HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 01/11/1990 'APPROM M N=
• BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
THURSDAY, January 11, 1990 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council
Chambers, 7600 Executive Dr.,
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Steve Longman (Chairman), Bill Arockiasamy,
Dwight Harvey, Scott Anderson, John
Freemyer, Neil Akemann
STAFF PRESENT: Jean Johnson-Planning,Sharon Swenson-Sec n
BOARD'MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Bozonie
1. CALL TO ORDER-ROU CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Longman called the meeting to order at 7:32. All present recited the
Pledge of Allegiance and roll call was taken as noted above.
II. MINUTES OF THE DECE21BER 14 MEETING
Freemyernoted that his name had been misspelled throughout the minutes.
MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve the minutes of the December 14,
• 1989 meeting as submitted,with the corrections to Freenyer's name to
be included. Arockiasamy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
III. VARIANCES
Request #90-01, submitted' by Roger Farber for property located at 6525
o-w-5nd Road, E en rairie The requesMT76r a variance.Fom ��
oZode,Chap£er-l=sec ion 1.07, u division Lam, 1 o permit proposed
Lo-f-7 aarber-A cd Titio'n,w th 2rf�roon age on a pub is road_. _M y Code
requires 90 o ermiT propose3�Co�3, aar�er A i ion with —
ron age on 4u is roast .. Ci y Code requires 90' , (3) Subdivision
Aso perm;£ a riveway�rfrom a side o line between Los _ and 77
'CiFy Code requires 5 3'sine yard se aET.
Frank Car darelle, representing Mr. Roger Farber, came forward to present the
variance. He explained that Mr. Farber is trying to sell the property. For the
Board's information, he displayed a layout of the property. It is a three lot
subdivision with an outlot. There are some topographical problems, and putting
in a public road would cause additional problems, including eliminating a lot
of trees and necessitating a lot of fill. The residents would like to have
private drives, and not a lot of traffic.
Akemann, Arockiasamy and Freemyer had no questions at this time.
Harvey asked Johnson if she ha& an aerial photo.
• Johnson answered that she did and outlined the property in question on the aerial
photo. She said the property to the north did not have a development plan.
2
Discussion took lace on the surrounding property, potential development, and
p �
access..
Harvey noted that School Road is 11% grade. This would be steeper yet. If each
party were to put in their own driveway, what would happen? He questioned the safety
of 12% drives onto Rowland Road. --
Cardarelle said a public street could be done, but many small pines, underbrush, coverage
and even the character of the area would be lost.
Harvey said the neighbors would need to cooperate with joint maintenance. The
property owners may prefer their own driveways.
Harvey noted that Lot 1 on Rowland Road could to to a City Street for access to Rowland
Road. A City Street would be one 8% grade intersection with Rowland versus three
driveways which are 12% grades.
Cardarelle said that would not necessarily be the case--only if it was in the
proposal. It would probably be one wide access instead of three to Roland Road
if there were single driveways.
Sandra Landucci, who is building a home at 6529 Roland Road, said that if Lots 2 & 3
had separate driveways, many trees planted by Mr. Farber would be lost.
Anderson noted the recommendations: He asked Johnson if the Planning Commission
• had approved them.
Johnson answered that the Planning Commission had approved them, but they had not
been before the City Council yet.
Anderson asked if Rowland Road had to be upgraded.
Johnson answered that it did need upgrading.
Anderson asked Johnson if all recommendations on the Staff report would need- to
.be adhered to prior to final plat.
'Johnson answered that they would need to be complied with.
Harvey said that the variance would be good for only one year.
Cardarelle answered that the City will be upgrading Rowland Road.
Johnson affirmed that it could happen this year..
Cardarelle saia that the owner would like to see the house (dome) with a couple
of acres. It needs to be platted. It is a very large, expensive home, but will
be difficult to sell. He would like to lower the price of the home and sell it.
• Harvey asked if there would be two curb cuts.
Cardarelle said that there will be one additional entrance on the the blacktop
no matter how it is done. There is one there now and one will be added.
3
• Harvey felt it was difficult to see a hardship in this case. The owner wanted
to retain the land before, now he wants to sell. lie are being asked to make
three lots with 25' widths, and it should be 90' . He said he did not agree with
this variance request because it is a large deviation from code.
Longman said it will never be developed without variances.
Anderson said the Board will be seeing more and more of this as Eden Prairie
matures.
Akemann asked where the hardship was? Was it an ecomonic hardship?
Harvey said this could. be made into two lots.
Arockiasamy asked if there was a possibility of putting in a public street.
Johnson said it would be costly for the property owners to bear and would involve
high maintenance costs for the city. Cul-de-sacs take much more time to plow than
streets do.
Cardarelle said the owner is anxious to sell. At this time he is living in Pennsylvannia.
The neighbors do not want a public street, although there is room for one. A public
street would need a lot of fill.
Anderson said he would like to hear the Council's reaction. He felt this was
almost a mini PUD.
• Longman asked Cardarelle if he would like a vote now or wait for the Council meeting.
Cardarelle said he felt that would be up to the Board members.
Longman felt the Council. would not. favor a public road in that area because
of cost and maintenance.
Cardarelle said a large portion of the property would remain open for drainage if
the request were to be granted.
Harvey asked about access to the Bodin property.
Cardarelle said a public street would be built.
Arockiasamy asked if conditions could stipulate that the property owners do not
go to two driveways.
Johnson said that even if such a condition was implemented, they could aPPly to change it
Arockiasamy asked if it could be made a part of the motion.
Johnson answered that it could be made a part of the motion.
MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board approve Variance Request 90-01
to include the findings on page 2 of the Staff -report:
• Finding: The configuration of the property requires variances
in order to develop according .to the low density single family
guide plan designation. The majority of the acrage is not
.served by public access. A public road is inappropriate due to
steep topography , high maintenance, and wishes of the neighbors.
4
Condition: Lots 2 and 3 must have an address signs at the
• s ree entrance.
In addition, Lots 2 & 3 agree to maintain a single driveway as
a condition for granting this variance.
Anderson added that this should be added to the deed.
Cardarelle said that would be acceptable.
Anderson seconded the motion and the vote was as follows:
Aye: Arickiasamy, Longman, Anderson Tie Vote
Nay: Harvey, Freemyer, Akemann
Freemyer said this could be divided into two lots and the degree of variance reduced.
Arockiasamy said possibly bad judgement had been used here, but the situation is
there and now the owner is trying to sell the property.
Harvey said the owner created the condition himself and according to the requirements
for granting a variance the condition should not be created by his own actions.
Freemyer said a public street is not the issue before the Board tonight.
Longman asked if the variance were to be denied, could it be overturned at the
• Council meeting on the 16th?
Johnson answered that they could take that action at that meeting or another meeting.
Anderson and Arockiasamy stated their reason for the yes vote was:
I. A public road would not be appropriate.
It would be costly and maintenance would be high.
Longman added the following:
1. The owner should be able to do what he wants with his own property.
Many times there is too much government control. It is overdone in Eden
Prairie.
Harvey said that two private driveways would take 36' as opposed to a public street
which would take ,50' . This would mean two lots with a combined frontage of 50'
on Roviand Road and it should be 1801 . The only hardship here is that the owner wants
to dispose of the property. There would be potential for three curb cuts within 206'
on Rowland Road.
Longman said he agreed to a point, but even if Farber could sell the property as
it is, he would. The next owner will surely subdivide.
Card.arelle said Bodin"s property and the property to the north will be developed.
• Harvey said that every square inch of Eden Prairie did not need to be developed.
The 'Board is responsible to review for hardships. The City should not have to provide
development approvals on land with poor soils and steep grades.
* Longman said that the Variance Request 90-01 failed by a 3-3 tie vote.
5
• B. Request #90-02, submitted by F & C Associates for property located
at 6801-6813 Shady Oak Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request.is
For—a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.03,
Subdivision 2B, to, permit a Base Area Ratio BART of .36. City Code
maximum BAR is .30.
James Terrell, representing F&C Associates came forward to present the variance.
He noted that the Staff report .outlined the request for the variance in base area
ratio for the office building at Shady Oak Industrial Park. The request is for
30,308 square feet to take care of the needs of Regis Corporation's expansion.
They would like to keep the jobs in Eden Prairie. They are in compliance with
all codes except base area ratio.
Mr Frye came forward and explained how the building will expand. The neighbors
in the industrial park will not be impacted. The addition will be for warehousing.
Harvey asked how much space will be taken by other tenants.
Frye answered that Regis will take the entire warehouse space eventually. -
Anderson abstained from discussion on this item.
Harvey asked if the proponents realized that the Staff report included requirements
to screen all mechanical units on entire building and called for more landscaping.
• Frye said they realized that.
Harvey had a concern for parking. space if the warehouse were ever converted to office.
Frye pointed out a possible•, site for additional parking.
Harvey said he could accept the request with the stipulation that there be no
additional variances for parking--could be proponents accept that?
Frye said he felt they probably could.
Terrell said conversion would be unlikely there. and that he could live with the
condition for parking. A conversion would not be economically practical.
Frey explained that Regis Corporation puts Hair Salons in malls and store the
products here. The headquarters are located at 50th and Hwy. 100. If this were
granted, they would shut down storage at other sites.
Akemann asked what hardship was demonstrated.
Terrell said it was an economic development hardship. The owner had not originally
developed the property. If he had, the building layout could have been done differently.
They would like to keep the jobs in Eden Prairie. All other requirements are complied
with. It is a small variance.
Akemann asked if the Board again should be concerned about developing every square
inch of land in Eden Prairie. He felt it was an economic hardship. They may move
• to another site in years to come anyway.
Terrell said there is a difference between an economic hardship and an ecomonic
development hardship. Expansion is needed by Regis. They would like to keep the
{
6
• jobs in Eden Prairie. The request has been minimized. The City as well as the
proponent is benefiting from the request. The warehouse space is being used very
effectively now and more room is needed.
Harvey said he feels that upgrading of the property with screening and landscaping
would make an acceptable trade-off.
Akemann said that it was still an economic hardship, but the City is getting
something for it.
Arockiasamy asked if there could be a condition for improving the parking lot
& striping. It should be added to any motion.
Johnson said this could be made a part of the motion.
MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board approve Variance Request 90-02
with the conditions stated in the staff report:
Mechanical Screenings - Should a variance request be approved
all existing and new rooftop mechanical equipment must be
screened according to City Code. This includes the screening
from public streets with a building material integral with the
building materials. A mechanical screening plan and bond is
required prior to building permit issuance.
•
Screening/Lands cap inq - Additional plant material is required
based on the new building square footage and new parking areas
must be screened from the public roads and adjacent land. The
total minimum caliper inches of trees required for the new
building addition is 93 .75 inches at a minimum. The Board may
feel additional plant material is required based on the degree
of variance being requested. This plant material does not
include plant material needed to screen parking lot areas.
Screening of parking lot areas may be via berming, fencing or
plant material. A landscape/screening plan is required along
with a bond prior to issuance of a building permit.
In addition, no future variances. shall be requested by the proponent related
to parking. The parking lot shall be upgraded to the satisfaction of .the City.
Johnson clarified the parking restriction as follows:"The office portion
of the building will not exceed the parking stall capacity of the site."
Harvey seconded the motion and it passed 5-1 with Akemann opposed.
Akemann geve his reasons for opposing the request as follows:
1. It is an economic hardship
2. No effort had been made to reduce the amount of the variance.
3. Aesthetic improvements, being made are not necessarily long term.
7
• C. Request #90-03, submitted by Especially For Children, Inc. for property oca e -aY= TeeTT_oad, 3en Prairie, Minnesot�he request is for a
var— i e from 71ty Z.ode,_Fiapte�T, ection .70,Su ivision 4T,— to
permiit a Tree-stan ing sign 16.5' rom the street Fight-of-way.. pity Code
requires a set ac< from the street rig'�it�y.
Priscilla Williams came forward to present the request. She explained that they
had constructed a building a year ago on Dell Road. They were ready for the sign
a few months ago. They discovered that the monument was too close to the right-
of-way. It had been drawn in one spot on the site plan, but the contractor did
not catch it and it was installed 32' too close to right-of-way.
Longman asked who discovered the location was incorrect.
Williams explained that after they had done the logo, Johnson had called and
said it may be too close.. At that time they had many problems with the building
and felt they would consider the problem later.
Longman said that Williams was asking the Board to grant a variance request to
leave a monument where it is because it is not your fault. It is the fault of
either the general contractor or the architect. It should be placed where it
belongs.
Williams felt it was so close to being in the right spot that it was hardly worth.
the conflict.
• Akemann said it is an economic hardship, but could it be incorporated into the
motion that if the building ever changes owner, it shall be moved?
Harvey agreed with that suggestion.
Arockiasamy said that more than one person made a mistake. The sign is in the
wrong place--it should have been 20' back. It is too close to the curb now, even
the curb that goes into the shopping center. This is an opportunity for Williams
to have the contractor do it right.
Anderson said he would prefer that the sign stay the same size as it is now. By
passing the variance, there would be a 40 square foot sign verstB-a possible larger one.
Johnson said some nearby residents had expressed that they would not like a
larger sign.
Freemyer said if a car were out of control and hit the sign, would the City be
. responsible, by allowing the sign to be too close
Johnson said it is private property at this time.
Anderson said if this were to be denied, Williams could build an 80 sq. ft. sign.
MOTION: Akemann moved that the Board approve Variance Request 90-03. Tfie' trade
off is that the sign will be only 40 square feet. When the -building
changes use, the variance will be terminated and the sign cannot be
larger. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed.unanimously.
8
• IV. OLD BUSINESS
None
V. NEU BUSINESS
None
VI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION Arockiasamy moved and Anderson seconded that the Board adjourn.
Motion passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 9:20 P.M.
•