Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 09/12/1985 • APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1985 7:30 PM, ADMINISTRATION BLDG. , SCHOOL BOARD 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: Sandvick and Lynch were absent, I. MINUTES A. Minutes of August 9, 1985. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Krueger, to approve the minutes of August 9, 1985. Motion carried--2-0-1 . (Dickey abstained. ) II. VARIANCES • A. Request #85-27, submitted by E. A. Sween Company for property located at 16101 West 78th Street. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 3, J, 1 , to permit outside parking of trucks over /4 ton in the northwest corner of site. Variance #83-41 prohibited parking in the north- west corner of the site. This variance request has been continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting, October 10, 1985. Douglas Fincham of E. A. Sween Company, via phone, made the request on September 5, 1985. A letter from E. A. Sween dated September 6, 1985, confirmed the continuance request. B. Request #85-29, submitted by Vantage Companies for property located at 10340 Viking Drive. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2 B, to permit front yard parking setback for 6 stalls, at 30 feet PUD permitted 35 feet front yard setback from Viking Drive, City Code, requires 50 feet).. This variance request has been withdrawn, based on information documenting realignment of I-494 property line 6 feet to the south. The 6 parking stalls on the south side of the property will meet the required 35 foot setback. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - September 12, 1985 C. Request #85-30, submitted by Byron A Anderson for property • located at 16881 South Manor Road The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 3, to permit the construction of a bedroom addition 37 feet from the front property line Code requires a minimum setback of 54.9 feet as per the average setback of the block. Byron A. Anderson, proponent, spoke to the request. Anderson explained the construction of the bedroom addition on the front of the home. The siding will match the existing siding on the home. The addition will create additional square footage to the existing bedrooms. Krueger asked if there were any comments from the audience. There were no unfavorable comments. Anderson noted that the neighbors to the east have a garage with a setback of approximately 26 feet. The neighbors to the west have a setback of 36.9 feet. Anderson said that other alternatives were considered, but were unfeasible. Anderson stated that the area from his driveway east to 168th Street is heavily wooded, which provides a visual barrier from South Manor Road. is MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-30, submitted by Byron A. Anderson with the following findings: 1 ) The bedroom addition is well placed in relation to the neighbors. 2) There was no neighborhood opposition. 3) The 30' R1-22 minimum setback is maintained. Dickey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. D. Request #85 31 M, submitted by Leslie-W. Kopesky, The petition is to review and consider a building moving request. The house is to be moved from 9000 Co. Rd. #18 to 18340 West 82nd Street. Wayne Kopesky, representing Leslie W. Kopesky, reviewed the request with the Board. The City of Eden Prairie condemned the land in 1976 for park acquisition. (Anderson Lakes Regional Park. ) A settlement was made in 1977, and the City acquired the Lopesky property. Pro- visions as part of the settlement included that the Kopesky's have the option to remove the house by August of 1986. The 5 acre parcel of land that the house is to be moved to is a wooded lot, zoned rural . The Robert Eckert family, 18230 82nd St. W. , said that the move would be acceptable to them. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - September 12, 1985 Krueger asked if there were photos. Durham displayed them. • Anderson inquired if they would move this Fall . Kopesky replied yes. Dickey asked what the elevation of the house would be after the move. Kopesky said that the exterior elevation would remain basically the same with cosmetic maintenance, e.g. painting of trim. An attached two car garage will be constructed on the east side of the home. An exterior material architecturally compatible with the house will be placed on the attached garage addition. The home with the improve- ments will range between $100,000-$150,000. Dickey asked if the plan was satisfactory to the Planning Staff. Durham replied, yes. The home will have to be brought up to State, City Building and Energy Code. Dickey inquired about the landscaping plan. Kopesky said that it would be nice or nicer than the present landscaping. The lot is wooded. Anderson referred to the letter written by Richard Putnam, Tandem Corporation, August 30, 1985. (See Exhibit A. ) Kopesky said that they would move their home as far to the east away from 184th Street as possible. Durham noted that there was no sewer and water. Kopesky said that • they would have a drainfield and septic tank. Dickey asked who the mover would be. Kopesky said that the mover was from Glencoe, Minnesota. MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-31-M, submitted by Leslie W. Kopesky with the following findings: 1 ) A permit be granted by Minnesota Commissioner of Highways for movement of the building over T.H. #5 and a permit be granted by Hennepin County for movement of the building over County Road #18. 2) The applicant and licensed house mover follow all require- ments and application procedures for a building moving permit outlined in City Code, Chapter 10, Section 10.05. 3) Prior to issuance of a house moving permit or building permit, a certified survey by a licensed surveyor of the land to which the building is to be moved be prepared. 4) The building to be moved be upgraded to meet current state building and energy codes. • Dickey seconded the motion with the following additions: there is no objection to the home moving, and the Kopesky's plan to live in the house once it is moved. Motion carried unanimously. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - September 12, 1985 E. Request #85-32, submitted by Kyle Hansen for property located at 9600 Yorkshire Lane. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2, A, 6, to permit the con- struction of a garage at a ratio of 10.12 percent of the total lot area. Code permits a maximum of 72 percent of the total lot area. ) Kyle Hansen, 9600 Yorkshire Lane, presented his proposal to the Board. A larger garage is needed to store belongings such as a boat out of the weather. He does not want his yard to be an eye- sore to the neighbors. Signatures were obtained from 5 neighbors supporting the request. (See Exhibit B. ) Hansen noted that he would meet specifications and other building codes. It would improve the aesthetic value of his home. Krueger asked the size of the garage. Hansen replied that it was 24'x26' . Krueger asked if there were any comments from the audience. There were none. Anderson noted that of the 27 homes built in the Yorkshire Point area, 21 of the homes have garages. The homes were originally built without garages. Durham said that a 20'!x23' garage would fit on the lot and meet City Code. Dickey inquired about the siding of the garage. Hansen said that • it would match that of the house. Dickey asked if there was any problem with drainage. Durham said no. Anderson asked if the garage was attached. Hansen replied no, the lot was too narrow. Kreuger wondered if the other garages in the neighborhood were attached. Durham said that most were detached, although some garages in the neighborhood were attached. Dickey asked if 8' was enough between the house and the garage. Durham replied that 3' was required by Building Codes. However, the proponent should varify that 3' distance with the Building Department. MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-32, submitted by Kyle Hansen with the following findings: 1 ) The siding match that of the house. 2) There were no negative comments from the neighbors. 3) Observe the 6 foot drainage and utility easement setback along the south and west property line. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 September 12, 1985 F. Request #85-33, submitted by Diana Wall for property located at • 8240 Hiawatha Avenue. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 03, Subdivision 3, 1 To permit the construction of a garage 20.04 feet from the front property line. Code requires a minimum setback of 41 .7 feet as per the average setback of the block. 2 To ermit the construction of a garage 7.74 feet from the north side lot line. Code re-_ quires a minimum of 15 feet. Diana Wall , proponent, spoke to the request. Wall explained that the construction of a two car garage was needed for safety reasons besides storage. A 22'x22' garage is proposed. Krueger asked if there were other garages in the neighborhood. Durham said that there were 4 variance requests for garages in the neighborhood. However, they did not exceed the 30' minimum setback requirement for R1-22 Zoning District. Vicki Lee, daughter of Wall , stated that their single garage is overflowing. She and her 2 daughters live with Wall . There have been incidents of theft in the neighborhood, so the two car garage would be a safety factor. The remodeling would greatly improve the appearance and value of the home. Lee said that the garage will be 20.04 feet from the garage to the property line. Durham stated that it is 31 feet from the garage to the curb line. • Lee stated that they have talked with neighbors on both sides and there is no opposition. Krueger inquired how many bedrooms there were in the house. Wall said that there were 3 bedrooms. Durham explained another possible option. The garage could be moved further west and become part of the existing garage. The 22 foot family room could be 18 feet or 15 feet. The garage could be moved approximately 7 feet west, thereby,increasing the front yard setback from 20.04 feet to 27.04 feet. (See Exhibit C. ) Wall said that the family room is narrow. It would be beneficial to have more width. Wall suggested removal of 2 feet from the garage, making a 22'x20' garage. Krueger indicated that a 22.04 foot setback would be created if 2 feet were removed from the garage length. Andrea Hussman, 8234 Hiawatha Avenue, said that the proposed garage would be 7.74 feet from her lot line. However, she doesn't have any windows on the south. Hussman was concerned that the garage would be too close to the lot line. She did not oppose the garage, just its location. 0 Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - September 12, 1985 Hussman was relieved when she realized that the garage would not be 20.04 feet from the curb, but 20.04 feet from the property line. The actual distance from the garage to the curb line, with subtraction of two feet on the garage, is approximately 33 feet. Hussman still had concern with the side lot line variance. Krueger noted that there is a stand of lilacs there to block the view of the garage from the north. Wall , the Board, and Hussman negotiated moving the garage one foot to the south, creating a side yard setback of 8.74 feet. Wall felt that a 20' x2O' garage would not be large enough for all of their equipment and bikes. MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-33, submitted by Diana Wall with the following findings: 1 ) The front yard setback will be 22.04 feet from the front property line. 2) The sideyard setback will be 8.74 feet. Dickey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. G. Request #85-34-M, submitted by Wendell A. Phillippi . The petition • is to review and consider a building moving request. The barn is to be moved from 11187 Riverview Road to 10300 Riverview Road. Wendell A. Phillippi , proponent, reviewed the request with the Board. The unused barn is to be razed this Fall by Phillippi . It is to be moved to 10300 Riverview Road and used for a storage building and vehicle/machinery garage. The building is 26'x4" long, by 20'xP wide, by 23' high. Krueger asked if there were any neighbors present. Steve Hegedus, 9825 Brookview Circle, was concerned about storage and upgrading of the building. Hegedus asked if a new roof would be put on. Phillippi said that they plan on a new roof. Hegedus stated that the theme of their home is nature. They would have a direct view of the barn. Currently they view farm machinery stored outside. Hegedus inquired if the movement of the building would eliminate outside storage. Phillippi said that some of the storage could go inside, however, all equipment couldn't fit inside. Krueger asked Phillippi how long he had been at that location. Phillippi replied 25 years. Krueger inquired if the objective of the barn was for storage. Phillippi said yes, for lighter equipment. The bulldozer would have to sit outside. • Hegedus inquired as to the size of the barn. Phillippi said it was 23 feet high and on a walkout foundation. It would probably be 25 feet above grade. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 7 - September 12, 1985 Hegedus asked if there was to be a garage underneath. Phillippi • replied yes, it would be cut into the hill . Dickey said that no mention was made of livestock. Livestock versus machinery does make a difference. Hegedus stated that he would rather see livestock than machinery. Brian Williams, Caretaker, said that machinery plus valuable cars could be stored there. Dickey stated that the building must be of good quality wood in order to move it. Phillippi noted that this building is the most substantial one. Dickey said that the roof would be replaced with natural shakes. Minor trim repair and repainting would be done. MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-34-M, submitted by Wendell A. Phillippi , with the following findings: 1 ) The applicant and licensed building mover follow all require- ments and application procedures for a building moving permit outlined in City Code, Chapter 10, Section 10.05. 2) The building to be moved meet all rural zoning setbacks and shoreland ordinances. • 3) The applicant will replace the roof with natural roof shakes. 4) The building will be repainted. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. H. Request #85-35, submitted by Finger Enterprises for property located on City West Parkway. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2 B, 1 To permit a site area per dwelling unit of 2,040 square feet. Code requires a minimum of 2,500 feet for RM-2.5 zoning district. 2 To permit construction of an apartment building 48 feet in height. Code permits 45 feet maximum height of a structure in RM-2.5 zoning district. Joseph Finli.ey, representing Finger Enterprises, reviewed the request with the Board. The minimum size for a PUD is 15 acres and the Finger Enterprises project is 13.5 acres. Normally, a variance of this nature, within a PUD, would be granted through that process. Site plans were displayed. Six apartment buildings are proposed, with a total of 288 units. The Planning Commission recommended approval on August 12, 1985. The City Council reviewed the proposal on September 3, 1985, and approved 1st Reading based on the Planning Commission recommendation. • Krueger asked if there were any comments from the audience. There were none. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 8 - September 12, 1985 MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request . #85-35, submitted by Finger Enterprises with the following findings: 1 ) Conditions placed upon the development proposal by the City Council be adhered to. 2) The total amount of units be 288. 3) The gross density be 21 .3 units per acre. 4) The request is not inconsistent with the City West PUD or High Density Guide Plan. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. I. Request #85-36, submitted by Business Campus Limited Partnership for property located at 10349-10375 W. 70th Street. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 3, K, to permit painted concrete block as an exterior building material for the south elevation of two buildings in Phase II of MN-TX Business Campus. Code does not permit concrete block. Bernie Frye, representing Business Campus Limited Partnership, explained the request to the Board. In 1984, two buildings were presented to the Planning Commission to have masonry precast wall panels. The Planner expressed concern that the entry elevations had a long, linear, flat • appearance. At the request of the Planning Department, the exterior building materials were changed to masonry/dryvit. This eliminated the need for any precast panels on the job. Durham asked if it was known at the time of construction that precast concrete block was not acceptable. Frye said that it was missed by Business Campus Limited Partnership, the Planning Department, and the City Council . Frye noted that the concrete block is less expensive than the precast panels. The panel cost is more because of the insulation. Frye said that the material used was a mistake. The City redesigned it and went along with it. Business Campus Limited Partnership bent for the City. It was an honest mistake. Frye stated that the $50,000 was spent to sod and upgrade land dedicated to the City. Durham said that there was also a problem of screening mechanical equipment. Durham was concerned that a precedent could be set for other developers to deviate from City Code and construct non-conforming buildings. They would then seek to obtain a variance. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 9 - September 12, 1985 Frye said that the building was 85% completed when the non-conforming • material being used was identified. MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-36, submitted by Business Campus Limited Partnership with the following findings: 1 ) A rooftop mechanical screening plan and bond be submitted to the Planning Department for approval . 2) This request is for a one time occurence only. 3) The building has made all .possible attempts to conform to the Code. 4) The builder had dedicated a park to the City. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. J. Request #85-37, submitted by Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, for property located at 6231 Baker Road. The request is for an inter- pretation of City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .25, Subdivision_ 1, B, to permit the construction of a Rac uet and Swim Club within a Community Commercial Zoning District. Code permits retail stores, offices, and personal service establishments to be patronized pri- marily by residents of the immediate community area in Community Zoning District. • Peter Beck, attorney with Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, rep- resented Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. Also present were Jerry and Ron Bailey of Arteka and Alan Kimpell , architect for the project. Beck stated that the request is an appeal of determination and is an allowable use within the Community Commercial Zoning District. Pre- liminary site plans were shown. Beck noted that the proposed club will contain five outdoor and twelve indoor tennis courts, nine racquetball and squash courts, an indoor gymnasium, an indoor running track, a Nautilis room, a weight room, other related fitness facilities, locker rooms, a small pro shop for the sale of sports equipment and clothing, and a small "juice bar" serving snacks and juices. There will be no restaurant facilities and no liquor served in the Club. The tennis building, the clubhouse, and the walkways between them will occupy a total of approximately 170,000 square feet. There are 304 parking spaces, which is in excess of the City Code requirements. Beck stated that Normandale Tennis Club operates ten racquet and swim clubs in the metropolitan area. Each of these clubs is open to all members of any club. It will serve approximately 1 ,200 1 ,300 members. Experience has shown that each club attracts primarily members who live or work within ten minutes of the Club. • There are currently 600 club members from Eden Prairie that will form a nucleus that will support this club. Normandale Tennis Clubs generate approximately 500-900 member visits per day during Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 10 - September 12, 1985 the winter. In summer it is approximately 2 of that. The maximum • number of total trips to and from the Club during the peak season will be between 1000-1500. Beck read from the Staff Report dated August 27,1985. It reads in part: "A single use facility, as proposed by Normandale Tennis Center, would not provide the range of personal services needed by the residents of the area. " "The City Code, specifically lists special purpose for Community Commercial and Regional Commercial Zoning Districts: 1 ) To provide appropriately located areas for retail stores, offices, and personal service establish- ments patronized primarily by residents of the immediate area. 2) To permit development of community shopping centers and related residential uses of the size and in the appropriate locations shown on the Guide Plan, according to standards that minimize adverse impact on adjoining residential uses." "Staff finds that the Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. proposed • racquet and swim club is not a permitted use within the Com- munity Commercial District and recommends denial of the request for the following reasons: 1 ) The NTC use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan elements which outlines Community Commer- cial as, . . . intended to meet the day-to-day shopping needs of residents of the City and would include the full range of retail shops and services at a scale smaller than a regional center. . . " 2) The NTC use as proposed, is inconsistent with the City's Code which outlines special purposes of C-Com as . .retail stores, offices, and personal service establishments patronized primarily by residents of the immediate community area. " Beck said that they do not accept the fact that NTC is a single use facility. It is a multiple facility. Beck gave as an example of a single use facility, Lil Red Grocery Store, at the intersection of Valley View Road and County Road #4. Beck read again from the August 27, 1985 Staff Report. It states in part: "City Code identifies special purpose of the C-REG Regional • Commercial District to: 1 ) To provide a large site at an appropriate location Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 11 - September 12, 1985 for a major shopping center which serves a wider • region than the City itself consistent with the intent of the Metropolitan Guide Plan. " Beck felt that this is not the intent of the ordinance. Staff is concerned that NTC would have a draw area of 5-6 miles and serve Minnetonka, Edina and Bloomington, besides Eden Prairie. Beck stated that they intend to serve the community of Eden Prairie with the 600 local members as a nucleus. They will also serve Minnetonka. The need is in Eden Prairie, not Edina or Bloomington. Beck said that the Institute of Traffic has found that 11 trips are generated per 1 ,000 square feet. Eden Prairie has 2 pieces of land the same size: The Preserve and Prairie Village Mall , each 80,000 square feet. These centers generate over 9,000 trips per day. Beck stated that if the proposed club were built, there would be no nuisance characteristics such as noise or litter. It would not be an adverse influence on the surrounding neighborhood. Durham noted that NTC would be considered a single use; e.g. a health center only. It would not be considered as "Community Commercial ". The C-Com area at Baker Road, and West 62 nd Street will serve residents in a 1-3 mile radius. Services would be provided to approximately 4,500 people today, approximately 6,853 people as estimated in the 1990 population forecast, and 9,000 people as • estimated in the City's population forecast. Durham called three communities with NTC locations : 1 ) Bloomington has two NTC locations: a) The West 78th Street location is zoned FRWD, which is Freeway Zoning District. The NTC was permitted with a special use permit. Permitted use within this zoning district is Office and Industrial Development. b) The 98th Street Club is zoned FRWD-PD, which is a Planned Development. Permitted uses include Office, Industrial and Large Commercial Development. 2) Burnsville is Zoned General Development, which is a zoning district similar to C-REG Service. 3) St. Louis Park is zoned Diversified Development District, which is an intense zoning district, similar in character- istics to a C-REG Service. This district includes Large Office, Industrial , Commercial , and Hotel Development. Durham said that the NTC in these three communities have a zoning classification similar to Eden Prairie's C-REG Service Zoning District. • Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 12 - September 12, 1985 • Durham stated that by having a single use tennis club on this nine acre site, Eden Prairie would be reducing a service area to be found within a Community Commercial District. Not everyone would go to the health club. Some might need a dry cleaners, or day care, etc. The nine acres should not be for just one use. We are not saying that this type of use can't be used in Community Commercial . It's not the use that the City is concerned about, but that we will lose the site for a shopping center. Staff would like to see an assortment of retail services as outlined in the City Code for Com- munity Commercial Zoning. Krueger asked if another route would be to rezone the property. Durham stated that it would have to go to the Planning Commission and City Council for a Guide plan change and C-REG Service Zoning. Anderson was not opposed to the idea. Durham read from the August 27, 1985 Staff Report. It reads in part: "City Code identifies special purpose of the C-COM Community Commercial District to: To permit development of community shopping centers and related residential uses of the size and in the appro- priate locations shown on the Guide Plan, according to standards that minimize adverse impact on adjoining residential uses. " • Peter Stalland, attorney, representing residents of St. John's Wood Homes, was in strong support of the NTC project. (See Exhibits D and E. ) Stalland said that the club is preferable to a shopping center as it will be aesthetically pleasing, with less traffic problems. From the homeowner's prospective, the values of the townhouses would be increased with the club. A shopping center would tend to decrease property values and degrade the area. Stalland stated that the ordinance allows this use. The Staff is picking and choosing what it wants to see developed on this site. Stalland stated that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that zoning ordinances are to be construed strictly against a City and in favor of a property owner. Neighbors present were in support of the tennis club versus the shopping center. Anderson said that he lives in the area, and would be in favor of a tennis club. He wondered about the need for a mall . Durham stated that the development of Tanager Creek, Cardinal Creek, and develop- ment of vacant lots is occuring rapidly. The two existing Community Commercial sites are experiencing saturation. The Preserve Mall and • Prairie Village Mall served 16,263 people in 1980. Today, these Commercial Centers are serving approximately 25,000 +. Removal of this nine acre Community Commercial site creates added pressure to the existing Community Commercial sites. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 13 - September 12, 1985 Ron Bailey, owner of the site, said that they got a request from the developer to sell the land. They have attempted to work with the City Planning Department and it hasn't worked out well . Many cities don't have a Community Commercial Zoning District. The scale for a shopping center is normally 50,000-100,000 square feet. City Planner Chris Enger would like to see 4 acres of 9.7 acres dedicated to a shopping center. (80,000 square feet shopping center. ) Bailey felt that Enger wedged himself between the owner and interferred with the natural process. Dickey said that the Board has a responsibility to the City and the Council . If the Board denies the interpretation, the recourse is for the proponent to ask to go to the City Council . The Planning Department will appeal the Board's decision if the interpretation is in favor of permitting NTC Club on the complete 9 acre site. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments received a letter from Judy Simac, 8800 Knollwood Drive, on September 12, 1985. Simac was unable to attend the meeting and is in favor of the tennis club. (See Exhibit F. ) MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-37, submitted by Larkin, Hoffman, and Lindgren, with the following findings: 1 ) It is a property that will serve residents in the immediate • area. 2) The determination made by City Staff, Zoning Administrator, that the construction of the proposed Racquet and Swim Club is of such scale to be considered a Regional Commercial use and not consistent with a Community Commercial Zoning District is not a true and correct interpretation of the Code. There- fore, this Board determines the proposed Racquet and Swim Club an appropriate use in a Community Commercial Zoning District. Dickey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. K. Request #85-38, submitted by Krown Furniture, Inc. for property located at 10340 Viking Drive. The request is from City Code, Chapter 2, Section 2.11 , Subdivision 2, for the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to hear an appeal of determination made by City Staff, Zoning Administrator. Staff finds the Krown Furniture_ use as a Commercial use and not minor or supporting in nature to an I-2 use, and is in excess of 15% of principal I-2 use, there- fore, not permitted in an I-2 Zoning District. David Zirbes, representing Krown Furniture, Inc. , spoke to the request. Zirbes noted that they are asking for an interpretation for the use of the building. They have grown in the last 4 years to a 30,000 square foot building. An I-2 Zoning District was • applied for by Vantage for office/showroom. A variance granted allowed up to 75% office for this site. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 14 - September 12, 1985 Krueger asked if they had retail use in the warehouse district. Zirbes said that the retail use varies. The traffic brought in is minute. It is only on week-ends and evenings. Durham stated that the Staff has had problems in the past. The public is attracted to retail operation by newspapers, radio and television ads. The Staff has determined that the showroom display area is retail commercial space. Use of more than 15% of the build- ing in that manner does not meet Code requirements. (3,000 square feet of the proposed building. ) Wholesale is allowed; retail is not permitted. Zirbes said that the display rooms are for wholesale. The area is set up like a showroom. Dickey asked what other areas Krown Furniture could locate in. Durham mentioned the Factory Outlet Centre, or any Commercial Zoning District. Because of Krown Furniture's size, C-REG Service Zoning District would be an appropriate zoning district to locate in. Zirbes stated that the Factory Outlet Centre is a different image. Most of their business is wholesale. Zirbes said that in Industrial Business Use, 15% is permitted retail . Durham noted that there are other business problems with commercial use such as parking and signage. • Krueger asked if Krown Furniture would be taking the whole building. Zirbes said yes, they would have freeway frontage. Durham stated that if this commercial use were permitted in a I-2 Zoning District, a precedent would be set to allow Commercial over 15% in an I-2 Zoning District. Krueger inquired how much space there would be for retail . Zirbes said basically 15%. The displays would be the same for wholesale and retail . Zirbes said that there could be 20 employees. There is parking for 130. There are 110 parking spaces left over. MOTION: Krueger made a motion to deny Variance Request #85-38 with the following findings: 1 ) The Krown Furniture use is determined to be Commercial . 2) It is not minor or supporting in nature to an I-2 use. 3) It is in excess of 15% of principal I-2 use, therefore not permitted in an I-2 zoning district. • 4) There is no undue hardship. Other reasonable uses of the building exist. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried --2-0-1 . (Dickey abstained. ) Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 15 - September 12, 1985 L. Rgquest #85-39, submitted by William & Dorothy Gilk for property • located at 15212 Scenic Heights Road. The request is for a var- iance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2, B, 1 To permit platting of rural lot at 1 .9 acres and a lot at 5.75 acres. Code requires a minimum of 10 acres in rural zoning district 2 City Code, Chapter 12, Section 12.30, Subdivision 12, A, to permit platting of the lots without frontage on a publicly dedicated street or street that has received legal status. Code requires all lots to have frontage on a publicly dedicated street) , 3 City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Sub- division 2, B, to permit minimum lot depth of 187.7 feet. Code requires 300 feet minimum. William Gilk, 15212 Scenic Heights Road, presented his request to the Board. Gilk has owned the property for 14 years. In 1981 , he request- ed a 3 lot combination into one lot. This was done to be able to qualify for homestead taxes. They were not aware or advised of pend- ing City Code changes which would restrict building a second home in the future. Gilk has paid two sewer and water assessments on the combined area. There were no comments from the neighbors. Durham said that the main concern is that there are multiple variances. The existing house setback of 25 feet does not meet Code minimum of 50 feet. To construct a home on the newly created lot would also require variances. Staff would suggest rezoning the property from Rural to • R1-22. Variances for access on a public street and lot width would be required versus multiple variances for lot size, frontage on a public street right-of-way, lot width, and multiple side yard setbacks. Anderson said that if they went to R1-22 zoning it would be difficult. Krueger asked how much street frontage would be needed. Durham said 90 feet is the minimum in R1-22 Zoning District. Krueger stated that the land conforms with what is existing around it. Durham said that it is the Staff's job to support the Code. Krueger said that it would still be within the R1-22 setback. Gilk stated that he is working on a design for an L-shaped home. It would have a 2 or 3 car garage. Durham said that the City Engineer would like to see the platting. It may be necessary to obtain an administrative split. Also, a survey must be done of the proposed home. MOTION: Krueger made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-39 submitted by William '& Dorothy Gilk, with the following findings: • 1 ) The parcel is going to be compatible with the surrounding homes. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 16 - September 12, 1985 2) There were no unfavorable comments from the neighbors. 3) Variances for building setbacks must be granted prior to issuance of a building permit. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried--2-0-1 . (Dickey abstained. ) III. OLD BUSINESS None IV. NEW BUSINESS Assistant Planner, Steve Durham, stated that the Board of Appeals and Adjustments is scheduled to have a joint meeting with the City Council in December 1985, or January 1986. V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Dickey, to adjourn the meeting at 11 :20 PM. Motion carried unanimously. • EXHIBIT A " TANDEM - - lames L. Ostcn%on CORPORATION Richard A. Putnam �KERS• PLANNERS• DEVELOPERS 6440 Flying Cloud Drivc. Edcn Prairic, MN 55344 /(612)941-1070 August 30. 1985 Board of Appeals G Adjustments City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Kopesky Hearing 4185-31-M Dear Commissioners: Tandem Corporation purchased the adjacent 57 acres north of Mr. G Mrs. Kopesky's lot in December. 1984. for future development. We have reviewed the enclosed Building Moving Request and have the following comments: 1. We support Mr. G Mrs. Kopesky's request to move their existing home to the corner lot on 184th Ave. and 82nd Street. 2. We suggest that Mr G Mrs. Kopesky review the city thoroughfare plans for 184th Ave. or Dell Road. The street is planned as a minor arterial street • similar to Co. Rd. 4, Baker Road and Anderson Lakes Parkway. The future improvements to 184th will require widening from the very narrow gravel road to a 35' to 52' wide major street. We expect the City will need additional right-of-way for these expansions. We have reviewed the preliminary plans for u.S. 169/212 located about k mile south of 82nd street. The plans are for a diamond interchange with 184th Ave. This interchange with 184th Ave. will be the primary access to Chanhassen and Western Eden Prairie. 3. The land use plans for the land in Chanhassen west of 184th Ave. indicate a commercial/industrial use similar to CPT. Residential east of 184th may work fine if adequate space is left from 184th Ave. 4. My suggestion to Mr. G Mrs. Kopesky would be to locate their home farther east away from 184th so their privacy is protected and so they may have a future lot when utility service is available. In summary, we support the Kopesky's request for a moving permit. Thank you for your allowing us the opportunity to comment. Sincerely. i -' 1111 Richard A. Putnam Tandem Corporation RAP:Ij CC: Mr. G Mrs. Leslie Kopesky EXHIBIT B - 18 - . - • I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE VARIANCE THAT KYLE HANSEN HAS PROPOSED AT 9600 YORKSHIRE LANE. THE VARIANCE BEING AN INCREASE FOR GARAGE SPACE FROM 7z% TO 10% OF THE LAND. THE GARAGE WILL STILL BE WITHIN THE SET BACKS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE. NAME ADDRESS PRONE # 4-2 w�� EXHIBIT C Pnon• : des-13�o veyor civil Engineer d i rti ictte JOB NO. e- 70 SURVEY FOR Dianna Wall SCENIC �l(�ITS, City of Eden Prairie) Hennepin County, DESCRIBED AS: Lot 6, Block 1, easements of record. Minnesota and reserving /00.0 Y GHAtN LINK FENGC K x 04 k K I l X K I POOL- rCNAN LINK FgI�LC i h t i 1-7 i I 1 h„plt O w/oIsr- --l2b-7• � � r ? 16 � l.+sc • NI 105 x \57�N out - _ \ z / .16 4-0 I B.o � Lot � a g,39 920 g..SP [-xe5t��;J Elcvat�oh a o.0% j C.3 8..� �K(Stin� t�t��na� f�- / I RwHes to 6••M.pie r"Plt SLr13 s O M HYAWATN AVG • _ •.__-- wERTIFl!' F SURVEY ed the property described above and that I hereby certify that on 8� I survey the above plot is a correct representation of said survey. EXHIBIT H Calvin H. He 'EXHIBIT D r - 20 - LAW OFFICES TELEPHONE STALL _1TD 8C STALLAND (612) 835-5577 • ONE CORPORATE CENTER FINANCIAL PLAZA 7261 OHMS LANE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55435 LUTHER M. STALLAND H. PETER STALLAND September 12, 1985 Eden Praire Board of Appeals and Adjustments City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. Appeal from Planning Staff Determination Dear Board Members: Please be advised that this office represents the St. John' s Wood Homes Association in Eden Prairie. The St. John' s Wood Townhomes are situated directly to the west across Baker Road from the subject site of the planned Normandale Tennis Center, which is presently the • Arteka Nursery. The Normandale Tennis Center developers and their attorneys have met with various members of the Townhome Association about the project. The Board of Directors has recently had a special meeting and has resolved that the Tennis Center would be the most appropriate use for the property. The Board strongly endorses this project and urges the Board of Appeals to reverse the Planning Staff determination that this is not an appropriate use pursuant to the City Code. The City clearly has a heavy burden to carry if it decides to dis- allow this use pursuant to Section 11. 25 of the City Code. It is our opinion that a tennis club clearly comes within the community commercial district designation. Not only is the language of sub- section B, Section 11. 25 ,so general as to clearly allow such a "personal service establishment" such as a tennis club which is patronized primarily by the residents of the immediate community, but in the event of a court test this ordinance could be struck down as unconstitutionally vague. The City cannot have a very generally worded ordinance and then pick and choose which types of uses it decides is appropriate for a certain parcel. The Minnesota Supreme Court has recently held that it is arbitrary as a matter of law to deny approval of an application which complies in all respects to the City ordinances . Odell v. City of Eagan (1984) 348 NW 2d 792. The Supreme Court has also repeatedly held that zoning ordinances are to be construed strictly against a city and in favor of a property owner. Frank' s Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville (1980) 295 NW 2d 604; Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan (1984) 348 NW 2d 66; Chan- hassen Estates Res. v. City of Chanhassen (1984) 342 NW 2d 335. r - 21 - Eden Prairie Board of Appeals and Adjustments September 12, 1985 Page Two Additionally it is the opinion of the Board that aesthetically the site as a tennis club would clearly be preferable over any type of shopping center, retail or other service-commercial use which may be allowable for that zoning district. Also, it is the opinion of the Board that traffic would be reduced and safety enhanced by a recrea- tional facility such as a tennis club versus the continual traffic flow in and out of a commercial-retail project. If the Board or staff have any questions about this letter or the enclosed Resolution from the Board, please do not hesitate to call me. The Board at St. John' s Wood of course desires to help the City, the property owner, and the developers in any way toward the positive resolution of this issue. Yours/ t u , � GC Peter Stalland PS/jj Enclosure • EXHIBIT E - 22 - RESOLUTION OF ST. JOHN' S WOOD HOMES ASSOCIATION WHEREAS declarant is a duly Minnesota nonprofit association which comprises of property owners of townhomes located in the Village of Eden Prairie and said declarant is the owner of certain property in the Village of Eden Prairie, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described as St. John' s Wood; and WHEREAS it has come to the attention of the St. John' s Wood Homes Association Board of Directors that Mr. Ron Bailey, owner of Arteka, Inc. , which owns approximately ten acres across Baker Road to the east of St. John' s Wood Townhomes, has entered into a purchase agreement to sell subject property to Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. ; and WHEREAS further declarant understands that Normandale Tennis • Centers, Inc. , as potential developer of the Arteka property, is presently appealing from the Eden Prairie Planning Staff determina- tion that said parcel is not appropriate within City zoning ordinance for the tennis facility; and WHEREAS St. John' s Wood Homes Association Board of Directors on behalf of the homeowners in St. John' s Wood has an interest in the potential development of ,said site as it directly affects the home- owners of St. John' s Wood; and WHEREAS declarant desires that the Planning Commission; Board of Appeals and Adjustment; and City Council consider any decision they may make in regard to said application in light of the declar- ant' s Resolution stated herein; BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the declarant believes that Norman- dale Tennis Centers, Inc . is the most appropriate use for the - 23 - Y' • subject property, and the declarant on behalf of the homeowners of St. John' s Wood strongly recommends that the City of Eden Prairie grant any and all permits required for the construction and develop- ment of said site. RESOLVED FURTHER that in the opinion of the Board of Directors said tennis club will likely be patronized by the townhomeowners and other residents of the surrounding community; that the tennis club aesthetically would be a more appropriate and pleasing project than any other type of service, retail, or other commercial use; and traffic and safety problems will have less adverse impact to neighboring areas of a tennis club in contrast to any other commer- cial use. • Dated this 12th day of September, 1985. BOARD OF DIRECTORS ST. JOHNS ' S WOOD HOMES ASSOCIATION By Its -2- EXHIBIT F - 24 - Judith M. Simac 8800 Knollwood Drive • Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Eden Prairie Board of Appeals and Adjustments City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Normandale Tennis Centers, Inc. Appeal of the Planning Department Determination Dear Board Members: I am unable to attend the public hearing to be held on September 12 , 1985 concerning the Normandale Tennis Centers , Inc. appeal of the staff determination that the proposed racquet and swim club is not a permitted use within the Community Commercial zoning district; therefore, I respect- fully request that my written comments be accepted as public testimony and be made part of the public record. Personally, I enjoy playing tennis (especially year- round) and I am pleased that an established club is interested in constructing another facility in Eden Prairie. I believe • there is a market demand for a project of this scale within the community. From a professional planning point of view, I disagree with the staff interpretation of the purpose of the Community Commercial District in regard to the proposed development. A typical Community Commercial district is designated to provide retail sales and services for the local population. The district does not necessarily need the land area nor highway orientation which is imperative to a regional commercial district. If the Board conducted a survey of metropolitan cities, the result would most likely indicate that a majority of the cities have adopted within their zoning ordinance the concept that community commercial is the provision of services for the local population. In regard to the purposes of the Community Commercial district as described in the Eden Prairie ordinance, the proposed use is a service establishment which will be primarily used by local residents and is compatible with the existing residential, land uses. Further, the proposed development complies with re- quirements of the district concerning land area, building size and other site design standards. • v. - 25 - Page two Normandale Tennis Centers It is the responsibility of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to determine whether the proposed use is compatible with the general purpose of the zoning district and the Compre- hensive Plan. The Board does not have the authority to decide which uses they would prefer to develop on select parcels of land. The Board determination on this particular application will create a precedent for future interpretations of the pur- poses of the community commercial district. Therefore, I would urge you to review the language statedin the ordinance regarding community commercial and regional commercial and determine that the proposed tennis and swim club clearly belongs in the Community Commercial district. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Yours truly, Lith M. Simac • P.S. My background includes a degree in urban planning from the University of Pittsburgh and seven years of professional planning experience. Presently I am the City Planner for the City of Shakopee. •