Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 12/09/1982 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1982 7:30 PM, CITY HALL BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman, James Wedlund, Richard Lynch, Ron Krueger, Roger Sandvick, and James Dickey BOARD STAFF: Wayne Sanders, Building Official and Lynda Diede, Recording Secretary ROLL CALL: James Dickey was absent. I. MINUTES A. Minutes of November 11 , 1982, MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Wedlund, to approve the Minutes of November 11 , 1982. Motion carried unanimously. II. VARIANCES A. Request#82-32, submitted by S & S Land Development Company, for property located at 7575 Corporate Way. The request is for a variance from Ordinance 11.30, Subdivision 3 c to allow office space in an industrial district to equal 77% of the total floor • area. This variance has been tabled until the next scheduled meeting, January 13, 1983. B. Request #82-33, submitted by Valley Place Offices Associates, for property located at 9975 Valley View Road. The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2, to allow the following in an office district: 1 ) East side and setback - 5' instead of 20' required. 2 West side and setback - 5' instead of 20' required. 3 A lot width of approximately 68' instead of 100' required. 4 A lot of size of approximatel 13,200 square feet instead of 20,000 square feet required. 5T A front yard setback of approximately 16' instead of 35' required. 6 A variance to allow off site parking. Bill Jacobson, architect, and part owner of Valley Place, and Charles Garrity, insurance representative, were present. Jacobson described the property on Valley View Road. Wedlund in- quired if this was a PUD. Jacobson replied no, it was just zoned for a business area. This was originally planned to be a condo- minium. The ownership went to a general partnership, which owns the whole property. The buyer for the house, for tax purposes, needed to split the house off as a separate piece of property. Sanders stated that the sideyard setbacks are also the required side- yard setbacks of 201 . If easements were set up on either side, on -2- Board of Appeals and Adjustments December 9, 1982 adjacent property, they couldn't build in the 20' . . Krueger inquired why the line is so close. Jacobson statedthat they set the line arbitrarily to have a plot of land on which to set the building. They were unaware of the 20' setback. Krueger stated that a way to eliminate some of the more critical variances here would be to recompute the lot and redraft the plat. Jacobson said it has been approved, but not platted. Lynch had difficulty with the items that they were asking for. He feels they, should go back to the drawing board and come up with something that doesn't require so many variances. It shouldn't be a great burden to replat. He has no problem with the parking. Chris Enger, City Planner, was phoned, and he said the plat was approved by the City Council . It was subject to variance approval all the way through from the preliminary plat. He felt if easements were granted on either piece of adjacent property, they would have to have a developer's agreement before any addition could hp ma4e to any building. If a lot line is changed, it has to go back for City Council approval . Wedlund expressed his concern for this extreme variance of 80-90%. • Lynch stated that he was not in a position to pass the variance. It is a precedence setter from every way that you look at it, he remarked. Sanders commented that the problem is mostly with sidelots. Is it possible to give conditional approval , subject to increasing the size of this lot. They could increase the size of the lot which would not be objectionable to the mortgage company. Krueger pointed out that in other words, we would be approving 2 of the variances. MOTION: Krueger made a motion to approve Variance Request #82-33, submitted by Valley Place Offices Associates. The approval is subject to the following conditions: It is only for the front yard setbacks of 16' , off site park- ing and shortage of square footage only. Approval is for item #6,as to off site parking; item #5,for front yard setbacks of approximagely 16' ; item #4, for a lot size of less than 20,000 square feet. Lynch added that the sideyard setbacks must be made to conform with the ordinance. DISCUSSION: Wedlund wondered of we could put a stipulation on this , subject to the property next door, that a notation is put in to see the Minutes of December 9, 1982, for the • Board of Appeals. Sanders stated that notes are made on 2 sections. -3- Board of Appeals and Adjustments December 9, 1982 Wedlund asked if in the motion that Krueger made, if we could include what he said about the covenants, that there be no additions to buildings B and q. Lynch felt that the City doesn't want to get into covenants. Krueger stated that if the conditions are met regarding the parking, front yard and lot size, this is a reason- able request. Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. The petition is granted subject to the terms and that side lots are made to comply with City ordinances. They have one year to exercise the petition. C. Request #82-34, submitted by James A. Way, for property located at 12600 Plaza Drive The request is for a variance from Ordinance #11 03, Subdivision 3, of City Ordinances, to allow outside fenced storage to exceed 10% of the floor area of principal building. James Way was present and stated that he is proposing to open a store April 1 , 1983. He will need an outside storage area for trailers, trucks, and possible construction equipment, such as a bobcat. An area east of Menard's can be used to put up a fence. Wedlund inquired if the fence would be high enough. Way said yes, it would be an 8' high fence; higher than any storage. Way explained that Menard's has plans to add on to their building and he would just rent the property on a temporary basis. Lynch stated that he doesn't have a problem with additional fenced off, screened area, attached to Menard's. He has difficulty with bringing it up closer to the road. Way said the proposed area would be 90' from the road. Wedlund stated that the question before the Board is the Menard's situation. He inquired if the fence would adjoin Menard's fence. Way stated yes, it would tie in with the back part of the property. Wedlund commented that the question the Board has to weigh is if a fence or the paraphernalia sitting around looks objectionable. A fence is aesthetically pleasing and gives protection. What we have to address here is the temporary fencing and not be concerned with Way's intentions to move at a later date. MOTION: Krueger made a motion to approve Variance Request #82-34, submitted by James A. Way. The request is reasonable and will fit in with Menard's fence. It will not be injurious to the health and welfare of the citizens of Eden Prairie. Wedlund seconded the motion. Lynch added that the fencing should be the same as and blend in with the existing Menard's fencing. It should be of sufficient height to 16 screen whatever is stored behind it. Motion carried unanimously. The have one year to exercise the petition. -4- Board of Appeals and Adjustments December 9, 1982 D. Request #82-35, submitted by Arthur E. Sethre, for property located at 7230 & 7240 Stewart Drive. The request is for a_ variance from City Code, Chapter #11 , to allow a lot division in RM 6.5 zoning with less than 6500' area. Arthur Sethre was present and stated that he owned both pieces of property. Lynch inquired if he planned to sell them. Sethre responded yes. He planned the division so it would be easier for someone to purchase the lots. Wedlund asked if the property met the fire wall code. Sanders replied yes. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #82-35, submitted by Arthur E. Sethre. His findings are: It is identical to several other variances granted in the same neighborhood. There are no conditions that would be injurious to the health and welfare of the citizens of Eden Prairie. Sand- vick seconded the motion. Wedlund added that to deny the variance would cause Sethre a hardship that would be unfair. Motion carried unanimously. They have one year to exercise the petition. • E. Request #82-36, submitted by Marty Hellman, for property located at 6921 Beach Road. 1 Request for a variance from City Code_, Chapter 1.1 , Subdivision 6, to allow enclosing of a swimming pool to a point approximately 62' from the water instead of the re- quired 100' . 2 Request for a variance from the City Code, Chapter 11 , to allow a 22'x24' boat house to be built at shore- line. Elev. 852.0" This variance has been tabled until the next scheduled meeting, January 13, 1983. III. OTHER BUSINESS None IV. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Sandvick moved, seconded by Lynch, to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 PM. Motion carried unanimously.