Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 04/11/1985 • APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, APRIL 11 , 1985 7:30 PM, ADMINISTRATION BLDG. , SCHOOL BOARD ROOM, 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. ELECTION OF OFFICERS MOTION: Sandvick moved to nominate Krueger as Chairman of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Dickey seconded the motion-. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Dickey moved to nominate Lynch as Vice Chairman of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried • unanimously. MOTION: Dickey moved to nominate Anderson as Secretary of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. II. MINUTES A. Minutes of March 14, 1985. MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Dickey to approve the minutes of March 14, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. III. VARIANCES A. Request #85-05, submitted by William Gilk and Jervell Halmrast for Property located south of Scenic Heights Road, north of Red Rock Lake and west of Scenic Heights Addition, The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .50, Subdivision 6; B, 1, C, to permit platting of lots with public sewer and water abutting Recreational Development Waters with the following variances: 1 ) Permit lot sizes less than 20,000 square feet (Code requires a minimum of 20,000 square feet). • 2) Permit lots with a minimum width at building line less than 120 feet (Code requires a minimum of 120 feet) . Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - April 11, 1985 3) To permit lots with a minimum width at the Ordinary High . Water Mark less than 120 feet (Code requires 120 feet). 4) To permit Lots 12, 15, 16, 17, with minimum setbacks from the Ordinary High Water Mark less than 100 feet (Code requires a minimum of 100 feet) . William Gilk, proponent, reviewed the requests with the Board. Site plans were displayed. Gilk pointed out that they could have established a total square footage without any problem by entering into some of the outlot areas that will be dedicated to the City. It did not appear a logical choice as it is wet- land. There is. a distance of 300' from the lots to Red Rock Lake. The house pads are a minimum of 24' above the High Water Mark. Lynch asked why they had so many variances on lot sizes. Gilk replied that the project provided extra heavy costs. They need 50 lots total to make the project viable. The area was overlooked in the City's sanitary sewer scheme. A lift station is needed at a cost of just under $50,000. They are working with the City on a drainage outflow of ponds that will provide an emergency outflow situation in the event of a lot of rain. Sandvick inquired what the projected cost for a lot, for a future homeowner, would be. Gilk said that lots in Phase I are priced at $27,500. • Sandvick asked if a cost analysis had been figured using the $27,500 figure. Could a profit still be obtained, if lots were sold at $20,000 without using a variance. Gilk did not have figures. Sandvick felt that it was not a hardship. One could figure the lots back in and put the cost up higher per lot. A variance would not be needed if they stayed within the Code. Krueger pointed out that the Planning Department, Commission, and Council did not feel that the question of shoreland was a problem. The property to the east, Red Rock development, has lots on the lakeshore that are much narrower and smaller. Lynch had no problem with the Ordinary High Water Mark. His concern was regarding the hardship for the size of the lots. Dickey felt that the size of the lots could be increased without going for a variance. Dickey inquired if Lot 17 had the most encroachment on it if a variance was granted. Gilk said that he had no answer. Durham felt that Lot 17 would be most likely to cause the greatest var- iance. • Dickey asked if an alternative plan had been devised. Gilk replied no. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 April 11 , 1985 Lynch asked how many lots were in the development. Gilk said 50 lots. • Lynch remarked that 14 of the lots are under 14,000 feet, Gilk stated that they were shooting for a 13.5 density. The problem is the marsh area. Durham noted that the Code requirement is for only the lots abutting the shoreline. Sandvick stated that the Code requires 120' for the average width at the building line. Proponents had 90' for the smallest width at the building line. That is a 25% reduction, The average lot width at the Normal Ordinary High Water Mark is 120' for Code. Proponent had 82' for the smallest width at the Normal Ordinary High Water Mark. There is no alternate plan. They need to open up the design someway to eliminate all these different contingencies. Anderson asked if they would need a variance if they weren't in Recreational Development Waters. Durham replied no, not in terms of lot size. Anderson wondered as to what degree the site is a Recreational Devel- opment Waters at this point. Durham said that the boundary of Rec- reational Development Waters is established by the DNR. Lynch felt that the hardship is by virtue of the definition of what is a swamp, is in fact defined as lakeshore, which requires them to seek a variance. Sandvick said that the key work is "recreational ". Even though the piece of property is not a lake, other types of recreation can occur on it. Durham read the definition of Recreational Development Waters from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .50, Subdivision 2,19B: "As shown on the shoreline profile, include protective waters whose shores are presently characterized by low to medium density residential or are planned as such in Comprehensive Guide Plan." Durham also read from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .50, Subdiv- ision 2,20, the definition of a shoreline: "The shoreline where protective waters is defined as the Normal Ordinary High Water Mark. " Anderson asked how they found the High Water Mark. Krueger replied that it was found by elevation. Sandvick asked how many lots are of a small lot size. Gilk said that there are two, Lots 16 and 17. Lynch inquired if the DNR had seen the project. Durham stated that it goes to the DNR after the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 April 11 , 1985 Lynch felt that the processing seemed backwards. The DNR created • the situation in terms of calling the shoreline. Sandvick felt that the DNR should have a copy of our minutes. The DNR could make a decision and bring it back to the Board. Anderson asked if the Planning Commission had approved the project. Durham said Planning Commission recommended approval and it is up for the 2nd reading at the City Council on April 16, 1985. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to continue Variance Request #85-05 submitted by William Gilk and Jervell Halmrast with the following findings: 1 ) The developer present the appropriate information to the DNR. 2) The DNR read the minutes of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments and submit a copy of their minutes to the Board. 3) After the DNR has reviewed and passed judgment, a special meeting be called to decide on appropriate variances. Dickey seconded the motion. • Discussion: Krueger asked if the project received 2nd reading Tuesday, April 16, 1985, how it would affect the request. Durham said that construction can not continue until the variance is granted. Gilk recommended that the Board grant the variance subject to approval by the DNR. A time element is needed to get the project ready. Dickey asked what the earliest date is that the proponent could meet with the DNR. Durham did not have a date. Gilk stated that he would like to ask the Board to deny the var- iance and proceed with the DNR as rapidly as possible and meet with the Council . Anderson did not have strong feelings against the variance request. Motion did not carry--2-3-0. (Dickey, Krueger, and Anderson voted nay. ) MOTION: Lynch made a motion to deny Variance Request #85-05 submitted by William Gilk and Jervell Halmrast with the following findings: • 1 ) The proponent has not made an adequate presentation demon- strating the hardship involved. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - April 11 , 1985 Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried --3-2-0. • (Anderson and Krueger voted nay. ) B. Request #85-07, submitted by Richard Miller Homes,, Inc. for pro- perty located 7009, 7992, 7994, & 7996 Timber Lake Drive. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, for a side yard setback of 20 feet, Code requires 25 feet in RM-2.5 zoning district) . Terry Lamb,representing Richard Miller Homes, Inc. , spoke to the request. In December of 1984, approval was granted for variances on minimum lot depth and variances for side and rear yard setbacks . They would like to amend the approved plan. Richard Miller Homes, Inc. has a buyer who desires a "Harwood" unit. This unit requires different setbacks from the original building proposed. Sandvick asked if they had a buyer in December of 1984. Lamb replied no. Lamb asked if his prospective buyer could not get a loan if he would have to go back for another variance. Durham stated yes. Sandvick asked if this variance superceded the variance approved in December of 1984. Durham replied yes. Dickey noted that each variance stands on its own. • Lamb recommended that the variance request be continued until the next meeting. MOTION: Dickey made a motion that we continue Variance Request #85-07, submitted by Richard Miller Homes, Inc. until May 9, 1985. Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Lynch suggested that Staff present the question of whether one variance precedes another to Roger Pauly, City Attorney. C. Request #85-08, submitted by Welsh Construction for property lo- cated south of Valley View Road'. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2 B: 1 ) To permit proposed Building C with a side yard setback of 10 feet (Code permits 20 feet minimum). 2) City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 3, H, 5, d, to permit a front yard setback of 25 feet along Valley View Road, (Code requires 50 feet) . 3) To permit a 10 foot front yard parking setback along Highway #169/212, (Code requires 25 feet). • 4) Permit off-site parking (Code requires off-street parking facilities to be on the same parcel of land as the structures they intend to serve) . Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - April 11 , 1985 5) City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .30, Subdivision 3, C, • to permit office use up to 75%, (Code permits 50% office use) . Paul Dunn, representing Welsh Construction Company, presented the request to the Board. The Bryant Lake Business Center project consists of three brick buildings with 91 ,000 square feet. A single story office complex has been designed that will permit up to 75% office usage. It is an I-2 zoning office warehouse, Extra parking space had to be put in because of the 75% proposed office use. The exact alignment of Valley View Road was not known when Hennepin County acquired the land. Welsh does not own 100 feet between the curb and property. All county ground will ultimately be maintained as part of the parcel . It will be a greenspace. The Code permits 30% of coverage on this site. Welsh is down to 26%. The project is overlandscaped. There will be a 4' berm so that parking is not visible. Landscape was created to hide truck docks. Dickey stated that the Staff is most concerned regarding proposed parking with a sideyard setback of 10' . Durham noted that it is along Valley View Road and #169. Dickey asked when they expected final approval from the County. Dunn stated that negotiations were underway. • Dickey noted that the City is fully behind Welsh with the exception of the landscaping plan and the right-of-way and grading of #169. Durham said that the City Council and the Planning Commission approved the project contingent upon Hennepin County and MnDot approving the grading plan submitted to the City. Dunn stated that the application is in at the State and they have verbally given Welsh an okay. Dickey said that every time Welsh has come before the Board, they have done everything in their power to try to please the City, Sandvick asked if there were prospective tenants. Dunn stated that a tenant in another building has expressed some interest in leasing. Lynch noted that the problem is created by the property being bounded by two front yards. In order to utilize the property, one of those front yards has to become something else in terms of setback requirements. Durham stated that when you have two front yards, there is no parking in one- front yard and parking i n 2 of the other. MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-08 submitted by Welsh Construction with the following findings: • Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 7 - April 11 , 1985 1 ) Variance contingent upon approval to grade. in Hennepin County right-of-way along Valley View Road & MnDot • right-of-way along Highway #169/212. 2) Contingent upon final review and approval of the plans by the Planning Department. 3) City Council approval . 4) Contingent upon a landscape plan approved by Staff. Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. D. Request #85-09, submitted by Herleiv, Borghild & Sigmund Helle for property located south of Valley View Road and east of Golden Triangle Drive, and west of Norseman's Industrial Park 4th. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 3, H, 5, d, to permit a front yard parking setback of 35 feet Code requires 50 feet Sigmund Helle, owner of the project, reviewed the project with the Board. Proposed plans were displayed. The variance is requested for hardship and aesthetic reasons. The triangular shaped lot caused difficulty in getting the appropriate type of coverage. The building is designed to address viewers from different viewpoints. The building is appropriate for the site with glass, high tech metal and brick. It will not . present a detriment to the community. Parking areas are ad equately screened. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project. Charles Garrity, partner of Valley Place Offices, 9977 Valley View Road, had concern regarding the loading dock. He owns property directly to the east of the proposed development. Helle showed the proposed layout of the project. Garrity indicated no objection with the proposed plan and was in favor of it. Lynch stated that Staff had concern over the 5' berm along Valley View Road and Golden Triangle Drive. Durham said that it was taken care of in the landscaping plan. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-09 submitted by Herleiv, Borghild & Sigmund Helle. Dickey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. E. Request #85-10-M, submitted by Eden Land Sales, Inca The petition is to review and consider a building moving request to be moved to 15515 Edgewood Court from the Vo-Tech School in Eden Prairie. This variance request has been withdrawn. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 8 - April 11, 1985 III. OLD BUSINESS None IV. NEW BUSINESS None V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Krueger moved, seconded by Sandvick, to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 PM. Motion carried unanimously.