Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 04/14/1983 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1983 7:30 PM, CITY HALL BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Richard Lynch, James Dickey, Roger Sandvick, and Hanley Anderson BOARD STAFF: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator, and Lynda Diede, Recording Secretary ROLL CALL: Sandvick and Dickey were absent. I. MINUTES A. Minutes of March 10, 1983. MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the Minutes of, March 10, 1983. Motion carried unanimously. II. VARIANCES A. Request #83-04, submitted b GSB Investments, for property located at 9955 Valley View Road 1 A request for a variance from City Code Sec. 11 .03 Subd. 2, to -allow future parkino 35`feet from`the property line instead of the regdired 50 feet. 2 A request for a variance from City Code, Sec. 11 .03, Subd. 3, H. 4 to construct 87 parking spaces instead of the required 115 spaces. Gerald A. Portnoy, President of GSB Investments, was present and addressed the request. Portnoy displayed a model and reviewed the site plans of the project. Their objective is to use the site's natural amenities in the develop- ment of the building. Trees have been incorporated, wherever possible, in the parking spaces. Portnoy stated that there are two facets of the variance request: 1 ) That the amount of parking required by the City, 115 stalls, not be installed with the original construction. It is important to preserve as many of the trees as possible. 2) That they may park within a 50' setback if additional parking is required. As much of the vegetation as possible would be protected. Portnoy displayed a cross section of the plan to show that the intent of the ordinance is being maintained by screening the property from the road by elevation, using a retaining wall and trees, and preserving the natural amenities. Board of Appeals and Adjustments -2 April 4, 1983 . Portnoy added that the Parks and Recreation Commission, at their March 21 , 1983 meeting, reviewed their plans and commended the developer for the outstanding job on conserving significant veg- etation on the site. The Planning Commission has also reviewed the plan and has unanimously approved the project. Don Sorenson, representing Bill Bearman, owner of the property purchased by GSB, was present. Sorenson stated that Bearman has requested that GSB preserve amenities. The City is protected via the Developer's Agreement and has a type of development that is sensitive to the environment and the site. Gregg Du'Monceaux, architect for GSB, said that they looked at a number of alternative plans while working on the site planning. Their intent is to preserve the site as much as possible. Lynch inquired if the building could be made smaller. Portnoy stated that there were certain economics involved in the development of real estate. It has been designed to conform with the land area ratio of the City code. Krueger stated that they could build to a 30% maximum. Sorenson remarked that it was probably 27.8%. Portnoy made reference to parking spaces available on his other • developments. There is more than adequate parking provided and some spaces are leased.. Johnson stated that after receiving Hoyt's letter, GSB 's projects were inspected. Three of the four had 20-40 vacant spaces. One Washington Avenue building had 4 cars parked along the street. Washington Avenue is not posted for 'no parking' . Sorenson stated that the site has adequate parking. If it is necessary to expand it could be provided with the reservation that it goes to the front setback. Lynch asked if the City has ever come back to a project and made a change. Johnson replied yes, Kindercare and MPI. Kindercare was required by the City to provide more parking spaces. MPI had bought additional land and was expanding their parking. Sorenson pointed out that this site provides more than 1/3 parking than the other sites on Washington Avenue where there is some on street parking. Krueger inquired if Eden Prairie parking ordinances were stiffer than adjacent cities.. Portnoy replied yes. Eden Prairie requires 5 per 1000 per office spaces and Minnetonka requires 4 per 1000. Board of Appeals and Adjustments -3-- April 14, 1983 MOTION: Krueger made a motion to approve Variance Request • #83-04, submitted by GSB Investments with the following findings: 1 ) The site can be developed as submitted to preserve significant trees that exist. , 2) The screening is adequate from Valley View Road. Lynch seconded the motion with the comment that both the Planning and Park and Recreation Commissions passed on this project. The Developer's Agreement be written for installation of additional spaces if the City staff finds it necessary. B. Request #83-05, submitted by James A. Way, for property located at 12600 Plaza Drive. The request is for a variance from City Code, Sec. 11 .70, Subd. 3, F, to allow a roof sign on the mansard. James A. Way, owner of A-Z Rental , was present and addressed the request. Way proposes to put a sign on the mansard similar to the way Menard's has their sign. The Eden Prairie ordinance does not allow a sign on the roof. Menard's went through a variance to • get a sign mounted on the mansard. Lynch inquired if a sign on the building was sufficient to meet his needs or if a sign could be put in the parking lot. Way stated that there is an Eden Prairie ordinance that if you are a part of another building you cannot have a pole sign. Johnson pointed out that one pylon per building is permitted. Krueger made reference to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments minutes of September 18, 1980. There it is stated that other shops in the project will not use Menard's canopy for their signs. Way commented that the mansard is the only place he can put a sign. Johnson pointed out in the photos that there is a 12' area between the windows and the top of the wall which could accommodate a small sign. Way stated that he needed more visibility. Krueger inquired if the square footage of the sign met requirements. Johnson said yes. Krueger asked what the limitation was on signs if ownership of a building changed. Johnson explained that each tenant use would be allowed a sign not to exceed 15% of their wall area, not to exceed • a maximun square footage which varies with districts. In the Indust- rial District, the code requirement is that signage be similar. Board of Appeals and Adjustments -4- April 14, 1983 In Menard's case, the City would recommend similar signs on the mansard area. Anderson inquired if the City gave final approval of a sign. Johnson stated yes. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request' #83-05, submitted by James A. Way, to allow a sign on a mansard roof due to the circumstance of not having a suitable wall area to mount a sign. Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. They have one year to exer- cise the petition. C. Request #83-06, submitted by Excel Builders for property located at 17127 Honeysuckle Lane The request is for a variance from City Code, Sec. 11 .03, Subd. 2, to locate a residential structure 25.7 feet from Countryside Drive instead of the required 30 feet setback. Frank B. Blumberg, General Manager of Excel Builders, was not present at the meeting because of a medical emergency. The Board was informed by a Public Safety officer. There were no residents or neighbors present in the audience con- cerned with this variance. Lynch inquired if Blumberg was under any restraints. Johnson re- sponded that Blumberg has said he has a mortgage closing coming up. • Krueger stated that other communities have lesser setbacks when a lot has two frontages. MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request #83-06, submitted by Excel Builders. Lynch seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. They have one year to exercise the petition. D. Request #83-07, submitted by Louise Whitbeck Fraser School , Inc. for_ property located at 12845 Pioneer Trail . The request is for a variance from City Code, Section 11 65, 2 "Family Care Home," to permit construction of a unit to care for 16 mentally retarded residents instead of the code maximum of 6 residents. Dr. Robert J. Kowalczyk, Executive Director of Louise Whitbeck Fraser School , was present and addressed the request. Kowalczyk displayed plans of the proposed project. The design is based on two major items: 1 ) The experience gained by the operation of the existing group homes. 2) The number of individuals to be served, based upon the needs • of those individuals (severely retarded young adults). Board of Appeals and Adjustments -5- April 14, 1983 Kowalczyk explained that initially they set out to build two houses. • They ended up joining the two housed primarily because a class B facility is being proposed. This consists of nursing home st ndards where a commercial kitchen will be required. A commercial kitchen could not be justified in two houses, so the plan was designed around one kitchen. Kowalczyk indicated that the cost per day for one severely retarded young adult would be $100 compared with $165 per day for the same individual at a state hospital . Lynch inquired if this were the final plan or could it become a quad situation in 5-10 years. Kowalczyk replied that this was the final plan; they have no plans for creating another institution on this lot. Krueger asked if the reason a variance was required was that the ordinance was drafted for a lesser occupancy. Johnson replied six maximum is in the code to address residential location of group homes, i.e. lots of 13,000 square feet; this lot is 1 .3 acres. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #83-07, submitted by Louise Whitbeck Fraser School , Inc. on the 1 .3 acre site. Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. They have one year to exercise the petition. . E. Request #83-08, submitted by Lee Data for property located at 7075 Flying Cloud Drive The request is for a variance from City Code, Sec. 11 70, Subd 4, F, 4, maximum height of free- standing sign permitted of 8 feet to 20 feet separation between faces instead of l foot maximum. The applicants were not present so the variance has been resched- uled for May 10, 1983. F. Request #83-09, submitted by Larry & Bonnie Fuglesten for property_ located at 8243 Hiawatha Circle. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Subd 2, to permit construction of a pool as an accessory structure within 7 feet of a sideyard and rearyard in the Rural District which has a 30 foot accessory structure setback minimum. Larry Fuglesten, resident of 8243 Hiawatha Circle, was present and addressed the request. Fuglesten distributed copies of his proposal for a pool to the Board. He stated his need to seek vacation of utility easements. Lynch inquired if there were any utility easements. Johnson replied that the City Council vacated them at their last meeting. Fuglesten stated that they were zoned rural and that a pool was an accessory structure and required a 30' setback. Johnson stated that Board of Appeals and Adjustments -6- April 14, 1983 rural setbacks based on 5+ acres lots, are difficult to meet on a lot of 11 ,000 square feet. MOTION: Krueger made a motion to approve Variance Reque�t #83-09, submitted by Larry & Bonnie Fuglesten with the following findings: The lot is small and no adverse comments have been made by the neighbors. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried un- animously. They have one year to exercise the petition. G. Request # 83-10, submitted by Thomas W. Ivers for property located at 17221 West 78th Street. The request is for a var- iance from City Code, Sec. 11 .50, Subd. 6, A. 1 , a platting of a lot less than 5 acres in size. Glen Fristed was present. He will be purchasing the 40,000 square foot lot. Fristed stated that the property is zoned R1-22. He called attention to a letter written February 27, 1976, by Carl Jullie, then City Engineer. Recommendation was made that it would be unreasonable to require water and sewer hookup because the home is several hundred feet from the lateral pipe on High- way 5. The required lot size will then be 20,000 square feet instead of 40,000 square feet when sewer and water are available. • Johnson stated that there are two houses on the existing overall parcel . They will be creating a new lot for the new house. There will be an administrative division or subdivision approval through the City Council for the 40,000 square foot lot. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #83-10, submitted by Thomas W. Ivers with the following findings : 1 ) No other divisions be applied for unless sewer and water are available. 2) All buildings and private systems meet code requirements. 3) The final division of the land be subject to City Council approval . Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. They have one year to exercise the petition. III. OTHER BUSINESS Krueger suggested that the staff handle minor variances. Lynch was . not opposed; he felt that the staff would be sensitive. Johnson Board of Appeals and Adjustments -7- April 14, 1983 suggested the variances might be drafted, Should doubts arise, Ithey could go through the Board. When code changes are gone through again, it could be brought back to the Board of Appeals with an outli4 and something recommended to the Council . Anderson commented that having the Board meeting does give the neighbors an opportunity to speak and questioned if staff variance review would notify neighbors. The Board members complimented Johnson on the photos taken in regard to the variance requests. IV. NEW BUSINESS The next meeting will be held Tuesday, May 10, 1983. V. ADJOURNMENT Lynch moved, seconded by Anderson, to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVED MINUTES • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS TUESDAY, MAY 10, 1983 7:30 PM, CITY HALL BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron. Krueger, Richard Lynch, James Dickey, Roger Sandvick, and Hanley Anderson BOARD STAFF: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator, and Lynda Diede, Recording Secretary ROLL CALL: Dickey was absent. I. MINUTES A. Minutes of April 14, 1983. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Lynch, to approve the minutes of April 14, 1983. Motion carried unanimously. II. VARIANCES , A. Request # 83-08,• submitted by Lee Data for property located at 7075 Flying Cloud Drive. The request is for a variance from City Code, Sec 11 70, Subd. 4, F, 4, maximum height of free- ` standing sign permitted of 8 feet to 20 feet to be located along Flying Cloud Drive and to permit approximately 9 feet separation between faces instead of 1 foot maximum. John McKenzie, project manager of Opus Corporation, Bob Besinger, Vice President of Lee Data, and Steve Hirtz of Nordquist Sign were present: McKenzie displayed a site plan of the proposed sign. They plan to construct a pylon sign to the south of the entrance driveway. The sign would be 20' high and of a triangular shape. Hirtz showed a detailed drawing of the sign. It has a brick type base and would sit 3' off of the ground. It would be constructed of aluminum and be of a natural anodized color. Sandvick inquired if there would be any reflection.. Hirtz replied no, it lights up from within. The only illumination coming would be from the letters. Lynch questioned the berm height and 20' of the sign. McKenzie stated that the base elevation of the sign is between 2-4' above the roadway elevation. Johnson stated that it is proposed on a'- 4' berm. Krueger indicated that the staff would like to see a height of 16' for the sign. McKenzie felt that it would not be a problem. 1 Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - May 10, 1983 MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #83-08, submitted by Lee Data with the exception the sign be a height of 16' with approximately 9' separation between faces instead of P maximum. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried I unanimously. They have one year to exercise the petition. i I B. Request #83-11 , submitted by Tom Quealy for property located at 15209 Buchanan Court. The request is for a variance from City ► Code, Sec. 11 .70, Subd. 2, to permit construction of a deck 7_ 1 feet from the side property line instead of the required 15 feet. 1 Tom Quealy, 15209 Buchanan Court, was present and addressed the request. He displayed photos of the existing property. j Krueger noted that he cannot build into the NSP area behind the i unit. Quealy stated that the plan was his only recourse. The house was built too close to the property line. Sandvick inquired if he were building it himself. Quealy said yes. Lynch asked if the signatures were all neighbors. Quealy replied yes. MOTION: Krueger made a motion to approve Variance Request #83-11 , submitted by Tom Quealy with the following findings: 1) There is a hardship as far as the deck cannot go in the NSP easement. F 2) Everything possible has been done to make it work with the existing trees. 3) It would not be harmful to the health and welfare of the citizens of Eden Prairie. Sandvick added that there have been no objections from the neighbors. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. They have one year to exercise the petition. C. Request #83-12, submitted by David Mooty for property located at 6871 Sand Ridge Road. The request is for a variance from City Code, Sec. 11 .03, Subd. 2, to permit construction of a home 14 feet from the side lot instead of the required 15 feet. David Mooty, 6871 Sand Ridge Road, presented the proposal to the Board. He displayed a copy of his floor plan showing the bay window. They had been told by the builder that the 10-15'set- back requirement was based on the foundation. The realization Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - May 10, 1983 z that there was a violation came about after a survey was taken. Sandvick inquired how many square feet were on the first floor. Mooty stated 1800 square feet. Krueger pointed out that the survey showed it was 15' to the bay window. Mooty explained that the survey was off 1 ' on the garage side. The garage will be 32' , not 31 ' . Sandvick asked if there were any problems with Cardinal Creek covenants. Mooty replied no, there was no violation of the covenants. Lynch expressed concern that Cardinal Creek residents are not being given correct information from builders, contractors, or real estate salesmen, evidentally. The home is often too big for the lot. Krueger inquired as to the ruling, if it was living space. Johnson stated that it was part of the house, the closest part of the house to the lot line. Lynch recommended that possibly the City staff could work on the problem. Johnson commented that in areas like Cardinal Creek, wider lots may be needed to allow large homes. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #83-12, submitted by David Mooty with the following findings: 1) There is no opposition from the neighbors. s 2) It is a minor variance with respect to the other variances granted in the same neigh- borhood. 3) It would not be harmful to the health and welfare of the citizens'of Eden Prairie. Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. They have one year to exercise the petition. D. Request #83-13, submitted b W. Gordon Smith Mobil for ro ert ocated at 8051 Flying Cloud Drive The request is for a var- iance from City Code, Sec. 11 .03, Subd. 2, to permit construction of a canopy within 13 feet of the property line instead of the required 35 feet. Jesse Schwartz, owner of W. Gordon Smith Mobil , and Fred Nousenga, contractor, were present. Schwartz distributed copies of the proposed canopy. They are requesting expansion from one self service island to two self . Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - May 10, 1983 service islands and then a full service island. The canopy, which is similar to the existing canopy in looks and height, is 13' from the property line and 35' from the curb. Lynch inquired as to the reason for the request. Johnson pointed out , that it is an accessory structure within the front setback. Krueger stated that the staff was concerned about. traffic circulation around the pump. Schwartz stated that the canopy with the lighting and protection from rain has positive benefits. They felt that 35' back from the roadway was sufficient. Schwartz added that the canopy is 14'8" off of the ground. Trucks are 13'6" or 13'8" high, so there is no problem. Sandvick asked if they were asking for a 36% variance. Johnson stated yes.. Sandvick inquired if it would affect vision traffic coming down 78th Street. Johnson stated no. MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to approve Variance Request #83-13, submitted by W. Gordon Smith Mobil with the following findings: 1 ) The request 'is within reason. 2) There is no public objection to the request. - 3) The information submitted appears to be valid. Lynch seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. They have one year to exercise the petition. 7II. OLD BUSINESS None IV. NEW BUSINESS None V. ADJOURNMENT Sandvick moved,- seconded by Anderson, to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 PM. Motion carried unanimously. f