Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 05/09/1996 • APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS THURSDAY,MAY 9, 1996 7:30 P.M.,CITY CENTER CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Kathy Nelson,(Chair); Cliff Dunham, Delavan Dye,Matthew Hansen,Corrine Lynch,Louis Giglio,Tim Nelson STAFF PRESENT: Scott Kipp,Planner Marie Wagner,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. T.Nelson and Lynch were absent. All • other members were present. I. OATH OF OFFICE FOR NEW MEMBERS Louis Giglio took oath of office. Tim Nelson was absent. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Dye moved that the Board approve the Agenda as published. Seconded by Dunham and the motion carried 5-0-0. III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS A. Chairperson-Kathy Nelson. Dye moved to close and the motion carried 5-0-0. B. Vice Chairperson-Cliff Dunham. Dye moved to close and the motion carried 5-0-0. C. Secretary-Matthew Hansen. Dye moved to close and the motion carried 5-0-0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Dye moved that the Board approve the Minutes of the March 14, 1996 meeting. Seconded by Dunham and the motion carried 4-0-1, with abstention by Hansen. i C/6 • V. VARIANCES K.Nelson explained the order of the Variance presentation process to those in attendance. A. Request#96-09 by Radiator Warehouse West for 6390 Carlson Drive to permit: 1) Use of four portable metal storage units on the projjejU for a period of three years (Ci ►Code does not permit outdoor storage in the I-2 district) 2) To place the storage units at a 0' (zero)setback from the south side lot line. (City code requires a 20' setback for structures in the I-2 district.) )To permit expansion of a non-conforming use. Donald Tesch,owner of Radiator Warehouse West said the storage is necessary because debris and moisture ruins boxes that are stored within the building. Dunham asked what has been accomplished in trying to purchase the property. Tesch said the current owner has been indecisive. Dunham asked if another site has been considered. Tesch said he has considered this option, however,cost is a factor. Dunham asked if Tesch has looked into the possibility of the owner putting an addition on the building. Tesch said the owner said they are not interested in adding on to the building. Tesch also said,he has done all the maintenance to the property. Dunham asked how Tesch felt about the appearance of the property. Tesch said compared to the way it was,it looks the best it ever has. Hansen asked what was stored in the temporary sheds. Tesch replied new radiators and condensers. Hansen asked Tesch if he knew whether the sheds were on his leased property. Tesch said he goes by what the owners of the property say. Hansen asked if the owners of the property placed the sheds. Tesch said he was responsible for their placement. Hansen asked if Tesch knew who the neighbors to the property were. Kipp stated the piece of property on the south side is owned by the State. Hansen asked if Tesch had considered purchasing that property. Tesch said no,however,he could consider this as an option. Giglio asked if off-site storage had been considered. Tesch replied it is necessary to have items where he operates,otherwise,more trucks would be needed to move everything between sites. Dunham asked how long Tesch had occupied the property. Tesch replied since 1989. Tesch also said he originally had two other sites in operation and has since reduced his business to this one site. K. Nelson asked what would happen if his request were denied. Tesch said half of his profit would be lost. Nelson asked Tesch if he would continue his business on another site. Tesch responded, only if it were profitable. Nelson asked if Tesch would continue the remaining half of the business on the current site. Tesch said he was not sure what he would do. K. Nelson questioned the type of negotiating that has occurred between • Tesch and the owners of the property. Tesch said he tried to get the owner to survey the property. K.Nelson asked if Tesch had informed the owner that he is looking at alternative sites. Tesch said his type of business should be in an industrial area. K.Nelson noted that the zero setback was on the beginning of wetlands and asked Tesch if any contaminants were involved. Tesch said no;he dealt with new items. Giglio asked Tesch about the terms of his lease. Tesch said his lease is on a month-to-month basis. Kipp said this variance was continued from the March meeting,as Tesch was unable to attend at that time. Kipp stated that the continuance is based on the proponent bringing back alternative plans and Kipp noted that Tesch has not done this. Kipp stated the property is zoned I-2 and is an old industrial area. He also said west of this particular site is a heavy industrial site. Kipp said I-General would allow the storage of such items. He stated there are options, as the staff report indicated,however,they may not be profitable. Kipp said warehouse needs could be relocated to a property to the west of this site. Kipp also said,there should be a time limit if the Board chooses approval of this variance. Kipp noted the conditions as stated in the staff report. Kipp also said the area in this section is dry and is considered a county ditch. Hansen noted that part of the variance request is to permit expansion of a non-conforming use. Kipp stated there is no hard surface parking and the number • of parking stalls is not up to code. Hansen asked if anyone has had objections regarding this. Kipp responded,to his knowledge,there have been no objections. Dye expressed concern about granting a long extension. Kipp said one of the issues with this site is that it is being rented. The owner has no pressure to update the site and they have nothing to gain or lose as long as the owner can continue to lease the building. Kipp stated there could be an additional condition that Mr. Tesch look for alternative sites that would suit his needs. K.Nelson opened the public hearing. K.Nelson closed the public hearing. Giglio asked what was located to the north of the site. Kipp said the entire area is industrial. MOTION: Dye moved to approve Variance#96-09 with conditions as follows: A. No more than three storage units can remain on-site. B. The three storage units may be used for one year. The units must be removed on or before May 1997. C. No other equipment or supplies may be stored outside on the property. This included chemical,i.e.antifreeze,flush solutions,etc... D. No extensions to the variance are permitted. Seconded by Dunham. K.Nelson asked the Board if they considered eliminating the storage units all together,rather than include them in the variance. Tesch asked when the ordinance came into effect. Kipp said since at least 1969. Hansen requested a clarification that all storage units be removed in one year. Kipp stated there are six now and three would be removed in one year. AMENDMENT: B. The four storage units may be used for one year. The remaining units must be removed in sixty days. The motion carried 5-0-0. Dye moved to place Variance Request#96-11 (Item C)ahead of Variance Request #96-10 (Item B). Seconded by Dunham and the motion carried 5-0-0. C. Request#96 11 by William Hoag for 11995 Sunnybrook Road 1)To permit a building_addition 95' from Purgatory Creek (Code requires a 100' set back and 2)Rear yard setback of 28' (Code requires a 50' setback.) William Hoag said he is requesting this variance to improve his property. • He also said he requested a variance two years ago for an addition and remodeling. For this variance,Phase II,he wants to add on to the kitchen. He said he purchased the property,which was in foreclosure,in 1990 and has made many improvements to it since then. Hoag said his home located on Purgatory Creek has a 95 foot setback from the creek. He said the addition will not be any closer to Purgatory Creek. Hoag said his property is zoned rural and the neighboring properties are zoned R1-13.5, which permits up to a 10 foot side yard setback, and a 20 foot rear yard setback. Hoag requested to be rezoned R1-13.5 to alleviate a need for a variance on the side setback. Hoag said bringing in city water and sewer has torn up his property extensively. He said he prefers building the addition now to avoid re-landscaping and re-sodding twice,which would be very costly. He also said since he is hooked up to city water now,basically he could be rezoned. Nelson asked Hoag if he had applied for rezoning. Hoag said he is considering this option. Dye asked about the extension on the property due to the addition. Hoag said the extension will be on the east side of the property. Dye asked if the present kitchen was small. Hoag said it was 8' x 8'. Nelson asked if licensed professionals were doing the construction. Hoag said he will do the construction,just as he did for the last addition. Kipp gave background report to the Board, as stated in the Staff Report. Dye asked why Hoag's driveway did not require paving. Hoag said it is 1/10 mile from Sunny Brook to his home. Kipp added that the driveway has been there for may years,prior to any paving requirements. In addition, it traverses a portion of City property. Nelson opened the public hearing. Nelson closed the public hearing. MOTION: Dunham moved to approve Variance#96-11 Shoreland setback of 95 feet from Purgatory Creek and rear yard setback of 28 feet,based on the hardship of the existing conditions of the site. Seconded by Dye and the motion carried 5-0-0. Mr. Hoag was informed he has one year to implement and complete construction. B. Request#96-10 by Dana Larson Roubal & Associates for Lakeview Office for i,) Shoreland Ordinance setback of a structure from the Ordinary High Water Level of 132 feet( 'ode requires 200 feet) Shoreland Ordinance lot size of 2.79 acres(Code requires 5 acres for an abutting lot).3) zero lot line setback for parking(Code requires 10 feet, and 4)exterior • building material of 55% burnished block(Code requires 75% face brick. glass or stone in the Office Zoning District) Peter Beck of DLR(Dana Larson,Roubal&Assoc.) said his company is proposing to move into Eden Prairie and the building will be used for DLR. He said this was an opportunity to bring a high profile business into Eden Prairie. Beck introduced Griff Davenport,Principal of DLR. Davenport said by the time the project is completed, it is anticipated that there will be 60-70 employed. Griff introduced Tom Sindelar- Principal, Jim Roubal-Principal, and Brian Peterson- Project Designer. Griff reported DLR does$40M in business nationally and$6M locally. He also commented that Eden Prairie was an area where growth was apparent as well as being a good location for clients coming from the airport. Griff stated the facility would be a 16,000 foot structure housing all professional staff on one level with parking below. He also said the building DLR uses is an important marketing tool and DLR wants to develop a structure in a wooded area that respects the environment on all sides of the building. The design, he said,has been planned to go along with natural contours of the site. Griff showed drawings to the Board to illustrate this. Griff said the project is one- third the size that was originally approved for this site and it also avoids a parking deck which was also previously approved. • Peter Beck of DLR said there are three non-controversial variances. 1) Percentage of exterior block building material,designed to match Cabriole Center, 2)Zero setback. Purpose-so existing parking lot does not have to be altered in any way. 3)Lot size-so each building can have sufficient spaces in the existing parking lot to comply with code. Beck added that Cabriole was built with the parking surface taking more than their share of surface area. Beck said the most controversial issue was moving the building down hill forcing it to be too close to the water. He stated the DNR has approved the proposed plan and the location of the building has been approved by the City Council. Beck said the purpose of moving the building down hill is to save eight old trees including a 32"Burr Oak. In addition,he said,the building will be tucked into the hill making it less visible. Beck illustrated this by showing pictures contrasting the existing view of the site, the code approved view of the site and the planned view of the site. Beck continued by saying testing has been done of soils on the site and the area is very good for construction. Beck added that the proposed plan will protect 80%of root mass;the City's standard is 60%. He said the reason DLR is requesting the variance is to protect the trees. Griff added that the drip line will not be encroached on for any of the trees. Beck said in laymen's terms,the building will be built from the inside out. He said DLR is open to put in additional landscaping if the neighbors chose this option,however,he said it seemed to make sense to replace the sumac vegetation. . Beck said a building three to four times larger has been approved for this site. He said the proposed location of the building will have much less impact on the site and will be 395' from the main body of Anderson Lake. Beck said DLR took ten feet out of an area of the building;taking it out entirely would do dramatic damage to the architecture and integrity of the building. Beck said the property as it sits is five acres, approximately 100,000+ square feet. He said the total land area that will be disturbed if the proposed plan is carried out is 21,000 square feet. Giglio asked if a contractor had been chosen who has experience in the preservation of the environment. Griff responded yes and said they also have a site planner engineer. Griff added that if the building has to be moved up the hill it will raise the structure. Dunham said the only people seeing the trees are the people coming in the front door and he asked if another alternative had been considered. Griff said employees will have windows that will allow the viewing of the trees. Griff said the only logical location is the proposed plan and it's the only location on site that can occur without destroying the trees. Hansen asked if the roof drainage will go toward the parking lot. Griff said there will be no run-off into the Anderson Lakes area. He said all run-off will conform to code. Kipp stated that the Parks Commission recommended against approval due to the setback. They recommended the removal of the trees. He said the Parks and Recreation Department and Natural Resources Department walked the site and feel the area should be preserved. Kipp said the City Council approved the project as proposed. Kipp cited recommended revisions by the City Council have been made since the Council's meeting. Kipp read the hardships as stated in the Staff Report. Connie Wetmore, 8040 Ensign Road, said 140 parking spaces sit empty everyday at the Cabriole Center and requested that all parking be kept in the spaces built for this purpose. She commented that the planting of trees DLR said they will do to screen the neighbors from their building is proposed to be placed in the middle of a swamp,or they have proposed to put the trees on the neighbors own land. She said DLR's driveway is proposed to be ten feet from her trees. She also said five to six red oak trees will be destroyed by the proponent's proposed building. Hansen asked if the proposed parking ramp was enclosed. Griff said it is screened according to ordinance;not enclosed. C. Wetmore said she is concerned about the exhaust,as well as, the scaring of the animals that live near the lake. Hansen asked if parking was required. Kipp said the large parking lot will not be expanded. Currently it is not full. He said if the buildings are fully leased out,the parking will be needed. Jay Wetmore, 8040 Ensign Road, said he believes zoning ordinances are to protect adjacent property owners as well. He said the proposed plan is 260 feet from the Wetmore's home. J. Wetmore said the ordinance states that a building height can only be 30 feet. Kipp stated the height requirement is 30 feet. He also said when there is a grade change exceeding 10 feet between the front and back of the structure,the datum from which the base measurement is taken starts at an elevation 10 feet above the lowest grade 5 feet from the building. From that point up, Kipp said,you measure 30 feet. J. Wetmore said the soil type information he received in inconsistent with what he has heard from DLR. He said the critical comer of this building has an excavation point of 12'. He said it strikes him to be contrary to regulations and stated he would appreciate the City Engineer reviewing this. J.Wetmore said parking lot elevation is at 874. He stated if DLR moves the building closer,they can not raise the building unless they provide an extensive ramp. J. Wetmore illustrated his proposed plan which moves the plan from 260' to 330' from the Wetmore's property. With his plan,Wetmore stated DLR would clear his property as well as the trees. J. Wetmore said the site can be constructed without granting the variance. t • Myrna Sampson, 8048 Ensign Road,said she has lived at her current address for twenty-eight years and the western perimeter of her property is the adjoining property. Sampson said the current water level is higher and closer to the building. She said DLR is measuring from a line that existed in 1985 when there was a drought. She stated the elevation of the lake is stabilized at 839 and should be measured back from that point. Sampson stated ordinance#78-26 relates to conditions or measures required for the zoning of this particular parcel of land. Kipp said this ordinance is in effect today. Sampson stated all conditions suggest this project is unsuitable for this land. Sampson expressed concern about the noise impact this project would have on the area. She stated even wood chip trailers are not allowed in the area. Sampson said any noise level will reflect off the wall and into the fragile wetland area. She said the busy traffic sounds will also reflect off the wall. Sampson addressed DLR's concern about two oak trees at the front entrance. She displayed a picture showing the parking lot as it now exists. She said massive oaks were removed for this parking lot and two trees are minimal compared to what has already been sacrificed. Dye asked if there were objections in the past when this was done. Sampson said her now deceased husband objected to no avail. She also • stated, every tree planted by Cabriole has died and has not been replaced. Sampson said the 1978 ordinance says the building is to be screened from the Lakeview. She stated this proposal is not in compliance with that ordinance. She also said the berm is what remains of the 30'hill that was sacrificed for the asphalt parking lot. Sampson stated DLR said the building is tucked in and hidden but it is not hidden from the lake shore. Rod Pauser, 8008 Ensign Road,said he is not in favor of this proposal because of the impact it will have on his property. Mr. Pauser said he is still waiting for the phone call promised him by DLR. He also said he met with the developer many times regarding the blending in of the building and the neighborhood. He said they reached a consensus of a berm and a cedar fence, Marijean Carr, 8100 Ensign Road, said she feels a strong commitment to the stewardship of our natural resources. Carr said in 1974,Eden Prairie's City Council passed an ordinance to regulate and dictate Anderson Lake to nature purposes. She stressed the uniqueness of Anderson Lake due to the habitat of the very sensitive lake. Carr stated she is strongly opposed to DLR changing the easement. She said many acres of wetland and habitat have already been lost due to the building of County Road 18. Carr said we are in the middle of one of the greatest periods of extinction in the history of the world. Nelson closed the public hearing. Nelson asked what the City's view is of where.the water line is and if this is a 35' setback. Kipp said the measurement is being taken from the 1985 water level of 839 feet, which is supported by the DNR. A water project undertaken by the DNR and Watershed District caused the water line to encroach slightly toward the north. Kipp said the setback is based prior to this improvement. Dunham said he hears what the neighbors are trying to say,however,he also is getting the message that `We like it,but not in our back yard'. Dunham said his concern is not necessarily the setback from the high water level but with the appearance of the front of the building. Hansen stated DLR said they would plant trees per the residents requests. Beck said DLR would do this if asked. Beck also said a handful of 2"-Y oak trees would be spaded out and reused. Hansen said he can sympathize with the residents concerns about noise and asked DLR if they have looked at the kind of impact this project would have on the area. Beck said DLR has not done a noise analysis,however, everything will comply or exceed standards. Beck said in his 18 working years he has never heard of anyone in favor of above-ground versus underground parking. Grill stated there would be no mechanical equipment on the roof of the proposed building. Hansen asked if the finger of the lake is a natural condition. Beck said it is as far as he knows. Giglio asked if DLR knew about the 200' setback when they designed the building. Griff said yes. Giglio stated that DLR did the design knowing they would need variances. Griff responded yes. K.Nelson questioned the small amount of glass on the exterior of the building. Griff said DLR chose to focus on the views that the lake would afford them and place windows on the backside of the building as opposed to the front. He said windows are designed for employees at their work station levels. K.Nelson said she has a problem with the hardship to add more glass to meet code on the front. Beck said the variance is necessary in order to match to Cabriole standard. Kipp added, code requires 75% face brick, glass or stone. Hansen stated residents are probably getting the best quality building they could possibly get. Giglio stated main setback is to protect the lake and the Board has not yet discussed this issue. Giglio said it is a beautiful design but there are probably other alternatives that would not require all the variances,therefore,he said he does not see a hardship. Giglio also stated, designing a building with the assumption of getting this number of variances is a gamble. K.Nelson said she is not upset with Variance #1 &#2,however, she has trouble with#4 and would like other opinions on Variance#1. Dye stated the Board is present to reply or change the law. He said he looks at this request from a denial basis and would like the City Council to reply to Variance#1. He said he is not opposed to Variance numbers 2, 3 and 4. Dunham said he is in favor of the variances. Giglio commented that the trees being saved can only be viewed from the parking lot or while traveling 55 miles per hour down the highway. Hansen stated he is in favor of preserving the trees. K.Nelson said she is having a difficult time distinguishing between saving trees and going 35' closer.to the water level, however, she is leaning toward preserving the trees. MOTION: Dunham moved to approve all four points of variance#96-10. Seconded by Hansen who said he wants to be sure the building stays in the same place as proposed. Giglio amended the motion to include: the setback must conform to the site as indicated on the plans. Dunham accepted the amendment. Motion carried 3-1-1, with opposition by Giglio and abstention by Dye. DLR was informed they have one year to implement the variance. VI. OLD BUSINESS None VH NEW BUSINESS Kipp said the joint City Council and Board of Appeals meeting is scheduled in December. K.Nelson said while driving by the freeway she noticed the Beach Road house has its door smashed out and is standing open. She expressed concern over it being a hazard as it stands now. Kipp said building officials are looking at the property and will probably condemn it or pressure the owner to sell it to the city. Kipp said he will inform the appropriate people regarding the building being open. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Dye moved to adjourn. Seconded by Hansen and the motion carried 5-0-0. Meeting adjourned at 10:59 p.m.