Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 06/11/1998 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS THURSDAY,JUNE 11, 1998 7:30 P.M., CITY CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 8080 MITCHELL ROAD BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Cliff Dunham,William Ford,Louis Giglio, Ismail Ismail, Kathy Nelson, and Michael O'Leary BOARD STAFF: Zoning Administrator,Jean Johnson; Recorder, Dave Hix CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairperson Dunham called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Board Member Nelson was absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Giglio moved, seconded by O'Leary to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried 5-0. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of May 14, 1998 MOTION: Giglio moved, seconded by O'Leary to approve the May 14, 1998 meeting minutes as submitted. Motion carried 4-0-1(Ismail abstained). III VARIANCES A. Request No. 98-13 by TGP Properties for 9300 and 9310 Hennepin Town Road for approval to construct an office parking lot 17.5 feet from the front property line (Hennepin Town Road); Code requires a 35 foot setback. James Grover, Vice-President of HTG Architects and Manager of HTG Properties showed a rendering of the proposed building and reviewed the plans for this site. The proposed office building will be a 4200 square foot structure located on two • pieces of property that will be rezoned to meet the needs of the facility. A public BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEAL June 11, 1998 Page 2 hearing has been held and the Planning Commission has reviewed the plans. It was the opinion of the Planning Commission that there wasn't a big enough buffer on the west side of the property. The Planning Commission has recommended more landscaping for this area of the development. Grover told the Board that the only way to achieve the Planning Commission's request was to decrease the 35 foot setback of the parking lot to the east property line along Hennepin Town Road. Hence, HTG was asking for approval of a 17.5 foot setback from the front property line of the proposed site. Dunham returned the floor to the Board for questions of the applicant. Dunham asked the applicant to explain the function of the mechanical and trash areas for the site. Grover told the Board his firm is a "paperless office", with the majority of work being done with computers. The trash that is generated will be collected inside of the building. This will allow the relocation of the air-conditioning units to the north end of the building where they will have a landscaped screen constructed • around them. Dunham asked for the Staff report. Johnson told the Board the site is just south of the Preserve Village Mall. There is residential area to the south and west of the site. The area south of the site might also become small lot office in the future, because of its proximity to T.H.169. The Planning Commission has acknowledged that the guide plan change for the area is acceptable;to change the site from residential to office. The staff report highlighted the following recommendations: l. Execute the landscape plan as provided 2. Relocate the mechanical and trash facilities 3. Revise the lighting standards; downcast lighting systems and no wall lighting on the backside of the building only because of the close proximity of the residential areas. The Planning Commission and City Council have taken favorable action on the project. Notices, again, had been sent out for the hearing being held this evening • and there was no new citizen response to the proposal. • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEAL June 11, 1998 Page 3 Dunham returned the floor to the Board for questions of staff. Ismail asked the applicant if there were trees that currently existed on the site. Grover told the Board the trees along the north property line, as shown on the plan, are existing and will remain as part of the landscaping plan. Ford asked if the parking lot could be made narrower and extended to the south farther. Grover told the Board if this had been proposed the parking-ratio requirement would not have been met. Dunham opened the public hearing. No comments were considered from the public. The public hearing was closed and the floor was returned to the Board for its consideration of the request. . Ford expressed concerns that the building's parking could have been wrapped around the building eliminating the need for the variance request. Grover told the Board if in the future it was desired to expand the building to the south, any parking lot that would have been constructed would have to be torn out. MOTION: Giglio moved, seconded by Ismail to approve Variance No. 98-13, for a 17.5 foot setback from the property for a parking lot. The hardship was stated as "Distance transition suggested by Planning Staff and Commission." With conditions as stated. Motion carried 4-1(Ford). B. Request No. 98-14 by John Wedekind for 16765 Luther Way for approval to construct a garage addition 21.5 feet from the front property line(Luther Way); Code requires a 30 foot setback. John and Jolynn Wedekind, 16765 Luther Way, gave their presentation as follows: Five years ago when the Wedekinds purchased their home they were lead to believe by the relator and the home seller that a third-stall garage on the home would be no problem. When the Wedekinds came to the City to obtain the required permits they discovered that a variance would be needed to facilitate the • plan that was being proposed. • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEAL June 11, 1998 Page 4 Four letters, representing the neighbors on either side and directly across the street were presented in favor of the proposed garage. In order to maintain a consistent appearance the finish materials of the proposed garage would be consistent with those used on the existing home and garage. The existing home and the proposed new garage would all be receiving new matching roofing materials. Mr. Wedekind's stated hardship was the position of the house on the lot. Dunham returned the floor to the Board for questions of the applicant. Ford asked the applicants if they had considered moving the garage back further on the property so that a variance wouldn't be needed. Mr. Wedekind told the Board the home has a fireplace and two windows located on the same side of the home which would prevent the garage from going back any farther than its proposed location. Dunham expressed the opinion that the garage could be moved back up to the fireplace and eliminate covering of the windows. Mr. Wedekind told the Board his fireplace consultant had advised against a move like this because the garage structure would interfere with the fireplace being properly vented from the outside and a wind tunnel effect would be created. Dunham asked for the staff report. Johnson told the Board that the homes in the neighborhood had been built in the 1980s. No calls or comments other than the letters presented had been received by staff. The options, as outlined by the applicant,had been discussed with the City staff and the applicant believes the proposal before the Board is the best option. Dunham returned the floor to the Board for questions of staff. No questions of staff were considered. Dunham opened the public hearing. No comments were considered from the public. The public hearing was closed and the floor was returned to the Board for the consideration of the variance request. • MOTION: Ford moved, seconded by Ismail to approve Variance No. 98-14, granting a • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEAL June 11, 1998 Page 5 23.5 foot setback from the front property line for the construction of a third-stall garage located at 16765 Luther Way, as amended. The hardship was stated as the home's position on the lot. Motion carried 4-1(Dunham). IV. OLD BUSINESS Johnson told the Board the appeal for the Solid Foundations Project had been heard by the City Council. The decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and the staff was upheld. Johnson gave the Board Members the Vision 2001 Brochure for their consideration and discussion at a future Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting. Johnson told the Board that Kathy Nelson would be absent next month so the attendance of the rest of the Board was important. Johnson stated that a new Board of Adjustments and Appeals member's application is in the review process and it is hoped to have the new member in place by next month's • meeting. V. NEW BUSINESS No new business was considered. VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Ford moved, seconded by Giglio to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5- 0. There being no further business before the Board, Dunham adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.