Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 06/04/1981 - Special CITY OF EDEN RRAIRIE Thursday, June 4, 1981 7:30 P.M. City Hall BOARD MEMBERS: James Wedlund, Chairman STAFF: Carl Jullie, P.E. James Dickey Director of Public Works Ronald Krueger Sharon Gagnon Richard Lynch Recording Secretary Roger Sandvick CALL TO-ORDER - ROLL CALL 1 . Minutes of April 16, 1981 , regular meeting. MOTION: Wedlund moved, seconded by Sandvick, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 16, 1981 . Motion carried. 2. Variance Request #81-7 submitted by G.S.J. Developement, c/o William Jacobson Architects, to allow stone and rough-sawn cedar exterior for the Valley Place Offices located at 9975 Valley View Rd. This item was continued to later on the agenda. f,- 3. Variance Request #81-8 submitted by Energy Systems located at 9025 Flying Cloud Dr. to allow a 45' front setback. Wedlund questioned if there were any interested parties for this item and no comments were made. Robert C. Hanson, president of Energy Systems, explained to the Board the need for this variance was the result of Hwy. 169/212 being widened at the entrance to Vo-Tec resulting in the taking of 30' of his property. This building was built in 1969 with an original front setback of 75' which was 25' beyong the requirement. The property has been for sale for approxi- mately one year and the present occupants are purchasing it. Their counsel brought up the problem of non-conformance to the ordinance with fears that in the future five feet might have to be cut from the building. They do realize that they cannot expand. He also showed drawings showing the 30' strip the highway is taking plus the 15' easement which covers from the present to December of 1985. Lynch felt the Highway Dept. should be the party applying for this variance. MOTION: Dickey moved to approve variance request 81-7 for Energy Systems by Robert Hanson requiring a change from a 50' minimum to ,a 45' front setback. This item cannot damage the health and welfare of the residents of Eden Prairie and this is basically for the resale of the property. Wedlund seconded and added that to deny this request would create an undue hardship on the present owners. Lynch added that this was the result of the widening of Hwy 169. The motion and additions passed unanimously. Bd. of Appls & Adj -2- June 4, 1981 • 2. (Had been continued to this time). Variance Request #81-7 submitted by G.S.J. Development, c/o William Jacobson Architects, to allow stone and rough-sawn cedar exterior for the Valley Place Offices located at 9975 Valley View Rd. Wedlund questioned if there were any interested parties for this item and no comments were heard. Jacobson told the Board that they had gone through the rezoning process and plan to build four townhouse style office projects around an existing home. They intend to preserve the heavily wooden site which they feel dictates the character of the buildings. Sandvick questioned the percentage of the masonary materials used in this project. Jacobson replied that at least 10% would be masonary using the same stone as on the existing home. He added that the alternative to using the rough sawn cedar/redwood would be to use stucco which would create a lower maintenance but would remove the character of the buildings. The cost factor would be the same for rough sawn cedar/redwood or stucco. Sandvick noted that the issue was the lower maintenance. Jacobson replied that concrete block and pre-fab buildings must be painted . every ten years as well . Lynch questioned why this did not go before the Planning Commission as a PUD. Jullie stated that the City Attorney advised them that a PUD requires a 25 acre minimum. Lynch questioned the age of the home. Jacobson replied it was built in the mid 40's. Wedlund asked if this concept met with all the other requirements. Sandvick questioned if the units would be sold separately. Jacobson replied that for the sake of financing, a general partnership would be created with each unit owned separately. They would become a share holder and escrow for maintenance and repairs, including painting the exterior every five years or as needed. Dickey asked if they had made different plans. Jacobson said they had only this original plan and would change to stucco if the variance was not granted. He felt they were not the first to introduce this style of building material in an office structure here in Eden Prairie. . Krueger asked if this was in reference to Super Valu. Jullie replied that Super Valu was a PUD project and had wood siding approved in their plans. r Bd. of Appls & Adj -3- June 4, 1981 Wedlund asked about the fire rating for this exterior versus masonary. • Jacobson said they would have a one hour rating because of the construction of the walls and explained the procedure. Sandvick questioned if they proposed to stain all the buildings the same. Jacobson said they would be all stained a dark brown and would be all owner occupied. MOTION: Krueger moved to approve variance request 81-7 submitted by G.S.J. Developement to allow stone and rough sawn cedar exterior. This will be an individually owned and occupied project with more emphasis on appearance and maintenance. It will be something different from the pre-fab built buildings. It will not hurt the health and welfare of the citizens of Eden Prairie. Wedlund added that the idea of redwood- or rouqh sawn cedar-is esthetically pleasing and will blend in with the surrounding area. The stipulation that no pre-fabricated ;type of redwood could be used and the type of construction using gysum board both on the inside and the outside creating a 1 hour fire rating would be used. The Board discussed problems in putting conditions over the painting of the building but felt the general partnership would have a stake in the appearance and therefore see to it that the painting would be done. • Wedlund seconded the motion and Krueger agreed to the addition. The motion carried with Lynch and Dickey voting "nay". 4. Variance Request #81-9 submitted by ADI (Richard Anderson) to reduce the parking requirements for Bldg. #2 located at 6700-6748 Shady Oak. Scott Anderson represented ADI and presented a packet with information regarding this project. He explained that the site of Shady Oak II was developed from 12.4 acres and has 210,000 sq. ft in the facility. Out of this office/warehouse building an auditorium consisting of less than 5% or 4,500 sq. ft. will be used as a sales training room for the Tupperware company with a total of 20,000 seq. ft leased to them. They are allotted between 40-45 car parks out of the 530 car parks needed for the building. The problem of excess cars arises from the sales training and pick up of goods held on Monday mornings between 9 A.M. and 1 P.M. The same meetings will be held in the evenings but the other occupants will not be using their car parks so it will not be a problem. A letter signed by the president of Voyager Party Sales (Tupperware) listed the following concessions they would meet: A. No on street parking will be allowed. B. Emergency access to facility will not be hampered in any way. C. Any excessive traffic flow will not exceed City requirements. D. Monday between 9 A.M. and 1 P.M. will be the only daytime hours of maximim parking. Evening requirements will vary. Anderson added that Amway, also located in Shady Oak #1 , has the same type of function without any problems. Wedlund questioned what would happen if both Amway and Tupperware held their meetings at the same time. Bd. of Appls & Adj -4- June 4, 1981 Anderson replied that each building has 530, 400, 200, and 600 car parks within the site and the overflow could be handled. He felt there was plenty of parking and it would be financial suicide if they didn't think it could be done. Lynch asked about this problem with future tenants. Anderson said that Amway and Tupperware represented a rare case with a use of an auditorium. The auditorium would be converted back to its original intent which is air conditioned light manufacturing. Lynch said he felt they could be creating the same problem of on street parking that exists on Washington Ave. Anderson said that Edina has a lower parking code than Eden Prairie. Wedlund asked about the lease. Anderson said they had a 3 year with 3 year renewal . He commented on the rapid growth of Tupperware and felt they would be buying out the lease in order to replace it with a larger facility before the lease runs out. Jullie explained that there were two office/warehouse buildings on this site requiring 436 parking stalls. In order to get a building permit for the auditorium an additional 229 parking stalls will be needed. A condition could be added • if this variance request is granted, that if parking does become a problem, additional car parks should be built on the land adjacent to this lot. Anderson replied that it was expensive to improve the soils to build car parks and this land is part of Bldg. #9, Lot 3 and a change of lot lines would be needed in order to accomplish this. He added that he had attended some of the rallies for Tupperware and found most of the people attending had car- pooled since they came as far as Mankato. The maximum for the auditorium is 300 but felt that with carpooling there would be less than 100 cars. Sandvick expressed concern for emergencies with excess cars parked in the area. Dickey noted they were asking for a 27% request and that one person,..whom had remained anonymous, expressed his disapproval over this request. Gagnon told the Board that Physical Electronics had also called with the same disapproval . MOTION: Lynch moved to deny, seconded by Dickey, based on the fact it deviated from the Ordinance and that contractors should comply with our parking require- ments. There are strong reservations in regard to the problems with on street parking. Motion carried unanimously. Anderson asked if the Board would consider granting the request if the green area next to the lot could be paved if a need for more spaces was necessary. . Lynch stated that the motion was made and seconded and they must met the requirements of the Ordinance. Wedlund noted that if Tupperware moves in they must provide more parking stalls before any other tenants move in. Bd of Appls & Adj -5- June 4, 1981 5. This item was cancelled. 6. Variance Request #81-11 submitted by CPT, 8100 Mitchell Rd. , to allow more than 50% office use in an Industrial District. Representing CPT were Dennis McClinton, Jim Engler, John Forsythe and Peter Beck as attorney. Beck explained that the existing facility is located at Mitchell Rd. and Scenic Heights Rd. on a 30 acre parcel that was rezoned from Rural to I-5 Industrial in 1978. Part of that rezoning involved a developer's agreement in which CPT agreed to bring any plans for future additions back to the City for approval . Pursuant to that agreement, CPT brought in plans for Phase II to the City Planning Staff for review. The proposed addition was acceptable in all respects except one. I-5 zoning district tecnically permits only 50% office use and CPT intends this phase to be entire office use. The Staff concluded that this proposal is consistent with the Compre- hensive Plan and with their intended uses for that site. They recommended that CPT proceed under the PUD provisions of the zoning code because those provisions are designed for the flexibility a company needs. On a staff recommendation, CPT amended the proposal and the Planning Commission adopted the staff recommendation and voted approval for the PUD. The City Council approved the PUD subject to a number of conditions in the Developer's Agreement. However, the City Attorney recommended that the variance from the zoning restriction of 50% office space must be approved by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Therefore, CPT has formally requested a variance • to allow as much office space as needed pursuant to the parking requirements. Beck noted that a new road would be constructed, if approved, to allow the new parking to exit on Mitchell Road which will hookup to the east relative to MTS. Permission must .pe granted from the County for the exit as well . MOTION: Wedlund moved to approve, seconded by Lynch, for variance request #81-11 to allow more than 50% office use in an Industrial District. The City Council and the Planning Commission have already approved this plan and there seems to be no opposition from the area. CPT has been a good neighbor and this will not affect the health and welfare of the Citizens of Eden Prairie. Motion carried unanimously. 7. Variance Request #81-12 submitted by North Central Food Systems, Inc. c/o Howard Dahlgren Assoc. to allow a canopy on the proposed Hardees to extend 10 feet into the setback requirement. Representing Hardees was Jeff Martin and Paul Gray. Martin explained that Hardees is located at the N.E. lot of the Eden Glen PUD with 169 to the east and Eden Rd. to the north. He described the traffic pattern through the lot and explained that presently 50% of the business is expected to be drive-thru. Therefore the canopy in this particular location defines the pick up area and at the same time protects the customers from the weather conditions. Due to the setback requirements of the building and the parking requirements, a variance is needed in order for the canopy to project 16' from the building. The canopy will be • constructed of the same materials as the building using cedar shakes, mansard roof and homestead brick. The canopy will be screened to the south by berming and trees. Bd. of Appls & Adj -6- June 4, 1981 Wedlund questioned if the canopy could be moved to the east end of the building. Martin replied that according to the internal plan of the building operation, it's standard and if you alter the plan it changes the function of the circulation. MOTION: Sandvick moved to accept variance request 81-12 submitted by North Central for the extended 10' variance setback requirement. The findings are that there was no opposition from the public notice that was sent out. It appears the variance request is reasonable and the esthetic value gained will be an asset to 'the community. Dickey seconded the motion and added that it appears that the canopy is in the best placement. The motion and addition passed unanimously. 8. Other Business. None. 9. Adjournment. Lynch moved to adjourn at 9:30 .P.M. Wedlund seconded and motion passed • unanimously.