Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 01/10/1985 APPROVED MINUTES • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1935 7:30 PM, ADMINISTRATION BLDG. , ROOK 5, 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: Anderson was absent. I. MINUTES A. Minutes of December 13, 1984. MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Dickey, to approve the minutes of December 13, 1984. Motion carried unanimously. II. VARIANCES A. 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 a artment units with wood as a primary exterior finish. Code allows wood trim not to constitute more than 25% of the building's exterior. This variance request was continued from the December 13, 1984 meeting to allow the proponent time to demonstrate a hardship. David Ames , proponent, presented the plans for the project. Photos were shown of the Edenvale project and a model of the site was dis- played. The apartments are designed to attract the upper level renter. A one bedroom apartment ranges from $450-530 a month • Two bedroom apartments would run from $580-680 a month. James Theusch, architect, and Dick Bergner, who did the market study and research on the project, were present. Copies of a letter from Egan Construction were presented to the Board members . The estimated cost of brick was $205,000-215,000, which is creating an economic impact on the project. Financing for the project is 4.9 million. Dickey inquired when this was given approval by the Council . Durham replied that it had not had second reading yet. Ames stated that • they are on the consent calendar. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - January 10, 1985 Dickey asked if metal siding could be put on the building. Durham stated that a metal frame panel could be put on. Aluminum or steel siding cannot be used. Theusch felt that elimination of redwood siding would be an economic hardship. Extensive redesign or modifications to the building would have to recur in order to provide a frameword which would support brick, stone, or precast materials. The large windows would have to be reduced in size. They are asking for a variance allowing an additional 14,000 square feet of approximately a 35% increase, above the 25% allowed. The building has approximately 16,000 square feet of glazing area. 40% of the facade of the building is glass. This is twice the amount found in a typical apartment building. The natural characteristics of the wood, blended with the natural characteristics of the site make it a handsome building. Sandvick asked what percentage would be redwood. Theusch replied that it would be 60% redwood. Lynch stated that the key issue is long term durability of wood versus other kinds of materials. He inquired as to the cost differential . Dick Bergner, urban research consultant, reviewed the market findings of the site. Attention was paid to insuring the natural look of the site and the building. This development was designed with the affluent client in mind. If it is necessary to redesign, rents may have to be • increased to accommodate changes. These impacts can have a serious impact on the marketability of the proposed units. One could expect to decrease marketablllty by some 5-15%, with a corresponding impact on the rent levels. They found redwood to be of equal durability with man-made materials, if taken care of properly. Krueger pointed out that the Board did not suggest allredwood to be removed. The bottom half could be faced with brick. Theusch said that different options were looked at. It is possible that some brick could be incorporated into the base of the building. Lynch stated that he does not see a hardship. The Code was written because masonry and metal are easier to maintain. There is no guarantee that redwood will be maintained in years to come. This variance could also set a precedent. Dickey called attention to the December 14, 1984 Minutes, p. 3, para.l , line 1 : " Dickey asked what the cost difference would be between the masonry siding. Ames replied that there was little difference. " Ames apologized, stating that he had misunderstood. Some corners can be cut, but a 1978 style apartment complex is not desired. Durham noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project based on the Staff report. The Staff Report did re- commend that the building materials be changed to brick. The City Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - January 10, 1985 Council approved 1st reading of the proposal . However, a variance . to allow wood as a primary exterior material would be required from the Board of Appeals. The City Council neither satisfied or dis- approved of wood as a primary exterior building material . Dickey inquired if the Board's decision would .affect the skylights. Ames stated that it depends if there is 45-100% brick on the outside. Theusch stated that from an economic standpoint, the elements should remain wood. Drawings were displayed with different options. Lynch noted that the magnitude of the variance is of importance. Verification is needed that the building will be properly maintained. Sandvick pointed out that no changes have been made since last month. Evidentally, Ames does not want to deviate from his point. Ames stated that they would like the project tabled until the next meeting in order to provide time to work with Staff and come up with an acceptable solution to the problem. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to continue Variance Request #84-64 until the, next scheduled meeting, February 14, 1985. Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. B. Request #84-65, submitted by P.R.N. Productions Inc. for property located at 9025 Fl in 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 buildinq addition 23 feet from the north property line. (Code—permits 50 feet- minimum) , 4 Cha ter 11 , ection 11 .03, Subdivision 3 E, to permit construct- ion of a fence 8 feet in he ht, Code ermits 6 feet maximum. This variance request was continued from the December 13, 1984 meeting to allow Staff time to study submitted plans. John Bosshard, construction manager for P.R.N. , reviewed the proposal with the Board. A noise study by Marshall Long Acoustics was pre- pared. P.R.N. will comply with City's noise ordinance requirements and the noise standards outlined in the noise study prepared by Long Acoustics. Bret Thoeny, architect, was unable to be present this evening. Thoeny had conferred with a security consultant on the west coast. Bosshard stated hat is essential that the security fence be 8' high. A 6 ' high fence can be easily scaled. The only purpose of the wall is for security, however, it does screen the building from adjacent uses. A landsca ing plan was prepared to minimize the blank look • from the William property. The wall will be consistent with the existing contour of the land. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - January 10, 1985 Durham noted that on the south side of the property, some portions . of the fence are 0' high. Bosshard stated that the wall is acting as a retaining wall )lus security. Durham said that the actual height of the fence abovR grade cannot be over 8' and the fence is not to be used as retaining wall . Lynch stated that a 6' high fence can always be built higher if needed. Bosshard noted that the plan for the 8' high fence was attractive. It was not threatening with barbed wire, or elect- rified runners. Dickey was concerned over the fact that Williams might put in rental garages on his land. Gerald Carroll , attorney representing Robert Williams, adjoining property owner, voiced his concern for the fence. It is exceeding the ordinance by 331/3%. Krueger asked if there had been communication between P.R.N. and Williams regarding the variance request. Carroll stated that he had a conversation with a business agent from Los Angeles, re- presenting P.R.N. He was told that an attorney from Los Angeles would contact him, but he received no call . Bosshard showed plans depicting the site drainage. The Watershed District requirec maintaining the natural flow of drainage water across the site. The site had to be graded so that all of the drainage goes around and collects. It is then piped around so it is a controlled type of drainage. The additional cost is $23,000. Carroll showed concern regarding the natural flow of the water. Bosshard stated that the Watershed District takes into account all neighboring landowners. Krueger suggested that a copy of the study be submitted to Carroll . Lynch inquired about the 50 dBA levels. Durham stated that they designed a noise level at the north property line at 40 bBA which is a nighttime level . The Minnesota Pollution Agency stated that 40 bBA nighttime level is similar to 3 people sitting in a living room watching TV, with a conversation. It is also similar to noises in a outside suburb setting. Both could be objectionable to some People. Bosshard noted that the City Code allows for approximately 50 dBA. Normal levels in other parts of the country would be around 45 dBA. The structure is designed to contain it at 40 dBA. Lynch asked if sound readings were taken and were found to exceed the normal levels, if the City could require additional insulation. Durham stated that the owners would have to mitigate the noise level . Bosshard noted t at P.R.N. is spending $1 ,000,000 on acoustics • in the structure. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - January 10, 1985 Bosshard stated that a 5' high fence around Prince's residence • had to be increased to 8' . Lynch said that if the Board allows a 6' high fence it can always be added to. Bosshard stated that an 8' high fence is needed. They have spent $3,000,000 in improve- ments to the City. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-65, submitted by P.R.N. Productions , Inc. with the following findings: 1 ) The variance be granted based on plans submitted for the January 10, 1985 meeting and marked approved. 2) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape performance bond be supplied to the City. 3) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, exterior building materials be approved by the Planning Department, includin( the aggregate concrete panels and metal panel . 4) The variance is granted based on the noise assessment performed by Marshall Long Acoustics. Should the noise levels of the recording studio, in the future become objectionable to the surrounding land use/or exceed current nighttime levels of 40 dBA, the present owner or future owners shall mitigate the noise level with noise limiting sound insulation. This applies to noise, beat, or vibration felt off any portion of the property line. 5) The variance must be utilized within one year. 6) The Riley-Purgatory-Bluff-Creek Watershed District grading and land alteration plan be adhered to. 7) The fence be limited to 6' on grade. Krueger seco ded the motion. Motion carried--3-1-0. (Dickey voted nay. ) C. Request #84-67, submitted by Richard C. Axel for property located on the existing souti 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 witi wood as a primary exterior finish. Code allows wood trim not to onstitute more than 25% of the 'buildings exterior. This variance req est was continued from the December 15, 1984 meeting to allow proponent time to get financial figures on brick and add additional brick to the building. Richard C. Axel reviewed his proposal with the Board. Site plans were • displayed. Board of Appeals and Adjustments -6- January 10, 1985 Krueger asked what percentage of wood was in the revised plans. Axel • said 51% would be ood; 49% would be brick, glass and a metal door. Lynch was concerned about deviating from the original PUD. Durham stated that the original PUD planned for all masonry buildings. Sandvick asked if Axel had showed his modified plans to the 3 individ- uals who had written objectionable letters. Axel responded no. MOTION: Krueger made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-67, submitted by Richard C. Axel with the following findings acco ding to plans dated December 27, 1984: 1 ) The propo ent has made a good effort to try to compromise with the pirit of the ordinance. 2) Variance ipproved with 51% wood exterior and 49% brick exterior. Dickey second d the motion. Motion carried unanimously. D. Request #84-01 , su mitted by the Preserve Homeowner's Association for property locat d at 11221 Anderson Lakes Parkway. The request is for a variance rom City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Sub- division 2 B, to rmit an accessory structure 11 .50 feet from a side lot line. (C)de requires 30 feet in a rural zoning district. ) • Larry Peterson, re resenting the Preserve Homeowner's Association, spoke to the request. A permanent structure is needed to store maintenance equipment of the Preserve Homeowner's Association. .The developers are in the process of transferring all financial; respon- sibility to the Association. The building and variance required are necessary to f'nalize the transfer. Construction began without Planning Department review of the proposed site and without tie issuance of a building permit. Dickey asked if th y would be willing to put up evergreens on the west side of the struct res. Peterson stated that there is a path at that location. There were no comm nts from the audience. MOTION: Dicky made a motion to approve Variance Request #84-01 submitted by the Preserve Homeowner's Association with the following findings: 1 ) This does not disturb the health and well being of the citizens f Eden Prairie. 2) There were no objections to the variance request. • Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 7 - January 10, 1985 III. OLD BUSINESS None IV. NEW BUSINESS None V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Sandvick moved, seconded by Dickey to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 PM. Motion carried unanimously. •