Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 09/13/1984 ,APPROVED MINUTES • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1984 7:30 PM, ADMINISTRATION BLDG. , SCHOOL BD. ROOM BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Richard Lynch, Roger Sandvick, James Dickey and Hanley Anderson BOARD STAFF: City Research Planner, Steve Durham and Recording Secretary, Lynda Diede ROLL CALL: Lynch and Dickey were absent. I. MINUTES MOTION: Sandvick moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the minutes of August 9, 1984. Motion carried unanimously. I. VARIANCES A. Request #84-44, submitted by Eden Prairie Hotel Company for property located at 7780 Flying Cloud Drive. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .70, Subd. • 4 B, to permit a sign of 100 s . ft. Code maximum 80 sq. ft. F, and to permit a free standing sign height of 34 ft. Code max- imum 20 ft. Ed Bosio, representing Eden Prairie Hotel Company, presented the proposal to the Board. The base of the sign is 14' below Highway 169. A height of 34' would put the top of the sign 20' above Highway 169, therefore not blocking the view from traffic moving west on 494. A 100 sq. ft. sign would permit reading the sign at a glance from Highway 494. Krueger inquired if there was a sign at the entrance. Bosio re- plied no, there is a sign on the building itself. Sandvick asked if they were trying to catch the traffic on the ramp of Highway 169. Bosio said yes, because they are below Highway 169. Krueger commented that Staff suggested two signs on the site. Bosio stated that they do not serve their main traffic artery which is Highway 494. Two signs would be of no value. Sandvick inquired if it was a two-way sign. Bosio replied yes , it can be read on both sides. There is no open unfinished back on the sign. • Anderson commented that it is a large development. The request would almost be justified. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - September 13, 1984 Sandvick inquired if Bosio had been before the Board of Appeals • before. Bosio stated that in June, 1984, they requested a sign 40' in height and 120 square feet in size. The request was with- drawn at that time so that more information could be obtained. Sandvick inquired if the sign would blink. Bosio replied that it would not blink. It is of a fine quality with a steel column. MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-44, submitted by Eden Prairie Hotel Company with the following findings: 1 ) Only one free standing sign be permitted on the hotel site. 2) The alternatives appear to be more abusive. Two signs would not be aesthetically pleasing. Anderson seconded the motion adding that the location is a peculiar requirement. It is the only sign that the hotel will have. Motion carried unanimously. B. Request #84-45, submitted by Hans Hagen Homes for property located at 11020 & 11061 Hyland Court. The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2 B, to permit construct- ion of a garage 15' from the front yard setback. Code requires 30' . 1 • Hans Hagen, president of Hans Hagen Homes, reviewed the request for the Board. The request is for a 15' front yard setback for Lot #33 and a 15' front yard setback for Lot # 2. There will be no impact on the adjacent neighbors. Two car garages are proposed for each location. There would be no site line problem with the garages being located in the front yard setbacks. Originally, the town- home units considered were not of as high a quality as the town- home units being constructed. Because of the character of the more expensive townhomes, with 95% of the 32 units having two car garages, it would seem logical to have all 32 units with two car garages eliminating one car having to sit out. The Board made a suggestion to stagger the unit, thereby eliminating or reducing significantly the variance request. Hagen indicated that his survey had tried staggering of the unit. Krueger inquired about the landscaping. Hagen replied that the landscaping plan is on file with the City. The overall landscaping budget is $2,000 per unit. MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-45, submitted by Hans Hagen Homes with the following findings : 1 ) Lot #33 will have a 15' front yard setback for • garage only. 2) Lot #2 will have a 15' front yar&)setback for garage only. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - September 13, 1984 Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried unan- imously. C. Request #84-46, submitted by Gustafson & Associates for property located at 13801 Cardinal Creek Road. The request is for var- iance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .50, Subd. 6, 3, 1 , to permit construction of a structure 75' from recreational development 1 waters. Code requi00' Jeff Gustafson, representing Gustafson & Associates, addressed the proposal . In May of 1983, Gustafson & Associates applied to rezone two lots on Cardinal Creek. Both were unbuildable for duplex or triplex lots because of their proximity to Nine Mile Creek and the requirements for a 150' setback from the ordinary high water mark of the creek for multiple units. Rezoning was approved for two single family units. Gustafson & Associates understood that the Code required a 75' minimum setback. Durham stated that he did not know where the 75' minimum setback figure came from. The shoreline management portion of the Code was in effect September 17, 1982, well before the 1983 rezoning of the lot from multiple to single family. Anderson stated that he would support the variance for the creek because of his own past experience with Purgatory Creek issues. • Sandvick noted that Staff felt that the proposed home could be re- positioned to meet minimum requirements of the City Code. Sandvick added that a letter was received from Kevin Kuester, 13124 Cardinal Creek Road, dated September 7, 1984, objecting to the var- iance request. Anderson inquired if Gustafson would be willing to construct the home 90' from the creek. Gustafson stated that they could live with 90' . Sandvick. inquired if we could change the variance request to read construction of a structure 90' from recreational development waters instead of 75' . Gustafson replied yes. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-46, submitted by Gustafson & Associates with the following findings: 9©s.v. 1 ) To permit construction of a structure from recreational waters. 2) The proposed structure of Gustafson & Associates would be 90' from recreational development waters , • the same as that of Kevin Kuester, 13124 Cardinal Creek Road. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - September 13, 1984 3) No other objections were raised. • Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unan- imously. D. Request#84 47, submitted by Krantz Klodt & Son Inc. for property located at Valley View Road & Office Ridge Circle. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2 B, to permit construction of an office buildin 39 feet in hei ht. Code requires 30' . Doug Arndt, representing Krantz Klodt & Son Inc. presented the request to the Board. They are proposing to construct a three story office building. It will consist of 50,000 square feet on 5.22 acres. Sandvick inquired if there was any problem with the parking. Arndt stated that there was plenty of parking. MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-47, submitted by Krantz Klodt & Son Inc. with the following finding: 1 ) There was no opposition. Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried unan- imously. • E. Request #84-48, submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Dronen for property located at 9890 Crestwood Terrace The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2 B, to., permit construction of an in round pool within 15' from front property line. Code requires 301 . This variance request has been withdrawn. F. Request #84-49, submitted by Gregory R. Halling for property located at 10300-10360 W. 70th Street. The request is for a; variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 3, H, ' 5 b, to permit parking 5' from the west property line. Code requires 10' . Jay Schliesman, representing Gregory R. Halling, reviewed the request with the Board. There is a two story office/warehouse facility con- structed on the site. The variance is needed to widen the driving lane on the west side of the building. Presently, trucks cannot by- pass semis parked at the docks. Catch basins would be constructed over the existing storm sewer line and the ditch filled on the property line. Photos of the site were displayed. Krueger inquired as to the owner of the property. Schliesman stated that it was owned by Excel Builders. There were no comments from the audience. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - September 13, 1984 MOTION: Krueger made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-49, submitted by Gregory R. Halling. Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. G. Request #84-50, submitted by GSB Investments for property located east of 169 & south of Valley View Road. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2 B, to permit a front yard setback of 35' Code requires 50' and Section 11 50, Subd. 6, A, 4, to permit construction of an office_ building 100' from the ordinary hi h water mark of natural environ- ment waters, Code requires 200' and Section 11 .30, Subd. 3 C, to permit an office use up to 75% Code allows 50% maximum) . Gerald Portnoy, president of GSB Investments, spoke to the request. Gregg DuMonceaux, architect, was introduced. They are proposing a 50,000 square foot office building on approximately 10 acres. The area between the building and Smetana Lake is heavily wooded and will serve as a visual buffer. Site plans of the project were displayed. MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-50, submitted by GSB Investments with the following finding: 1 ) The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the proposed building on August 13, 1984. City Council had first reading on the project September 4, 1984. • Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unan- imously. H. Request #84-51 , submitted by Guy Treanor for property located at 16135 Valley View Road. The request is for a variance from City_ Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2 B, to permit plat._ing of a lot of 15,985.6 s . ft. in an R1-22 District. Code re uires 22,000 sq. ft. Guy Treanor, 16135 Valley View Road, proponent, presented 'liis request to the Board. He proposes to subdivide the property into two lots. Signatures have been obtained from 51 out of 52 property owners in favor of the request. Marvin Lahti , 16213 Valley View Road, stated that another home on that property will look jammed and out of proportion. A letter sent out by Treanor to property owners stated that the City Council had approved the request when actually the meeting had not even been held. Sandvick commented that there was an overwhelming majority of neighbors in favor of the variance. Sandvick inquired if Treanor were constructing the home himself. • Treanor replied no. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - September 13, 1984 Treanor indicated that he had to dedicate 40 feet of right-of-way which was 13,600 square feet from the two lots being final platted. He cannot state that his lots are 19,765 square feet because they are listed at 15,986 square feet each due to the 40 feet right-of- way dedication. Sandvick commented that if the variance were denied, Treanor could not use his property for other uses. It is not an unusual variance request. Anderson stated that he felt that the addition would add to property values. Lahti felt that it would not enhance the neighborhood. He had con- cern for property values. MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-51 , submitted by Guy Treanor with the following findings: 1 ) Denying the variance request would not be per- mitting the individual to utilize his property. 2) 51 out of 52 people were in favor of the proposal as given by the proponent. 3) The City of Eden Prairie had sent out Public Hear- ing Notices and only one gentleman, Marvin Lahti , 16213 Valley View Road, had stated his position to deny the request. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. III. OLD BUSINESS None. IV. NEW BUSINESS None. V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Krueger, to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 PM. Motion carried unanimously.