Fuller Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter_ 11,, Section 1 .03, Subdivision 2B� -T To ermit an existing building 44.7T5' from the front lot line of Fuller Road City Code requires a 50' setback, 2i To permit an existing parking loth—from Fuller Road. City Code requires 25' A representative of U.S. West Communications appeared to present the variance request. He explained that they were asking; for a 44.75' sethack from the front lot line for an existing building. Current code requires 50' setback. The second part of the request was to permit an existin; parking lot 11' from Fuller Road. The City code requires 25' .He explained that Fuller Road is being realigned and they will be adding additional landscaping and shrubs. Johnson noted the building addition conforms to City Code requirements of setback, materials, and landscaping. Akemann asked when the landscaping would be done. The U.S. West representative answered that it will be done this fall or next spring. MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board approve variance request 89-47 as submitted. The variances requested are appropriate for the site due to the property acquisition for improving State Hwy 5 and Fuller Road. This approval is granted with the following conditions: 2 Condition: Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent shall submit a revised landscaping plan which includes additional • evergreens for the screening of the trash area, and additional shrubbery to screen the mecahnical equipment on the east side of the building and to screen the parking from Fuller Road on the west side of the building. This is a Planning Commission recommendation. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed 4-0 with Anderson abstaining. B. Request #89-48, submitted by_ Hustad Development for property located west of Bennett Place, north of Bluestem Hills 4th Addition, Eden Prairie Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter �33 Section 11.03, Subdivision 2B� to ermit proposed Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 of Bluffs West 8th Addition with lot frontages on a up blic street of 20' . City Code re uires 85' of lot frontage. Mary McCauley of Hustad Development Company appeared to present the variance request. She explained that the request was for two flag lots. One lot would be accessed through Bluestem and the other through Bennett. Their desire was to save as much vegetation as possible. Johnson said that the Staff had looked at a cul-de-sac for the area and determined that other alternatives would have caused a lot of grading and removal of trees. She did add thatthere was a concern for identification of the lots and felt that identification signs should be placed on the roadways. • Freemyer agreed that this option would save trees and natural topography. Akemann asked how long the property had been an outlot. McCauley was unsure, but Knaeble answered that the lot was part of Bluffs of West 7th. Johnson said that the City has been looking at a road system that would serve all these little parcels. MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve variance request 89-48 with the following finding: The variances lessen environmental impacts on the site preserving trees and eliminating excessive grading versus installation of a cul-de-sac. Condition: Proposed lots 1 and 2 shall have address markings at street entrance for Public Safety identification. The hardship cited was that by granting this variance, the existing topography and mature trees would be saved. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. C. Request #89-49, submitted by Transtar Development Corporation for property located west of Bennett Place, south of Creekridge Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Subdivision 2B, to permit proposed Lots 7 and 8 Block 1 of Ty- thernett A ition with lot frontages on a public street o �0'-- Code requires 5�' of lot frontage on a cul-de-sac. • Peter Knaeble appeared for Transtar Development to present the variance request. He noted that the parcel in question was a 42 acre piece. The project had been approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. He felt this option was the best way to get to the property (flag lots) as there would be only a 30% loss of trees as opposed to 60%if other methods were to be used. 3 • Johnson noted that many trees will be saved by granting this variance and she would also recommend identification signs be place at the roadway. MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board. approve variance request 89-49 with the following finding: The variances lessen negative environmental impact on the site preserving trees and eliminating excessive grading. Condition: Proposed lots 7 and 8 shall have address markings at street entrance for public safety identification. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. It was decided to move to agenda item OLD BUSINESS since the proponent for 8 PM had not arrived for the next variance request. IV. OLD BUSINESS Johnson noted that A & J Enterprises, who had received a variance request at the September meeting, had called her and requested another 20' by 12' addition. The Board felt this request was in keeping with the original motion. V. NEW BUSINESS Discussion took place on the Review of Building Height in the Major Center area. The Board felt they would like to keep it at 30' and look at exceptions separately. • III. VARIANCES (continued) Request #89-50, submitted by MR-USHOT for property located south of Highway #5, west of Mitchell La den�rairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section tom, Subdivision 2B, LT—To permit lot frontages on a public street less than the minimum required Code as identified on submitted plans. City Code .requires- 85' of frontage on a street, 00' of frontage on corner lots,, and 55' of frontage on cul-de-sacs. 2 to ermit minimum lot sizes less than 40,000 square feet as identified on submitted plans. Shoreland code requires a minimun of 40 000 s uare feet for lots within 150' o� f the Ordinary High Water Mark. 3 To permit a width at the building line less than 150' as identified in submitted plans. Shoreland code requires—5' width at the building line. il To permit a lot width at the Ordinary High Water Mark less than 150' as identified on submitted Plans. Shoreland code requires a lot width at the Ordinary High Water Mark of 150' . 5)TToRep rmit a building setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark less than 51 0' as identified on submitted Plans. Shoreland code requires a 150' building setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark. Lee Johnson, Senior vice President of U S Home Corporation, appeared to present the variance request. He explained that U S Home Corporation was one half of a partner- ship which comprises MR USHOT. The parcel in question was located near Hwy 5 and Mitchell Lake. It consists of 94 acres total.There will be two circulations on the property. Berming and grading are required to meet noise control regulations. • The total lots are 174 and the topography is high on one end and falls down. There are wooded areas on the perimeter. According to the tree policy, there are 4 areas of measurable trees. The property was purchased in 1984 and a number of plating schemes have been considered. He realizes that lakeshore area is sensitive and he is trying to please both the homeowners and the City.There were some previous proposals 4 . that were not sensitive enough to the lakeshore area and they had gone back to the drawing board and eventually had come up with this proposal. Two lots do not have 100' frontages on the side street, but they do have more than 100' on the cul-de-sac where they will front. There are three lots on the peninsula which will share driveways. The width at the building line would be: 1. Lakeshore lots: 120' 2. Second tier of lots: 100' 3. Third tier of lots: 90' The hardship was based on the configuration of the pond and the topography of the area as well as the layout of the road. Their goal was to meet the intent of the shoreline regulations. The south perimeter has a 100' band for park land. The development can be done with no variances, but there would be no park land and more tree removal. Johnson said that the Planning Commission and Staff felt that the park land was beneficial to the City. The lots sizes do appear adequate. She noted the condition that future variances should not be permitted unless they meet code or conditions of Variance request 89-50. Anderson said that when new developments are under consideration, and have been approved by the Commission and/or the Council, he felt that .the Board most'likeiy can follow. He did feel that a sentence stating that no more variances be allowed for the lakeshore lots be included in the covenants and agreements. • L Johrsonsaidthat this could be put in the covenants and agreements. Johnson said that the building pads are done on a schematic design and seem to be adequate. There are no variances associated with the pond. L Johnson said that in most instances the lots are 80' deep and 150' wide. Price range for the homesto be constructed would be: On the lake: 400,00 to 600,000 dollars Second tier of homes: 300,000 to 400,000 dollars Third tier of homes: 200,000 dollars Harvey asked if there was access to outlot B (park) from the cul-de-sac. He asked how many lots had been the the plan with the park in the middle. L Johnson answered that there was an 8' path to the park and the number of lots in the plan had been about the same with the park in the middle. Harvey asked if this was considered Environmental Waters. Johnson answered that it was, and 40,000 sq. ft was the minimum lot size. Harvey asked if Red Rock Lake was recreational waters. Johnson answered that it was, and of the 62 lots there, 2 had been granted variances. 5 Harvey noted that if there had been land dedication in this case, it would have • been 9 acres. As it is, the City is getting 5%2 to 6 acres. He asked if the outlot would have been a buildable area. L Johnson answered that it would not have for a house pad, but could have been utilized in a yard. The lot was steep. Harvey said he did not like to see lot sizes on shoreline reduced from code unless there is a trade-off. Even though outlot B was given for park area , it could not have been used for a building lot anyway. L Johnson said that outlot B was created to save the trees. Harvey said he would like to see more trade offs. Johnson, responding to a question on the involvement of the DNR, answered that they are notified of variances before the City. Freemyer said he had difficulties with the building setbacks and the lot width at the ordinary high water mark. He was also concerned with nitrogen going into the lake from the lawns. He would rather that outlot B was sacrificed and some of the lots were made wider. Harvey said he was concerned with the single driveway variance. Johnson said the alternative would be two driveways that would parallel and more trees would be lost. • Freemyer said that on lots 1 and 2, block 3, trees would be cut down. Why hadn't Lambert asked for the land that area encompasses? L Johnson said that the plan was aimed at salvaging the larger trees. Freemyer felt that some rewriting was needed on the ordinances regarding setback on new development. L Johnson said that U S Homes is a national corporation. Orrin Thompson is the builder for them. The maximum home will be $225,000-$250,000. The other lots will be sold to other builders to build custom homes. Anderson and Akemann had concerns on parking for the homeswith the shared driveways. They felt the width of the driveway should be increased. Freemyer said the Board of Appeals should not dictate the width of the driveways. L Johnson said he would take note of the suggestion for wider driveways there to lessen parking problems. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve variance request 89-50 to include • the following findings and conditions: 6 1) A trade-off in shoreland variances will preserve significnt woodland • area adjacent to the lake and the City obtains access to the lake via ownership of shoreland. 2) The shoreland variances are less than those granted for subdivisions on the east side of Mitchell Lake. i 3) The visual impact of lots less than 40,000 sq ft and associated variances are mitigated by open space ;shoreland space along Mitchell Lake. 4) Planning Commission, Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission have reviewed and recommended approval of the development plan. City Council has reviewed and approved first reading of the development plan. 5) Lots adjacent to the shoreland will not be eligible for new construction setback variances less than approved through request 89-50. Future variances for home additions such as decks, porches, breezeways, pools , courts, gazebos and any other accessory structure are not allowed unless they meet Code or conditions of variance request 89-50. The developer wil.: prepare a covenant outlining this condition to be made known to all prospective lot owners. He added that it be specifically stated in the developers agreement that • .no additional variances be allowed as relating to all lots and especially shoreland lots. The hardship was created by the developer in negotiations with Staff and Park & Rec Dept. by creating a park area and in attempting to save some mature trees in the area. Longman seconded the motion and it passed 3-2. Harvey and Freemyer voted nay. Harvey stated his reason for voting against the request as being the setback in ordinary high water mark and the lot size. He felt there was notsufficient trade-off to justify it. VI. ADJOUMM MOTION: Akemann moved that the Board adjourn. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:10 P.M. •