Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 12/13/1984 APPROVED MINUTES • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1984 7:30 PM, ADMINISTRATION BLDG. , SCHOOL BD. RM. , 8100 SCHOOL ROAD BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Richard Lynch, Roger Sandvick, James Dickey and Hanley Anderson BOARD STAFF: Assistant Planner, Steve Durham and Recording Secretary, Lynda Diede ROLL CALL: All Board members were present. I. MINUTES MOTION: Dickey moved, seconded by Lynch, to approve the minutes of November 8, 1984. Motion carried--3-0-2 (Sandvick and Lynch abstained) . II. VARIANCES A. Request #84-62, submitted by Richard Miller Homes, Inc. for property located at 7990, 7992, 7994, 7996, 8000, 8002, 8004, 8006 Timber Lake • Drive, legally described as: Lot 8, Block 1 , North Bay of Timber Lakes. The request^is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 03, for minimum lot size, minimum lot width and depth_, and side, and rear yard setbacks for the construction of multiple family units. This variance request was continued from the November 8, 1984 meeting to allow the Planning Commission time to review the proposed plans. Terry Lamb, representing Richard Miller Homes , reviewed the request with the Board. The property lines for this development are estab- lished purely for financing purposes. The Veteran's Administration and FHA require that a development have 2/3 -3/4 pre-sold in a town- house/condominium development. To facilitate this, they break them into separate lots. Krueger inquired if the Planning Commission had approved the request. Durham replied that they had. The request is going for the first reading of the City Council on December 18, 1984. If approved, Durham suggested that it be contingent upon the second reading of the City Council . Sandvick asked if this was part of the original concept of Timber Lakes. Lamb replied that it was an addition. Mrs. Harvey Olson, 7964 Timber Lake Drive, stated that she was in- terested in the layout of the development. She was pleased that they had cut back from four units to two units because she felt Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - December 13, 1984 that it was too dense. She would like to see the common area in front • of the lake finished. Sandvick remarked that he objected to the density. Lamb said that he had dropped off the landscape plans with the City Planner. There will be screened plantings and many trees. MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-62, submitted by Richard Miller Homes Inc. , contingent upon the following recommendations of Staff: 1 ) The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed project at its November 26, 1984 meeting. 2) This variance is contingent upon City Council .approval at its December 18, 1984 meeting. 3) The variance must be utilized within one year. 4) The variance must receive approval from the Watershed District. 5) A revised landscape plan must be submitted to the Planning Department prior to building permit issuance. 6) No objections were presented this evening. • Dickey seconded the motion, adding that Mrs. Harvey Olson agreed to the density. Motion carried unanimously. B. Request #84-64, submitted by David M. Ames for property located north of Valley View Road and west of Edenvale Golf Club. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 3, K, to permit construction of 108 apartment units with wood as a primary exterior finish. Code allows wood trim not to constitute more than 25% of the building's exterior. David M. Ames, proponent, spoke to the request. Site plans were displayed. The Planning Commission recommended approval on October 15, 1984, and the City Council approved first reading at its November 6, 1984 meeting. The building site sits approximately 50' above the existing terrain. It is heavily wooded. They will be able to preserve 80-85% of the trees on the site. Sandvick inquired what the approximate rent for the apartments would be. Ames replied that the price range would be between $500-650 a month. Photos were displayed showing a building constructed of natural red- wood siding. Ames remarked that it would be finished with a clear sealant. It would never turn gray. There would be no exposed blocks; the redwood would extend to the ground level . Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - December 13, 1984 Dickey asked what the cost difference would be between the redwood • and masonry siding. Ames replied that there was little difference. Ames remarked that redwood was chosen to blend in with the terrain. The first floor would have patio doors, the second floor, floor to ceiling windows, and the third floor, a glassed in atrium. Lynch inquired as to the structure of the building. Ames replied that the parking lot would be concrete, and the rest would be wood frame. Krueger had concern over what the redwood would be like in 10 years. Ames stated that with a 5 million dollar investment, the project would be kept up. It is costing him $5,000 more per unit to build the apart- ments as opposed to a typical apartment. Sandvick asked if there was evidence that a masonry exterior wouldn't market as well . He inquired if there was a hardship involved for the variance request. Tom Zumwalde, architect for David Ames, stated that they felt a redwood building fit aesthetically on the site. This project is zoned RM-2.5. They felt that the redwood would provide a stronger relationship to residential characteristics than the more commercial characteristics of masonry. Lynch noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of • the project and City Council had first reading. He inquired if there was any change recommended. Durham said that it was recommended in the Staff Report, written by the Planning Commission, that brick exterior be explored. Lynch inquired if the Planning Commission was concerned with the architecture of the building and materials used. Durham stated yes, they are concerned. Ames said that the Staff made the recommendation and the Planning Commission said that they didn't care if it was redwood or brick. Also, the City Council did not say no to redwood. Sandvick asked Zumwalde if a building could be designed combining masonry and redwood. Zumwalde stated that simplicity is beauty, generally. Because of the nature of the building (stick) it is difficult to hang brick out. Three materials on a building: brick, wood and glass , goes against his grain. He would rather look at all brick rather than a combination of brick and wood. The greenhouse element would be lost then. Sandvick questioned what the difference in R factor would be between the redwood and the brick. Zumwalde did not have an exact number. There are 2 x 6 studs perimeter all of the way around with 52" batt. Brick does add to the R factor, but not that great an amount. Ames stated that from an economic standpoint, they can't afford to do all brick. Options are to go back to the Code and incorporate both brick and redwood. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - December 13, 1984 Dickey noted that Ames said earlier that there was little difference • in cost between brick and redwood. Ames responded that he had mis- understood. He had thought they meant in regard to complying with the Code. An all brick building would bring up costs and be an economic hardship. A comparative analysis was done based upon complying with Code, and not complying or asking for the variance. Sandvick stated that he would like to see the figures. Lynch stated that the only hardship he saw would be trying to build a cantilever concept in the brick. Sandvick felt that a combination of redwood, glass, and brick could be used effectively. There were no comments from the audience. Dickey noted that a number of homes in . Eden Prairie constructed of natural wood do not look good. He had concern regarding the con- struction of the apartments on a stick basis. Eden Prairie does not need a fire trap. Dickey inquired if there was solid concrete. Ames replied yes, the garage is masonry and pre-cast plank. There are three levels of wood frame on top of that. Sandvick felt that the cost of labor and material for maintenance in 8-11 years would be great. • Lynch remarked that a 100% variance is being requested from the Code. A hardship must be demonstrated other than cost of putting on all brick. Ames said that they could come back demonstrating a hardship in living environment and marketing concept. Cost figures could be brought. Sandvick would like to see some variations in the plans using aesthetics in material conducive to the City's ordinance. MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to continue Variance Request #84-64, submitted by David M. Ames until the next scheduled meeting, January 10, 1985. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. C. Request #84-65, submitted by P.R.N. Productions, Inc. for property located at 9025 Flying Cloud Drive. The request is for a variance from City Code, 1 Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2 B, to permit construction of a building addition and increase the floor area ratio to .35. Code permits .30) , 2 Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 3, H, 5, b, to permit parking 7 feet from a side lot line, Code requires 10 feet) , 3 City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2 B, to permit construction of a build- ing addition 23 feet from the north property line. Code permits 50 feet minimum) , 4 Cha ter '11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 3 E, • to permit construction of a fence 8 feet in hei ht, CC odepermits 6 feet maximum) . Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - December 13, 1984 Bret Thoeny, architect for P.R.N. Productions Inc. , reviewed the request with the Board. Recording artist and film maker, Prince • Roger Nelson, purchased the site in April , 1984. The site includes a production stage, two recording studios and supply areas. The expansion will be from the existing 14,000 - 38,000 square feet. Site plans and a model of the structure was displayed. Dickey inquired as to the 60' strip south of the site. He wondered if there were any plans for a road. Thoeny replied that there would be a new road developed on the north side of the property.. Dickey asked if a road was put in, if the City would be under a hardship. Durham replied that there would not be a lot of room between P.R.N. property and the proposed street. Lynch inquired how many employees there would be. Thoeny stated, that there could be up to 60 people. Parking requirements are being met for the City Code which includes 81 spaces. Lynch asked about security. Thoeny said that they plan on a perimeter fence around the property 8' high. There will be sliding, electric gates with guard houses. Krueger inquired when construction was scheduled. Thoeny stated that they plan to start construction the first of the year and work through the winter. Thoeny stated that the State Highway Department purchased the first • 30' of the property. The building is 45' from the property line. They propose to comply with the Code and move the building back by taking away the existing building. Lynch inquired as to the materials of the sound stage. Thoeny stated that it would be exposed aggregate with pre-cast concrete with metal panels and stucco on the front and a metal roof. Lynch asked if there were any docks. Thoeny stated that there is one loading dock to move scenery. Sandvick inquired what kind of trucks were used. Thoeny said that they were semis. Lynch asked how many semis were used. Thoeny stated that 3 semis are used for road shows . They will not be stored on the site as they are leased. Lynch inquired as to the material of the fence. Thoeny said that it would be a block material with metal infill . Plant growth and materi.- al would be used to fill in areas where open spaces with grates are planned. Barbara Fields, 8510 Darnel Road, stated that she would like a solution to the noise problem. Also, she has concern regarding the type of fence to be used. Thoeny stated that the structure would be completed by July and it would cover the noise problem. Tall pine trees will be planted against the building. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - December 13, 1984 Lynch inquired if the noise factor would be addressed by the sound studio. Thoeny said that it would be a two wall system. There will be 12 inches of concrete with an air space and an inner wall system with layers of dry wall . The structure will meet Code requirements. Durham asked if information could be turned in before building permits are issued. Thoeny replied yes. Gerald Carroll , attorney representing Robert Williams, adjoining property owner, voiced his concern. They object to the 8' high perimeter fence that would be placed on a line of Mr, Wi.11i,ams property. Carroll felt that no undue hardship with circumstances unique to the property has been shown. Sandvick asked if there is objection to the height or type of the fence. Carroll stated that they are not aware of the type of the fence. Dickey inquired if the City had definite plans to incorporate Williams' 60' strip of land into a road system. Durham replied no, not at this time. Dickey asked Carroll for a physical description of Williams property. Carroll replied that it was vacant. Dickey inquired if there were any plans for Williams property. Robert Williams, 7404 West Shore Drive, Edina, stated that within the next few months he planned to bring to the City plans regarding building on the property. He had concern regarding approval for two roads coming onto Flying Cloud Drive. He felt that the 8' high fence would block the view if there was a road on his lot. Williams voiced concern over the amount of fill that P.R,N, would bring in. John Bosshard , construction manager, stated that the natural slope of the site is to the east. Grading plans were dis- played. Carroll asked where the hardship would be regarding the 8' high fence. Sandvick stated that the word 'security' was used. It may be a hardship as far as keeping crowds out. Dickey inquired where Williams ' 60' strip of land stood as far as the City was concerned. Durham remarked that Williams' land, to the south and east of the site, could be an access point. The City does not own the land or have any plans for it. Dickey asked if Williams wanted to develop a portion of his property if the 60' may have to be egress. Durham stated that it could be an option. Krueger said that the type of screening for the 50' fence is impor- tant. Bosshard stated that the fence would not block off traffic from Flying Cloud Drive. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 7 - December 13, 1984 Sandvick stated that regarding the fence, security and safety are • important factors. Williams asked what type of fence it would be. Durham stated that the City has not had the chance to study the revised plans presented to the Planning Department. The type of material for the fence has not been defined. (Aggregate concrete, block, finished stucco or wrought iron versus grates. ) The City also had concern regarding landscaping. A more detailed plan is needed specifying size and type conducive to this environment. The City has not had a chance to review the grading plan, although the Watershed District has reviewed it. Specific plans have not been submitted to the City regarding mechanical screening. Anderson stated that a hardship would have to be demonstrated to him regarding an 8' high fence. One can't deny the rights of an adjoining landowner. Dickey felt P.R.N. should bring back information showing how the decibel level would be kept in the building. Sandvick suggested that Williams and Thoeny meet to discuss the variance request before the January 10, 1985 meeting. MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to continue Variance Request #84-65, submitted by P.R.N. Productions Inc. , until the next scheduled meeting, January 10, 1985, to allow Staff to • scrutinize plans submitted. Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. D. Request #84-66, submitted by Christ Lutheran Church for property located at 7800 Carnelian Lane. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2 B, to permit construction of a church addition with a sloped roof hez ht of 39 feet. Code permits 30 feet. Wayne Jeske, representing Christ Lutheran Church, presented the proposal to the Board. There were no comments from the audience. Krueger noted that the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed building addition at its November 13, 1984 meeting and recommended approval . This item was before the City Council December 4, 1984, for first reading. MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-66, submitted by Christ Lutheran Church with the following findings: 1 ) The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project. The City Council has reviewed the project and recommended • approval . Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 8 - December 13, 1984 2) There were no objections this evening. • 3) Any proposed lighting in the parking area shall meet Code requirements and be of downcast luminar style. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. E. Request #84-67, submitted by Richard C. Axel for property located on the existing south parcel of Lot 1 , Block 1 , Mitchell Lake Estates 2nd Addition. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 3, K, to permit construction of a dental clinic with wood as a primary exterior finish. Code allows wood trim not to constitute more than 25% of the building's exterior. Richard C. Axel , proponent, spoke to the request. Three letters were received by the Board objecting to the variance request. The letters were from: Alston Lundgren, M.D. , Robert W. Skinner, D.V.M. , and Steven R. .Beck, D.C. Medical facilities in Eden Prairie are constructed primarily of masonry. Axel 's building is a dental clinic, not a medical clinic. His is the first dental use only building in Eden Prairie. Axel felt that wood exterior finish would blend in with the homes in the area. Axel noted that less than 50% of the general populace seeks dental care. The main factor in avoiding treatment is fear and apprehension. A warm friendly type of environment is his obligation. Natural wood does have warmth. • The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its November 13, 1984 meeting. The City Council reviewed this project for first reading at its December 4, 1984 meeting and recommended approval . Sandvick asked if it were strictly a dental building. Axel said yes, it is a two story building. General treatment will be on the first level and orthodontic treatment on the second level . Lynch pointed out that the logic in the ordinance requiring masonry points to a maintenance problem. We are also dealing with a PUD that originally had all buildings constructed with masonry exterior finishes. Lynch suggested that the building be softened up with some type of stone or brick. He felt that there was not a hardship involved. Anderson stated that a 25% number could be almost two whole sides. Deducting the glass, it is a lot of wood. Lynch inquired if it would be a sprinkle building. Axel replied that the lower level would be. Sandvick would like to see the building softened up with some aesthetic brick. Axel stated that he would be willing to work on the plan using some brick. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 9 - December 13, 1984 Sandvick inquired if Axel would be willing to continue the meeting until January 10, 1985, in order to get some figures on brick. Axel responded yes. MOTION: Anderson made a motion to continue Variance Request #84-67, submitted by Richard C. Axel , to the next scheduled meeting, January 10, 1985. Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. III. OLD BUSINESS MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve the Findings , Conclusions, and Order Re: Welcome Home Request for Variance Request #84-53. Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried--3-0-2. (Sandvick and Lynch ab- stained. ) IV. NEW BUSINESS None V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Sandvick, to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 PM. Motion carried unanimously.