Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 10/10/1985 • APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, 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: Krueger was absent. I. MINUTES A. Minutes of September 12, 1985. MOTION: Dickey moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the minutes of September 12, 1985. Motion carried--2-0-2. (Lynch and Sandvick 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 var- iance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 3, J, 1 , to permit outside parking of trucks over 31-4 ton in north- west corner of site. Variance #83-41 rohibited-parking in the northwest corner of the site. This variance request was withdrawn by Douglas Fincham on October 1 , 1985. Parking of trucks over 3/4 ton is still not permitted in the northwest corner of the E. A. Sween site. B. Request #85-40, submitted by McGlynn Bakeries, Inc. for property located at 7752 Mitchell Road The request is for a variance from the conditions of Final Order #84-55, which required the continuation of the mansard roof on the new McGlynn budding addition McGlynn requests the requirement for continuation_ of the mansard roof be deleted. Farrell Johnson, of Buetow and Associates, architect with the project, reviewed the project with the Board. Site plans were displayed. Johnson explained that McGlynn Bakeries is back to the Board because in the course of taking the plans to the Plann- ing Staff and the approval at the City Hall , the intent for the need of the mansard roof was misunderstood. McGlynn thought • continuation of the mansard roof was a code requirement and neglected not to "buck" the code anymore than they had to in regard to Request #84-55. A variation is being asked from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - October 10, 1985 design concept that was originally presented and approved by the • Board. McGlynn feels that the building aesthetically is more appealing, and more truthfully stated the use and application of the building as a production building. The continuation of the mansard roof from where it is presently on the building to the extension, creates an overdone issue. The original mansard was applied to achieve a configuration of building in conjunction with windows, doors, etc. that were a part of that building for both first and second floors. The present building is strictly a production building. The application of a mansard on it is quite superfluous in terms of its function. The issue becomes one of aesthetic values. To keep the building in the form and shape that it presently is, without the mansard, is a more honest statement. The site line that the mansard creates on the present building doesn't "read" out on the addition. Johnson referred to a letter written by K.E. Schumacher, Eden Land Sales, Inc. , October, 3, 1985. The letter criticized the sterile appearance of the addition. They recommend the original mansard roof be installed or planting of more trees and shrubs. In view- ing the surrounding buildings , the combined effect of the McGlynn building, with the mansard as is presently on, with the expansion as it is built,and with the berm structure as it is, presents an equal or better appearance than other buildings in the area. Photos were displayed of buildings in the surrounding area. Immediately behind the office to be used by K. E. Schumacher, there is a building with a sterile effect and with no berms or trees. • Lynch wondered when the decision was made not to use the mansard. The theme of the mansard was for architectural continuity. Johnson said that they felt that the mansard was a code requirement. The Planning Staff requested that McGlynn have the mansard. The mansard was designed and intended to be built. When the building was 95-98% complete, McGlynn asked the Planning Staff to visit the site. The Planning Staff suggested that if the whole mansard wasn't desired, a partial type of mansard could be built. After studies were made, it was decided to do all of the mansard or none. Dickey said that to add a mansard roof would be a waste of money on McGlynn's part. On the part of the City, it would be further maintenance problems. If there was some added landscape and some kind of finish on the cap structure where the roof meets the side, it would be adequate to meet the needs. To add a mansard roof around the entire structure would be overdoing it. Lynch asked if there were any comments from the audience. There were none. Anderson said that McGlynn knew that they needed the mansard roof and didn't add it on. • Durham stated that the mansard roof was not a code requirement. Because the site is the entrance to Edenvale PUD, it was felt the mansard roof to join the two buildings together should be required. As a condition, to approval of the original variance on Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - October 10, 1095 October 11 , 1984, of F.A.R. and parking, a mansard roof was • required. Sandvick asked how much parking was given up. Durham said that 278 was required and 181 was approved by the Board. The F.A.R. was increased from .30 from the entire site to .35. Lynch said that normally consideration of the Board in granting variances has been related to undue hardship or something unique to the property. Johnson said that originally, when the building was designed, there was an opinion against the mansard. When the mass of concrete went up and it formed a back drop for the rest of the structure, feeling grew stronger against a mansard. Lynch felt that McGlynn didn't understand the options that were made with the original agreement. Lack of planning, foresight, or procastration doesn't constitute a crisis. Sandvick felt that there was no continuity in the two colors of the buildings. The mansard roof would at least tie it together. Johnson said that the two colors of the building are complementary to each other. The building is minimized by the color picked. Sandvick read from the conditions of Final Orders, Request #84-55, of October 11 , 1984. It reads in part: "The architecture of the proposed building expansion reflect continuity in terms of building materials , color and roof lines. Continuation of the mansard roof and office appear- ance be maintained. " Sandvick said that the spirit of what was done on October 11 , 1984, was not carried through. Dickey said that we should ask if it would be more pleasing with more trees or with the mansard roof. Lynch felt that the issue is the conditions that were set in the orginal variance. There is no hardship stated. Johnson stated that there was a hardship in terms of the owner. A mansard roof would cost $65,000 to put on. There would be a cost of $15,000-$20,000 to put trees in to justify the lack of the mansard. Dickey said his concern is with the use of wood. The original building was not designed to have the mansard roof. It was an afterthought by Mr. Peterson. Sandvick asked if there was some cap that could be put on the • roof to pick up the mansard roof without changing it. Johnson said that a cap or fascia did not work out in their studies. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - October 10, 1985 Bert McGlynn, owner, stated that the color of the building • could be changed. Sandvick asked if McGlynn originally owned the building. McGlynn said that he originally leased space from Dietrich. McGlynn owns the whole building now. Sandvick wondered why the mansard roof was put on when it wasn't required by code. McGlynn said that the office/warehouse on the corner was the entrance to Edenvale, and they wanted them to look like an apartment. The mansard roof was added as an afterthought. Lynch said that the original variance was an 8 foot berm and 16 foot evergreens. Lynch wondered what the difference was in the land- scaping. Johnson said that the berm was between 12-14 feet al- ready. The planting as it exists, is consistent with the intent. It will be enhanced. Dickey felt that the mansard roof would make the building look not as pleasing as it is now. Anderson asked if McGlynn would like to have the request tabled for a month and work on the issue. Johnson replied yes. MOTION: Anderson made a motion to continue Variance Request #85-40, submitted by McGlynn Bakeries to November 14, 1985. Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried --3-1-0. • (Lynch voted nay. ) C. 'Request #85-41 , submitted by Neil Brastad, Kensington Investments_, Inc for property located west of Martin Drive, between Tobin Arp and N.S.P. Power Station The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2 B to permit a lot size of 4.38 acres in I-General Zoning District. Code requires 5 acre minimum. Neil Brastad, representing Kensington Investments, Inc. spoke to the request. In 1977, a variance was granted for lot size. The conditions to granting of the variance were not met within the one year time limit. They have reapplied for a lot size variance because. they have a prospective tenant interested in locating there. Lynch questioned what conditions are different now than in 1977. Durham stated that they are proposing a moving storage building. There is concern regarding the location of the loading docks and screening of the outside storage. Four front loading bays are being proposed facing Martin Drive. Staff has suggested the architect relocate the dock or provide an effective screening plan. Brastad stated that the plan was designed to meet tenant needs . Durham said that the City does not have specific site plans of the project such as: location of driveways, or landscaping or Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - October 10, 1985 screening plans. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-41 submitted by Neil Brastad with the following findings: 1 ) The applicant work with the City Engineer and Planning Department in defining the final site plan. The site plan and building must be approved by the Planning Department, prior to issuance of a building permit. The site plan should be revised to include the following: a) Provide proof of parking for 63 parking stalls. Increase parking required from 21 stalls to 26 stalls. b) Indicate on plan proposed future building expansion. c) Relocate drive access to the site approximately 60 feet to the north. 2) Submit finalized building elevations to the Planning Department for approval , prior to issuance of building permit. The plans shall include: a) Interior floor plan. • b) Building materials, including double scored concrete block. Color should be added to the concrete block to illuminate painting. c) Location of mechanical equipment, roof mounted or ground based. 3) Submit a landscape/screening plan to Planning Department which shall include: a) Complete screening of loading docks from Martin Drive. b) Complete screening of trucks over 3/4 ton stored on the site from adjacent differing land uses. c) Minimum landscape/screening requirements according to City Code, Chapter 11 . 4) Written statement from the applicant that truck storage over 3/4 ton will occur only in the area designated on the proposed site plan. Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. D. Request #85-42, submitted by Ron-Mar Properties for property located • at 8080 Wallace Road 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' front yard setback) . Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - October 10, 1985 Ron Krueger, representing Ron-Mar, reviewed the proposal with • the Board. Site plans were displayed. A 20,000 square foot office warehouse building is proposed next to the Central Middle School . The school district has been spoken to in regard to widening the school road 5 feet. Concrete curb will be installed and this will be used as an entrance instead of having two en- trances. Plans are to have a small berm in a continuous hedge to screen the property. Loading docks are hidden from view on the road. Hedges and plantings will screen the loading dock area from the school . The adjacent buildings have setbacks of 34 feet and 44 feet. Anderson asked where the;,point of variance was. Krueger said that 50 feet from the property line is required by City Code and the proposed parking is at 15 feet. Krueger said that the school road is not a public street. Sandvick asked what type of business would be going in. Krueger said that it would be a garment business. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-42, submitted by Ron-Mar Properties with the following • findings: 1 ) 30% of the setback is caused by the cul-de-sac. If the cul-de-sac were not there it would be more than ample room to meet the 50 foot setback. 2) An effort was made to reduce building size. 3) Special berming has been planned. 4) The proponent has worked with the School Board to solve difficulties. 5) There were no individuals in the audience opposed to the variance. 6) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, submit a revised grading plan with slopes not to exceed a range between 2.5:1 and 3:1 slopes. 7) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, submit to the Planning Department, a landscape/screening plan. Special attention should be directed to the loading dock area and screening of parking lot from Wallace Road. • Dickey seconded the motion, adding that he had spoken with School Board members who felt that this was practical use of the property. Motion carried unanimously. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 7 - October 10, 1985 E. Request #85-43, submitted by Ramada Inn, Inc, for property located • at the northwest corner of I-494 and Prairie Center Drive. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2 B, 1 To permit a floor area ratio of .57, Code permits maximum of .40 feet) , 2 To permit a building height of 56 feet Code permits 40 feet , and 3T City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 3, H, 4, to permit 243 parking stalls , Code requires 266). This variance request was withdrawn on October 4, 1985, by Bruce Watson. F. Request #85-44, submitted by Jack Smuckler for property located at 9325 Olympia Drive. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2 B, to permit the construction of a single family dwelling 5 feet from a side lot line, Code re quires 15 feet). This variance request will be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting, November 14, 1985. G. Request #85-45, submitted by Lee Webster for property located at 11995 Singletree Lane. The request is from City Code, Chapter 2, Section 2. 11 , Subdivision 2, for the Board of Appeals and Adjust- ments to hear an appeal of determination made by City Staff, Zoning. Administrator. Staff finds the proposed Tanning Salon a commercial • use and not permitted by City Code, in an Office Zoning District. Code permits supporting commercial sales and services to office users within large office structures only. ) This variance request has been withdrawn. III. OLD BUSINESS None IV. NEW BUSINESS Dickey referred to Variance Request #85-39, submitted by Bill Gilk, from the September 12, 1985 meeting. Dickey felt that this was a blatant case of giving an individual who had no hardship, clear and almost illegal use of the property. In reference to Variance Request #85-40, submitted by McGlynn Bakeries, Dickey felt different than the other Board members. Dickey said that McGlynn has supported functions within the City. There have been donations to City parks on two occasions. There has been support in sponsorship in football , soccer and girls and boys basketball . Two flag poles and flags have been purchased by McGlynn for the City. Mr. Gilk has done nothing for the City but line his own pockets. Dickey found a problem with harmony between Variance Requests #85-39 and #85-40. • Lynch stated that he could not comment on Variance Request #85-39, as he was not present at the meeting. Regarding Variance Request #85-40, Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 8 - October 10, 1985 McGlynn has not made architectural continuity with the building as 16 requested by the original Variance Request #84-55. Sandvick felt that the McGlynn architect was at fault. Facts must be looked at; personalities should not be brought up. Anderson stated that McGlynn had already spent the $65,000 for the mansard, so it is not a matter of saving money. Lynch said that the McGlynn variance was granted, in 1984, and they came back and wanted to change the set of conditions. Dickey noted that when the McGlynn building was built it was flat. Peterson added the mansard roof himself. V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Sandvick moved, seconded by Dickey, to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 PM. Motion carried unanimously. •