HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 12/14/1989 APPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
THURSDAY, December 14, 1989 7: 30 P.M. City Hall Council
Chambers, 7600 Executive Drive. ,
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Board of Appeals Members Present: Neil Akemann , William
Arockiasamy, John Freemyer,
Dwight Harvey,
Scott Anderson arrived 8: 10.
STAFF PRESENT: Jean Johnson, Planning
I. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The meeting was called to order at 7: 30. Jean Johnson took
the roll call.
II. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 1989
• The minutes were approved. Arockiasamy made the motion,
Freemyer seconded and the motion passed. 4-0.
III. VARIANCES
A. Request #89-53, submitted by BKGC Partnership for
property located at 14180 West 78th Street, Eden Prairie,
Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code,
Chapter 11, Section 11. 03, Subdivision 2B (1) to permit an
existing office building 11 ' from the front lot line. City
Code requires a 35 ' front yard setback. (2) Subdivision 3H
to permit a front yard parking setback of 111 . City Code
requires a 35 ' front yard setback.
Mr. John Gabrielson from BKGC Partnership presented the
variance request to the Board. He informed the Board that
they require a variance from the 35 ' front yard office setback
because of Highway #5 right-of-way taking.
Jean Johnson reviewed with the Board that approximately 2 feet
of the building is within the 35 ' front yard setback and was
constructed in 1983 . The remainder of the setback variance
is due to the highway right-of-way taking.
The Board members reviewed the building' s background and
• 1
believed that a hardship does exist due to highway taking.
• Motion: Arockiasamy moved and Freemyer seconded to
approve Variance Request #89-53 as submitted with the
condition that if any reconstruction (additions or
expansions) of the building takes place it must meet the
current City Code. The findings of the Board in this
approval is that the hardship is due to highway taking.
The motion passed 4-0.
B. Request #89-54, submitted by David Luse for property
located at 14358 Golf View Drive, Eden Prairie,
Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code,
Chapter 11, Section 11. 03, Subdivision 3C to permit
construction of a garage addition 33 ' from the front
property line. City Code requires a 38.4 ' front yard
setback according to the existing average setback of the
legal block.
Akemann questioned why an addition is not designed out
the back of the house. Mr. Luse responded "a three
season porch and built in hot tub exists at the back of
the house making any expansion there difficult.
Mr. Arockiasamy then asked Mr. Luse to further explain
the floor plan. Arockiasamy noted that the proposed
• addition will come within 6 feet of the lot line and
hoped that the owner feels confident that the lot survey
is accurate.
Freemyer noted the two large setbacks of approximately
50 and 60 feet in this neighborhood affect the lot and
do create a hardship.
Motion: Arockiasamy moved and Freemyer seconded
to approve Variance Request #89-54 with the
condition that an as-built survey be submitted at
the time of building permit application to insure
the side yard setback. The motion passed 3 : 1.
Akemann voting nay. Akemann explained his nay vote
because he felt there was insufficient information
for this request.
C. Request #89-52, submitted by Church of the Jubilee for
property located at 6500 Baker Road, Eden Prairie,
Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code,
Chapter 11, Section 11. 03, Subdivision 3K to permit a
building addition with 75% stucco. City Code does not
permit more than 25% stucco in the public Zoning
District.
• 2
Pastor Davis explained that they are returning to the
• Board because at the previous meeting the Board felt that
the amount of stucco was excessive.
The architect, Mr. Buettner, noted that they are now
requesting 61% trim materials on the building. The
previous plan was approximately 68%.
At this point in the meeting, Scott Anderson arrived
approximately 8: 10.
Jean Johnson summarized changes in the plan. She noted
that one window has been added, additional splitface
block is on the building and rockface block has been
added. She then referred the Board to the material chart
computations included in the December 8, 1989 memo.
Harvey noted that the change from last month's meeting
to this meeting has not been significant.
Scott Anderson stated that he is pleased to see the
stucco reduced on the plan, however, he feels that
rockface block and splitface block are okay in
industrial, but not in commercial or public districts.
The reason being that the commercial districts and public
districts deserve a more durable material.
• Freemyer stated some commercial buildings can be
attractive with splitface block, but in this instance he
does not see a hardship, nor reason why required Code
materials cannot be used.
Arockiasamy stated that he felt the major part of the
dryvit and the proposed stucco has been reduced and that
the incorporation of the rockface and splitface block,
though not as durable as brick, is better than dryvit or
stucco.
Akemann felt that churches should fit into a
neighborhood. He stated he is in favor of a compromise
if they can minimize the compromise and maximize the
appearance of the building.
Harvey believed the church should try and incorporate
more "acceptable materials" on this phase of the
building, and again if a third phase is planned.
3
Anderson inquired if the church would request additional
• building material variances when and if phase three is
built. Pastor Davis responded he was not sure. Anderson
inquired if the church would agree to a recorded
condition that phase three will not require a material
variance. Pastor Davis responded affirmative.
Pastor Davis further noted that if they did not receive
a variance that they will do materials on the building
that will meet Code.
The Board members and the church representatives then
discussed the foundations that are already in place and
the materials that could be used.
Harvey noted that he does not support this degree of
variance for the proposed addition, nor future additions.
Motion: Anderson moved and Harvey seconded to deny
Variance Request #89-52 because no hardship has been
explained to support the variance, and the variance
is too large of a deviation from the City Code. The
vote passed 3 : 2 with Akemann and Arockiasamy voting
negative.
• IV. NEW BUSINESS
The review of the Draft Ordinance Amendments:
The Board members reviewed the November 20, 1989 memo and
concurred with the Draft Ordinance.
V. ADJOURNMENT
Akemann moved, Arockisamy seconded, to adjourn the meeting at
9 : 20 p.m.
MIN12-14 .JJ
4