Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 09/18/1980 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, September 18, 1980 7:30 P.M. City Hall MEMBERS_ PRESENT: Ronald Krueger.Acting Chairman, James Dickey, Richard Lynch and Roger Sandvick MEMBERS ABSENT: James Wedlund, Chairman STAFF PRESENT: Carl Jullie, P.E., Director of Public Works and Sharon Gagnon, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL 1 . Variance Request 80-22 submitted by D & D Construction to permit a _25' front setback in 6.5 zoning which requires a 30' front setback L6,B2 Meadows3- No representative from D & D Construction or from the public was present at this meeting. Lynch noted the topography of the lot. Krueger stated that he felt D & D Construction Co. could get permission from N.S.P. to build on the existing easement. Sandvick noted that the house could be moved back 5' and would not need a variance. MOTION: Lynch moved, Sandvick seconded, to deny this request since he was convinced that N.S.P. would allow D & D to build in that area and if.a representative could have appeared they could,have argued for the case. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Variance Request #80-23 submitted. by James E. Johnson, Inc. to allow a 47' rear yard setback in an area requiring 50' due to the developer's agreement located at Lot 3, Block l Garrison Forest 4th Addition. Present representing this variance were Larry Peterson from the Preserve .and James E. Johnson. Johnson explained that the dimensions of the proposed home are 24' in depth and 44' in width. The need for the rear yard variance is because of the proposed placement of the home facing south. Reasons for this placement are the passive solar advantages of the main area facing south, the continuity of all the homes facing south on this block, the fact the east side would face the new shopping area and the maximum privacy from Anderson Lks Pkwy. He stated that he planned to purchase the lot next door and across `'the street. Lynch questioned the history of this lot regarding a variance. Peterson explained that 2-3 months ago a Vo-Tech pre-built home came before the .Board to obtain permission to be placed on this lot. This request was Page 2 - Bd of Appls & Adj Sept. 18, 1980 . withdrawn since the Preserve could not secure a rear yard setback variance at that time. There was a negative reaction from the neighborhood because the house was pre-built. Lynch questioned if this home had gone before the architectural and design board of the Preserve. Peterson answered that the building plan was in their office. He added that this home is a tuck under design which suits this lot in the best manner creating a need for only a small variance. Sandvick questioned if this was the corner lot. Peterson replied positive and added there was one lot in between not built on presently. Dickey asked if the house would be closer to the middle lot or to the east. Peterson replied to the east. Krueger asked what the plans for Outlot C were and the condition of Garrison Way. Jullie replied that Outlot C will be used for the possible future expansion of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Garrison Way is a thru street. . Johnson added that there are willow and pine trees on the east side of this lot which was another reason for facing the south. Sandvick questioned if the City had reviewed this situation. Jullie replied they had and felt this was a reasonable request with less than 10%. The lot is a fairly difficult lot to build on and felt this home was more suitable than other homes that could be built. Dickey stated that this home seemed to conform to the other homes in the area. MOTION: Sandvick moved, Dickey seconded, to approve variance request #80-23 as presented to the Board. There are no negative reactions from the neighboring area. This will enhance the area and will not be harmful to the welfare of the people of Eden Prairie. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Variance Request#80-24 submitted by Joseph K. Dolejki to allow a parcel of land without frontage on a public road. Joseph Dolejki explained that his father owns a 95 acre tract in which the existing homestead is located. He proposes to divide 2 acres from this tract and remodel the 1900-1920 homestead. He presently has submitted a preliminary plat (Dolejki Addition) for a rezoning from Rural to RI-22. The variance request is to allow a lot without frontage on a public road. Access will be gained by means of a forty foot easement on an existing driveway which . would remain in effect until other access could be provided by future development of the area. This subdivision is layed out in respect to the Hidden Glen Plan Concept which was approved last fall for Zachman Homes but later cancelled. Page 3 - Bd of Appls & Adj Sept. 18, 1980 • Lynch questioned why the Board of Appeals was hearing this before the Planning Commission meeting on September 22nd. Jullie replied that Ordinance 135 requires frontage on a lot and the City Attorney noted that only the Board of Appeals and Adjustments can approve the variance. The Plat goes to the City Council after the Planning Commission. The City Attorney felt that at least the variance problem will be addressed and will be an expeditious way of handling the problem. Krueger questioned if there would be a problem if this was platted to the 5 acre minimum. Dolejsi replied that he would still have problems with frontage. Dickey asked if anyone else was interested in the land. Dolejsi replied negative. Krueger asked if he planned the plat around the house. Dolejsi replied that he planned to move the house 100 feet north. There would be no new buildings unless an addition to the house itself. Lynch asked if the plat is approved will Dolejsi need a building molving permit to move the house. a Jullie replied that he would check this out. MOTION: Krueger moved, seconded by Lynch, to approve variance request #80-24 contingent on the Planning Commission and City Council approval . The request is not detrimental to the health and welfare of Eden Prairie. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Variance Request #80-25 submitted by Menard, Inc. to allow a Mansard frame wall sign located 12600 Plaza Drive. Representing Menard's were Douglas Lawrence and Marvin Prochaska. Lawrence presented a drawing of the sign which was rejected because it was considered a roof type sign. It has been referred to as a Mansard frame sign which has been a matter of terminolgy to describe the appearance. Webster Dictionary defines mansard as "a roof with two slopes on each side, the lower steeper than the upper." He felt it should be described as a shed type roof with a canopy type sign that does not project over the roof lines. He quoted Ord. 261 , item u, defining "roof signs" means any sign erected upon or projecting above the roof line of a structure to which it is affixed except signs erected below the top (the cap) of a parapet wall . Krueger asked if it met the required size. Lawrence replied positive. • Dickey questioned if the contention was because the sign comes out from the building. Lawrence replied negative. Page 4 - Bd of Appls & Adj Sept. 18, 1980 Lynch asked the size of the sign. Lawrence stated it was 390 sq. ft ( 6 X 65' ). Sandvick questioned if this canopy type roof would shed water and if it was parallel to the ground. Prochaska said that the canopy comes out over the sidewalk. Lawrence added that the roof is considered the top part of the building where the walls connect. In this case, the sign would be mounted on the canopy. Lynch referred to Developer's Agreement 17 which states " Owner shall adhere to requirements of Sign Ordinance 261 or as variances may be approved by City." The staff report stated that "No off-site advertising or roof top signage will be allowed as part of this development and the signage program must be submitted and approved according to Ordinance 261". He noted the problem with the sign semantics. Dickey questioned if there will be other shops in this project. Prochaska replied yes but will not use the canopy for their signs. Krueger pointed out that Crown Auto will have the same roof with this same problem. • Jullie agreed with Krueger and added that the Board may determine what style sign this is thus avoiding the situation in the future. Lynch felt it was difficult to define top of the roof and noted that each situation should be treated individually. MOTION: Sandvick moved to accept variance request 80-25 with reference to Ord. 261 , Section 2, paragraph u, that this particular sign is not going to be erected above the roof line. Lynch seconded adding that this is Menard's all encompassing sign program. The motion and addition passed unanimously. 5. Variance Request #80-26 submitted by Larry Pederson to allow an addition to the garage with a front setback of 25' at 10060 Sumac Circle. Larry Pederson explained that his house is located on a cul-de-sac and therefore is not parallel with the lot. The garage would be located on the east side extended 15' . Sandvick referred to the letter signed by the neighbors approving the addition and questioned if there were any residents interested in this variance attending the meeting. • None were present. Krueger asked if the garage would be a triple garage. Pederson replied positive. Page 5 Bd of Appls & Adj Sept. 18, 1980 MOTION: Sandvick moved, seconded by Dickey, to approve variance request 80-26. Mr. and Mrs. Pederson have contacted their neighbors and submitted documents indicating approval . This will enhance the property in the neighborhood. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Variance Request.#80-27 submitted by Metro Machines, 8001 Wallace Rd. , to allow a proposed loading dock to be constructed without walls and possibly a roof. Dick Cast told the Board that the machines manufactured by Metro Machines are very expensive (costing close to a quarter of a pillion) and need to be handled carefully. If walls could be eliminated around the proposed dock, it would ease in this loading. The dock will be 18' deep by 50' with a cost of $15,000. Due to expenses, the steel roof will not be added until next year. They plan to add removable railings for the prevention of fork lift accidents. The only storage on the loading dock will be refuse containers presently located in the parking lot. It is necessary at the present time to keep these containers in the parking lot because they are picked up and emptied after hours. Sandvick questioned what was being constructed presently. Cast explained they had started on the dock because of the weather conditions. Jullie noted that the building permit does include enclosing the dock and was issued so Metro Machines may begin because of the weather. An alternative mitigating solution was garage doors that could be raised, however, the frame work would still create a problem when loading. Char Lynn is the only immediate • building with no windows facing Metro and is 200 - 300 feet away. Lynch noted that Metro Machines manufactures unique equipment that requires a facility to load for transporting. He pointed out the record of the building regarding the maintenance etc. and felt they warranted special conditions. MOTION: Sandvick moved to approve 80-27 seconded by Lynch, with the stipulation that a roof be constructed within the next year and the removable safety rails be installed on the construction site. Metro has set standards in the neighborhood and this would enhance that part of the building. Dickey added that this should be contingent on the approval of the fire marshall . The motion and addition carried unanimously. 7. Variance Request #80-28 submitted by Gene Dahlke to allow a proposed attached garage 10' from Pioneer Trail . Gene Dahlke explained to the Board that he presently did not have a garage and wished to build an attached double garage 10' from Pioneer Trail. He had contacted his neighbors and they were not negative. He stated that he worked for the State of Minnesota and that County Rd #1 would be relocated and the existing road would be a City street. This project is on schedule for a November, 1980, contract letting. Lynch said the original intent in this area was for lower cost housing and then at a later date, building a garage on a designated part of the lot. He pointed out • that this provision was in the rear of his lot and no variance would be needed if he followed this plan. Dahlke said he couldn' t get access off Cty Rd. #1 and he did not want to build a single car garage. Most of his neighbors have built double garages since their Page 6 Bd of Appls & Adj Sept. 18,1980 00 setback was 51 . Jullie stated that this PUD had a reduced lot size with more units per acre, however, each lot had a future garage space. Dickey questioned the topography of this area and the concern expressed in the letter addressed to the Board from R.E. Nelsen. Jullie answered that the site distance is good there. Mrs. Dahlke said they paid $54,900 from Zachman Builders and were told they could not have the garage built at the same time. The illustration of their home showed the garage parallel to the home which best suits the style. Krueger said the developer showed a detached garage while the builder showed it parallel . Jullie said that the responsibility of the City should have been to indicate on the permit that the garage could not be as shown on the plan. Sandvick questioned if the driveway was in. Dahlke said the builder put it in. MOTION: Krueger moved to approve variance 80-28, seconded by Lynch, requesting 50%, however, this is a situation where the building dept. should have brought it to the attention of the owners. Cty. Rd. #1 will be downgraded to a residential street serving only this neighborhood. Motion passed with Sandvick abstaining. 8. Variance Request #80-29 submitted by Twin City Federal (previously submitted and granted in June of 1979) to allow a 3-sided triangular sign with 80 sq. ft/face rather than the permitted 2 sided 80 sq. ft. per face. Bob Galush, assistant secretary to Twin City Federal explained they had failed to get everything done in one year and failed to request an extension. The plans for parking on the original PUD have been altered due to changes in ownership and now Twin City Federal will begin construction accordingly. Krueger asked if it was the same sign. Galush replied positive. M©TION: Lynch moved to approve, seconded by Dickey, on the same findings as a year ago. Motion passed unanimously. 9. New Business. The Board discussed the increasing number of requests and the possibility of raising the fee. They felt more stringent guidelines for applying to show hardship could be applied. They noted that with the cost of housinS 'residents are creating things to maximize the utlization of their property. 060. Adjournment. MOTION: Sandvick moved to adjourn, seconded by Krueger, to adjourn at 9:30 P.M. Motion carried unanimously.