Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 05/20/1982 i APPROVED .MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, MAY 20, 1982 7:30 P.M. , 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 Wedlund was absent. I. MINUTES A. Minutes of February 18, 1982, regular meeting. Mr. Sanders stated that the City Council is not getting their Minutes on time. A quorum of three is required, regardless if a member had been at the previous meeting, to approve the Minutes. MOTION: Dickey moved, seconded by Sandvick, to approve the Minutes of February 18, 1982. Motion carried unanimously. B. Minutes of March 18, 1982, regular meeting. MOTION: Sandvick moved, seconded by Lynch, to approve the Minutes of March 18, 1982. Motion carried unanimously. C. Minutes of April 15, 1982, regular meeting. MOTION: Sandvick moved, seconded by Lynch, to approve ,the Minutes of April 15, 1982. Motion carried unanimously. II. VARIANCES A. Variance request #82-12 for a variance from Ord. #261 , submitted by George Butler, Construction Company, reouestinq t0 post one l ) off site directional sign, to be located on Hwy. 5, the legal description is 15-116-22-22-003. This application for a variance has been withdrawn. B. Variance request #82-3 for a variance from Ord. #135, submitted by Kenneth W. Liles, located at 9851 Cromwell Drive. Reguesting for a sideyard setback for a porch addition This variance request was deferred at the February 18, 1982, meeting. Mr. Liles was present and stated that his porch had already been built. Discussion ensued regarding the total setbacks involved on the property. BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS May 20, 1982 .2- Krueger inquired if there was a total of 25' back from the property. Sanders replied it was 10' back from the property line. Mr. David Joyce, an adjacent neighbor was present. He lives on the side where the porch exists and has no objections. Dickey inquired as to what the options were, total removal or let it stand as is. Liles stated that to move would be to pretty much take the whole thing down and rebuild. He pre- sented a photograph taken of his porch and showed it to the Board. Krueger pointed out that it was a mistake that the porch was built. The Building Department should have been notified. Taking off 2' isn't going to prove anything as far as looks or effect it has on neighbors. Sandvick cited that the neighbors aren't objecting. The mistake was made and was obviously recognized, as he has come before the Board. A certified land survey was used to show the side line setbacks. MOTION: Dickey moved to approve, seconded by Lynch, variance request #82-31 submitted by Kenneth W. Liles, allowing a sideyard setback for a porch addition. A hardship exists and Mr. Liles has come before the Board of Appeals with a fair request. There were no adverse remarks. One positive remark was that of the adjacent neighbor, Mr. Joyce. Sandvick abstained. Motion passed. C. Variance request #82-13 for a variance from Ordinance #135, submitted by Dick Sager, representing owner P.S. Larsen, located at 7225 & 7235 Stewart Drive. Requesting a lot division of lot_ I, Blk. 3 Stewart Highlands. Dick Sager was present, representing P.S.- Larsen. He stated that the reason they are asking for a request is that the lot severely slopes from east to west. It was done to make the lot more usable. It is best to have the larger lot on the west side. Lynch inquired if Larsen owned both pieces. Sager answered in the affirmative. MOTION: Krueger moved to approve variance request #82-13. The building is on the lot and they have made the best use of topography and drainage problems. This will in no way be harmful to the City of Eden Prairie. Dickey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS May 20 1982 D. Variance request #82-14 for a variance from Ord. #141 , Sub. sec. 12.3, submitted by Sheraton Inn, P & L Investment, for proper y located at Lot I, Blk. I Eden Glen. Requesting to construct less than the required parking spaces allowed in said ordinance,_ also Sub. sec. 12. 1 requesting to stripe 20% parking space for compact cars. John Shardlow, principal planner of Howard Dahlgren, was present along with Carmen Tuminelly, consultant, representing the developer. Exhibits were reviewed, showing the site plan. Krueger inquired if it were part of the PUD. Shardlow commented in the affirmative, that it is called Eden Glen and is west of 169/212, south of Eden Road and north of Singletree Lane. The Sheraton site has been approved and an additional 126' has been accrued to accom- modate additional parking. He suggested the possibility of shuttle service. Lynch remarked that the PUD is unique. He isn't real uncomfortable with the parking situation. If they are wrong what is their alter- native. Shardlow replied alternatives have been looked at for buying additional land. Mr. Teman owns property and can accommodate employee parking if they find it necessary to purchase this property. The developer will find some way to accommodate. The Eden Prairie PUD doesn't constitute a zoning change. He felt setbacks of parking stalls would have been approved in other cities. Mr. Tuminelly stated the Sheraton people did research on parking and there is plenty of parking for the amount of people and revenue of the hotel . Lynch had mixed emotions regarding the parking. He noted the employees park in the street at Hardee's. Also, the owner of Hardee's has chosen not to haul the snow away. Shardlow replied he has concern with the Hardee's people. He did a site plan and landscaping for their restaurant. There is extreme dissatisfaction with the materials put in and they failed to put in a light standard. There's no excuse for parking in the street. Sandvick commented that the City requires a bond that landscape be put in properly. A final inspection will have to occur before the bond is released. Krueger was concerned about the excess of cars. Will there be any discussion with the Homart people regarding using the parking areas. That would be a logical place to shuttle cars. Shardlow said he doesn't know why Homart would object to shuttling. It will be a while before business is successful enough to fill the entire parking lot. Trying to connect parking lots seems a logical plan. Krueger inquired if there was less parking in the original plan. Mr. Tuminelly replied they have added 100 parking places. Mr. Shardlow stated the first plan was for a budget type hotel facility. The market research demand was for a full service hotel and meeting BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS May 20, 1982 -4- room. The architecture plans were changed considerably. Lynch wondered how the parking ratio and size of the building compared to the Sofitel . Shardlow reviewed the statistics he had and discussed where the parking area will be located. Dickey feels the shuttle proposal is basically unfeasible. It may work at the airport, but not at a hotel . The limosine service will cut down parking. Lynch questions what percentage of compliance with Eden Prairie ordinances they are at. Shardlow replied as a result of the solution approved by the Council , it gives them 405, approximately 15% short. 20% compact would pick up an extra 8 spaces. Lynch feels it hardly seems worth the effort. Shardlow explained that an alternative was written into the ordinance in Burnsville. It consists of 25% available for compact cars. Lynch stated that should be done as a last resort measure. Then compact cars will not be a problem from day number one. Shardlow pointed out that the problem with compact cars is striping. The length of the space is the same as full sized cars. Sanders questions if snow removal has been planned. Tuminelly explained they will do all that is required. Shardlow commented . that the landscape is designed for snow removal . Sanders asked how emergency vehicles will be handled. Shardlow stated it was reviewed by the City Fire Marshal and recommended for approval. The hydrants will be strategically placed and emergency vehicles can get through. Tuminelly stated the building is total concrete with steel studs. Lynch feels that 20% of compact stalls is a lost cause. 405 spaces seems foolish. Krueger stated they have gone one step beyond their original plan. As far as parking problems in the future, they will do the best to solve it. Dickey commented he was in favor of the development. However, he is against the concept of shuttle. He feels that it will not work as you can't control people. MOTION: Lynch moved, to grant variance #82-14 allowing them to construct less than the required parking spaces allowed in said ordinance, also Sub. Sec. 12. 1 requesting to stripe 20% parking space for compact cars. He does not feel strongly about 20% of parking spaces for compact cars. In normal/abnormal winters they will have to address snow removal . This is a major operation, there is no comparison. Sandvick added that it took responsibility to obtain add- itional countdl to work with the ordinance. There was good intent to upgrade the parking. Krueger seconded the • motion. Motion passed unanimously. BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS -May 20, 1982 -5- III. OTHER BUSINESS Lynch discussed the possibility of determining a formula that might be used for the value of bond on moving a house. Sanders felt to give a $15,000 bond was light. Dickey stated you must consider the value of the house and the land. Any fair estimate of the Board should be valid. Sandvick said we should look at the existing neighborhood that the home is going into. Sanders stated the City would like a lump sum. It should be 25% of the improvement. Krueger felt the party should have plans when they plan to move the house. Sandvick wondered what would happen if a mover doesn't meet all the requirements, ex. black top drive. How long do we keep the bond. The City legally has rights to finish the project. Sanders explained that the money would be held property of the City. The City Attorney would then be called. Lynch felt that people have no incentive to finish projects. The Board conversed on the possibility of changing the day of the meeting. More discussion will follow next month. IV. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Sandvick, to adjourn at 8:50 P.M. Motion carried unanimously.