HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 05/10/1984 APPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
THURSDAY, MAY 10, 1984 7:30 PM, ADMINISTRATION
BLDG„ SCHOOL BD,RM,
BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Richard Lynch,
Roger Sandvick, James Dickey and
Hanley Anderson
BOARD STAFF: Zoning Administrator Jean Johnson and
Recording Secretary Lynda Diede
ROLL CALL: Dickey was absent
I. MINUTES
A. Minutes of April 12, 1984.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Sandvick, to approve the
minutes of April 12, 1984. Lynch abstained. Motion
carried.
II. VARIANCES
A. Request #84-10, submitted by Kent Molde, John Golle, & Wally Cruz_
for property located at 7011 Willow Creek Road, legally described
as Lot 6, Block 1 , Willow Creek. The request is for a variance
from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .50, Subd. 3, to permit
construction of a second dock per the one abutting lot and to
place the dock within 7. 5 feet of the side lot line instead of
maintaining a 15 foot setback.
On April 18, 1984, the proponents requested another one month
extension of their variance request.
MOTION: Anderson made a motion to continue Variance Request
#84-10, submitted by Kent Molde, John Golle & Wally
Cruz until the next meeting, June 14, 1984. Lynch
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Request #84-18, submitted by Mr. Wally Hustad for property located
at 10220 Co Rd 18 The request is for a variance from City Code,
Chapter 11 , Section 11 70, Subd. 3. , to permit a temporary real
estate sign for the Bluffs East residential area to be located 70
feet from an existing residential structure 100 feet minimum re-
uired and 7 feet from the right-of-way of Co. Rd. 18 10 foot
minimum required)_.
Ron Dahlen, representing Wally Hustad, addressed the proposal . An
extension to the sign is requested. The rental home near the sign
is owned by Mr. Hustad.
Krueger pointed out that basically the sign will keep the corner
uncluttered.
'al s and Adjustments - 2 May 10, 1984
Johnson added that she has spoken to representatives
c rom Eden
Bluff and Autumn Ridge. If approval is granted
ia met,
subdivision names could be attached to the extension.
Johnson recommended that Sherwood Townhouse have been completed.
Creek signs be
removed as they refer to projects
MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-18
with the following findings:
1 ) A 3' variance from Co. Rd. 18 is not that great a
variance and does not appear to interfere with
traffic.
2) Hustad does own the residence of the 30' variance
in question.
3) The type of sign proposed (central useage) would
have an impact on eliminating sign proliferation
in that area.
4) As per sign Code that the sign be allowed for no
more than 2 years.
5) Extensions to the sign of similar
materialsq. ft. and and
nthe
overall size shall not exceed
to interfere with traffic sight lines.
6) Only one (sign as requested) be permitted in the
SW corner of Co. Rd. 18 & Co. Rd. 1 . The Eden
Bluff sign be incorporated into the permitted
sign. The signs in the NW corner be removed.
Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unan-
imously.
C. Re uest #84-19, submitted b David 169 &LEdenown Praiorie Road. Thecreeuest
at the Northwest corner of U Cha ter ll , Section 11 .03, Subd.
is for a variance from Cit Code,
it construction of a sin le famil residence u on an
existing 3.2 acre Rural zoned lot.
Hugh Bishop, attorney for the proponent, asked for a continuation
lo han recently
of the variance request until nextonth. tosreviewstheeinformatio
n.
retained by the applicant and des
MOTIl)N: Lynch made
bmitted bytDavidt Varianceue
L. Brown st
submitted
next
#84-19, su
meeting, June 14, 1984. Anderson seconded the motion
Motion carried unanimously.
Lynch asked for clarification in terms of contin-
uations of requests. Johnson stated that she is
unaware of a limit.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - May 10, 1984
D. Request #84-20, submitted by Ed. Flaherty for property located at
southwest corners of US 169 & Regional Center Drive, legally des-
cribed as Lot 2 & 3, the Preserve Commercial Park North, The
request is for a variance from City Code, Cha ter 11 , Section 11 .03,
Subd. 2, to permit the following: parking setback of 0 (Code re-
quires 10 , building setbacks of 0 Code re uires 20 feet) ,
floor area ratio of .31 & .25 for 2 of the lots .20 maximum) and
lot size variance for I lot of 7,850 sq. ft. 10,000 s t. re-
wired ; and from Subd. 3, to permit 77 parking spaces 13
required by Code And further from Section 11 .70 to permit a
sign size of 120 sq. ft. (80 sq. ft. maximum).
Peter Jarvis, representing Ed Flaherty, presented the proposal to
the Board. Site plans were displayed. The project is in the Preserve
Commercial Park area. The Eden Prairie Car Care Center is a strip
commercial project planned for the major center area. The project
is composed of three buildings with common walls in two locations.
The land use concept is one of auto related uses: car wash, auto
parts facility, muffler repair, brake repair shop, oil change shop,
superette type business with some convenience groceries and pump
aisles. The project has been in planning since September 1983.
The development plan has been reviewed and approved by the Design
Framework Committee (Chris Enger, City Planner, Councilman Paul
Redpath and Larry Peterson, Vice-President of the Preserve) , the
City Council and the Planning Commission. The variance is requested
for technicalities as a result of the platting. The variance
request with respect to setback are all internalized and they are
a result of a particular legal approach in terms of selling the real
estate versus a condominium approach. None of the variances in regard
to setbacks deal with the perimeter of the site. In terms of floor
area ratio, the overall FAR is .15, which is 25% below what is
allowed. There are two that exceed the Code requirement. 77
parking spaces were requested for peak accumulation of employees
and customers which would be on Saturdays. A detailed parking
analysis was reviewed by the Design Committee. The site will
accept additional parking by eliminating landscaping. The Design
Framework Committee agreed on one pylon sign for all three businesses:
Rapid Oil , Midas and Auto Parts. This was to be a total of no more
than 1, x the normal size (120 sq. ft. which is , the size of the sum
of the 3 pylons at 80 sq. ft. or 240 sq. ft ). Each business is
represented on one pylon.
Krueger inquired about the floor area ratio. Jarvis stated that all
could have .15. The reason for the lot lines being what they are was
to result in the square footages that were applicable in terms of a
purchase price for each one of the buyers. They are a set of legal
documents that have been drafted (for snow removal ,maintenance of
the parking lot, etc). A management committee has been set up
which will be treated like a residential PUD. It is divided by
lot lines, but will be managed like a condominium.
Lynch inquired if the sign issue was addressed. Ed Flaherty, the
developer, stated that no questions were raised at Council or
Planning Commission meetings.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - May 10, 1984
Jock Grier, representing W. Gordon Smith, Flying Red Horse, stated
• that this was their first notification of the project going on.
Grier felt that there are too many businesses here for too small a
piece of property. The Eden Prairie Car Care Center has two major
economic advantages over W. Gordon Smith: The initial investment
for the center has been reduced by eliminating 50+ parking spaces.
On-going costs are reduced due to lower real estate taxes. The
Flying Red Horse has 1 .7 acres with 79 parking spaces. The Car
Care Center has 2.8 acres with 77 parking spaces.
Krueger inquired about restaurant parking. Johnson stated that
the parking ratio for restaurnats is 1 parking stall per every 3
seats for employees. 10 parking spaces are required for a gas
station + additional spaces needed for each service bay. It was
further reviewed that the specific uses proposed in the Eden
Prairie Car Care have gone through detailed review as to their
peak parking needs. Strictly to Code, retail commercial require
8 spaces/1 ,000 G.F.A. With these known specific uses, and the
peak parking study, it has been determined that the proposed 77
stalls should be sufficient.
Sandvick was concerned that certain residents did not receive
notification of Planning Commission meetings. Staff responded
that the mailing would be checked.
Mark Namtvedt,of Mark's Eden Prairie Standard, stated that he
. was not notified of previous meetings. He had. concerns regarding
the many variances requested.
Lynch expressed concern over the parking variances. Johnson
stated that the uses of a restaurant and gas station parking
would be different from auto related drop-off-your-car type
parking and car wash parking needs.
Krueger stated that he felt the strip-commercial might work
better on the site than a number of free-standing uses.
Grier had concern over parking. Cars are often left for the
day. Winter also poses a problem with reduced parking spaces
because of snow.
Johnson stated that each site is looked at individually as to
parking needs based upon the uses proposed. If a use is changed,
that request must be submitted to the Planning Department.
Lynch questioned who made the re-evaluation of the original
sign guidelines from 1976 which prohibited free-standing signs.
Johnson stated that it was the Design Framework Committee, con-
sisting of Councilman Redpath, Larry Peterson of the Preserve
and Mr. Enger. A change from 11-12 free standing buildings to
6 buildings was one of the basis for revising the standard.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - May 10, 1984
MOTION: Krueger made a motion to approve Variance Request
. #84-20, submitted by Ed Flaherty with the following
findings:
1 ) Plan has been well reviewed by the Design Frame-
work Committee, Commission and Council, and the
parking need well documented.
2) Any proposed change in building occupancy must
be approved by the City Planning Department as
to adequate parking.
3) That free-standing signs along US 169 meet the
following setbacks: Lots 1 , 50' minimum, the 1
sign for Lots 2, 3 & 4 a minimum of 20 feet from
right-of-way, and the sign for Lot 5 a minimum of
30 feet from the right-of-way.
Sandvick seconded the motion. Lynch voted nay. Motion
carried 3:1 .
Lynch added that he objects to granting a 100% variance
for uses with parking problems. Signage and parking
problems of this variance should have been handled
before they reached the Board of Appeals.
E. Request #84-21 , submitted by Dennis D. Gonyea for property located
at the northwest corner of Co. Rd. 4 & TH 5. The request is for a ,
variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2, to
permit platting of 10 lots below 13,500 sq. ft. in the R1-13.5
District The proposed lot sizes range from 11 ,200 sq. ft. to
12,885 sq. ft.
Gerald Sunde, representing Dennis D. Gonyea, submitted his request
to the Board. The site is a PUD which includes multiple residential ,
restaurants, office commercial and rows of single family housing.
Krueger inquired why the City didn't require the 9.5 zoning.
Johnson stated that it was not in keeping with the lot size and
the zoning to the north of the property. The average lot size
for the single family lots is 13,600 sq. ft.
Krueger asked if there were any comments from the audience. There
were none.
The project has been approved by both the Planning Commission and
City Council .
MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request
#84-21 submitted by Dennis D. Gonyea with the
following findings:
• 1 ) Lot sizes be consistent with the plans dated
January 12, 1984
Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unan-
imously.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - May 10, 1984
F. Request #84-22, submitted by Brown & Cris, Inc. for property
• located west of Grand View Drive, legally described as Lots
2-9, Block 1 ,SUnset Trails The request is for a variance
from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2, to ermit
minimum front and setbacks of 25 feet, Code requires 30 foot
minimum front yardsetbacks .
Wayne Brown, representing Brown & Cris , Inc. , spoke to the request.
The lots require a 25' variance. Approval was given for the set-
backs, but the variances were not utilized and the lots have
changed ownership. The lots consist of poor soil and steep slopes
in the backyards.
Krueger inquired when the variance was granted. Johnson replied
that it was in 1980.
Lynch asked if any lots were built on. Brown stated that they
were not.
Brown remarked that some lots would be corrected by excavation
and compaction. The others would be overloaded.
Krueger inquired if there was anyone in the audience pertaining
to the variance. There were no comments.
MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to approve Variance Request
#84-22 submitted by Brown & Cris , Inc. with the
following findings:
1 ) The Board has originally passed this variance
under different ownership.
Lynch seconded the motion. Motion carried unan-
imously.
G. Request #84-23, submitted by Brian W. Gensmer for property
located on Brookview Circle, legally described as Lot 3, Block 11
Creek Ridge Estates The request is for a variance from City
Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2, to permit construction
of a single famil residence within 15 feet of the west side lot
line, (Code requires a minimum of 50 feet setback .
Brian W. Gensmer, owner of the lot presented his request to the
Board. Construction at a 50' setback would require 22 feet of
fill . They are proposing 8 feet of fill at a setback. Recent
changes on the plans will have no windows on the west side.
Stephen & Vickie Hegedus, 3608 W. 102nd Street, Bloomington, own
property directly adjoining Gensmers land. They do not object to
the variance, but would like a natural barrier made between the
homes. They would like 6-8 evergreen trees, 8 feet high, staggered
between the homes. Some of the trees could possibly be on Hegedus '
property.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 7 - May 10, 1984
Sandvick inquired if the Planning Department had comments on the
project. Johnson stated that a scenic easement must be filed
• along the flood plain area. This must be filed prior to issuance
of any building permit.
MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to approve Variance Request
#84-23, submitted by Brian W. Gensmer with the
following findings:
1 ) Owner plant 6-8 evergreen trees, 8 feet tall in
height, between the proponents homes and the lot
to the west. Plantings to be placed on the high
ridge between the two properties.
2) Must be contingent upon the owner filing the
preservation easement required in the platting
of the property. Filing to occur prior to
issuance of building permit.
Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
H. Request #84-24, submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Steven Young for property
located at 8217 Sheridan Lane, legally described as Lot 18, Block 1 ,
Scenic Heights The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter
11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2, to ermit pla,cement of a new ara a within
11 .2 feet of the side lot line 15' required and from Subd. 3, C. , to
• permit the new garage to be setback 31 .9 feet from the front property
line.
Steven Young, proponent, presented his request to the Board. Front and
side setback requirements are requested to add a double car garage and
foyer to the front of the home. The existing single garage will be
converted into a family room.
Krueger asked the average setback on the street. Johnson stated that
the average is 45-46 feet. The survey shows that Young is presently
at 49.3 feet with the existing structure. With the addition it comes
up to 31 .9 feet.
Krueger inquired if there was anyone in the audience pertaining to the
variance request. There was no one.
MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-24
submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Steven Young with the following
findings :
1 ) This is not unlike several other variances granted
in this neighborhood.
2) There is no concern from the neighbors.
3) This is not detrimental to the welfare and well-
being of the citizens of Eden Prairie.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments 8 - May 10, 1984
Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried. Sandvick
• abstained.
I. Request #84-25, submitted by Trumpy Homes for property located at the
east end of Twilight Trail & north of the C.M.S.P. & P. Railroad. The
request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03,
Subd. 3, B. , to permit platting of 16 lots, 141 feet- deep adjacent
to a railroad Code requires lots to be a minimum of 150' deep)..
Dennis Truempi , representing Trumpy Homes, addressed the Board. Site
plans were displayed. Autumn Woods 2nd Addition, has been before the
Planning Commission and City Council . Extra footage is needed to
balance out the lots in the overall project thus creating lots abutting
the railroad less than 150 feet deep.
Krueger added that a through street was put in instead of all cul-de-
sacs in order to have an acceptable traffic pattern. The land is long
and narrow.
Krueger inquired if there were any comments from the audience. There
were none.
MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-25
submitted by Trumpy Homes with the following findings:
1 ) It has been approved by the Planning Commission
. and City Council .
2) The request was generated by the City's desire to
have through streets as opposed to a number of small
cul-de-sacs in the area. Redesign was required
that created the 141 ' lots.
Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unan-
imously.
J. Request #84-26, submitted by Desiqn Partnership for property
located at 7115 Shady Oak Road, legally described as Lot 1 , Block 1 ,
LeParc The request is fora variance from City Code, Chapter 11,
Section 11 30, Subd 3, C , to permit construction of an industrial
building containing 58 37% office space Code allows a maximum of
50% office use in the Industrial District.
Dennis�.Doyle, representing Welsh Construction Corporation, presented
the proposal to the Board. The office warehouse project is in Shady
Oak Industrial Park. The complex consists of 78,000 square feet. A
lease with Wilson Learning would entail 58. 37% office within the
building. Code permits Industrial buildings to have up to 50% of
floor area as office space. Wilson would use 17,OOO square feet of
the building.
Darryl Anderson of Welsh Construction, pointed out that an additional
26 stalls was added to the north of the project. The original request
was for 244 stalls. The Staff Report recommended 282.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 9 - May 10, 1984
Lynch inquired what the number of parking stalls should be. Anderson
• replied 250.
Johnson stated that the Staff reviewed the plan. If approved, proof of
parking be subject to a detailed review and the type of retaining walls
needed.
Krueger commented that Welsh has shown proof of parking if the building
would turn into a manufacturing building.
Sandvick asked if Wilson Learning would be there strictly as an office.
Bob Brown, Secretary of Wilson Learning, stated that this would bas-
ically be an overflow office. There will be a shuttlebus service
between the present building and this building.
Lynch questioned if this was a temporary plan. Brown replied that
they are in the process of planning a new building on Valley View
Road.
Sandvick inquired if they were looking at a two, three or four year
lease. Brown replied yes.
Anderson stated that if the Board moved to accept the variance they
would request a permanent rather than a temporary condition.
MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-26,
• submitted by Welsh Construction with the following
findings:
1 ) 58.37% office use be granted for the building.
2) Proof of parking conform to Code requirements
and lot be approved by Planning Director.
Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unan-
imously.
K. Request #84-27, submitted by Mr. Joe Elder for property located at
10100 Buckingham Drive, legally described as Lot 28, Prairie East
Fourth Addition The request is for a variance from City Code,
Section 11 03, Subd 3, C , to approve placement of the residence
30 feet from the front property line instead of equal to or greater
than the average existing setbacks of homes on the block.
Joe Elder, proponent, presented the request to the Board. A permit
was issued for the house in March of 1984. The foundation was in
and one-half framed when Wayne Sanders, City Building Official noted
that there could be a problem with City ordinances regarding setbacks.
Sandvick questioned if the Building Department had been out to check
the footings. Elder replied yes.
0
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 10 - May 10, 1984
Sandvick inquired how many feet he was off on the variance. Johnson
stated that the average is 36' . Code reads, "Where 40% or more of
block is developed, the required setback shall be equal or greater
to the average existing setback. "
Anderson inquired if Elder was the owner of the house. Elder stated
that he was the builder. The home is a pre-sold custom home.
Mr. & Mrs. Rod Thornbloom, 10025 Buckingham Drive, stated that they
are unhappy with the way that the house sets out. It is not in line
with the other houses.
Vivian Ess, 10075 Buckingham Drive, also voiced her concern.
Sandvick inquired how many lots were in the block. Krueger stated
that there were 28 lots.
Sandvick noted that if a lot is not in the block as described, it does
not apply to the average.
Sandvick commented that the contractor shouldn't have been allowed to
go as far as he did.
Sandvick stated that he wanted a definition from the City Attorney
on what a block is and also a legal description of the lot.
Steve Durham, City Research Planner,stated that he had checked setbacks
• in the subdivision. For most of the legal block the average is approx-
imately 30' . The overall visual block is 36' .
Johnson read Chapter 12 of the Platting Code regarding a block: "Any
area of land within the subdivision that is entirely bounded by streets
or by streets and the exterior boundary or boundaries of the subdivision
or a combinatin of the above with a river or lake. "
Sandvick asked if it took in all of one subdivision. Krueger replied
yes, there were 28 homes with 17 constructed.
Sandvick inquired what the average setback of all the homes (not the
visual ) was. Johnson replied that it was approximately 30' . Sandvick
wondered if Elder actually needed a variance. Johnson stated that the
interpretation of a block included homes on either side which had more
of visual impact.
Lynch inquired as to the investment of the house. Elder remarked that
$55,000 had been put into the home, .
Sandvick believed that all of the houses on the block would have to
be counted to meet the block definition.
MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to continue Variance Request
#84-27 until May 10, 1984,at 5:30 PM,so further infor-
mation as to how many houses are in the block and the
attorney's opinion on average setback can be obtained.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 11 - May 10, 1984
Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
III. OLD BUSINESS
None
IV. NEW BUSINESS
None
V. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Krueger moved, seconded by Sandvick to adjourn the meeting at
10:30 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
•