Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 11/14/1985 APPROVED MINUTES • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 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: Anderson and Lynch were absent. I. MINUTES A. Minutes of October 10, 1985. MOTION: Dickey moved, seconded by Sandvick, to approve the minutes of October 10, 1985. Motion carried--2-0-1 . (Krueger abstained. ) II. VARIANCES • A. 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 building addition McGlynn requests the requirement for continuation of the mansard roof be deleted. This variance request was continued from the October 10, 1985 meeting to allow proponent more time to work with the issue. Farrell Johnson of Buetow and Associates, architect with the project, spoke to the request. Instead of putting the wood treatments at the top of the building, a combination of heavier planting (from 31-42 large size plants) and posts which would be drilled in the ground was suggested. The posts would hold pre-cast sections and would hold the parking berm in a firm position. This would give an ade- quate drive space between the building and the berm for parking and driving. This proposal was presented to the Planning Staff. Sandvick asked how the problem of continuing the architectural continuity of the previous building was approached. Johnson said that they were not in favor of the mansard originally. It did not add to the overall appearance of the building. The existing build; ing justifies the mansard on it by the nature of its construction. The addition has a sheer wall that is slightly higher than the building. A plain wall would give the backdrop for the present building a better appearance. There is a rustic effect to the building with the existing berms and the signage. By enhancing Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - November 14, 1985 the berm with more planting, and vertical relief of wood members from the ground up, the rustic flavor of the site development would continue. Sandvick stated that he would like to see something along the fascia to complement the mansard roof. Nothing was done with the building itself. Johnson said that the color that was picked was neutral . Possibly a painted strip of fascia at the top could be used. Dickey asked if the color was recommended by the Planning Department. Durham said no, the intent of providing architectural continuity was to match the existing color with the new addition. Krueger said that there is no connection with the old and the new building. Dickey asked if repainting the fascia with one or two colors would take care of the problem. Durham replied that it would help. The building may not need to be a two-tone color. Dickey stated that he leans towards more landscape and a different color. _ Dickey is anti-mansard because of the up-keep involved in the future. Dickey had a concern with the middle drive entrance towards the back of the building. Durham said that it is to screen the loading docks. • Sandvick asked if calculations had been made as to how much was needed to meet elevations. Johnson said that the elevations are met now. It is approximately 12-18" higher than originally intended. Sandvick wondered if the cap could be eased with a material to tie in with the existing mansard roof. Johnson said that a metal flash- ing extending 12-18" could be used. It could be colored in a dark tone. Sandvick inquired about maintenance. Johnson said that there was no maintenance with the color clad fascia. Sandvick asked about sizes for the fascia. Johnson stated that if the metal fascia is too big it would tend to wrinkle up. Sandvick asked how the metal fascia was tacked up. Johnson said that it came in 10' lengths. Sandvick wondered what size would be appropriate for the metal flashing. Johnson said that 12" would be okay. They would have to check further. Sandvick was not sure that a l ' metal flashing would make a signif- icant visual difference, although color would have an impact. • Dickey inquired if there was a problem with the middle drive being Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - November 14, 1985 opened or closed. Burton McGlynn, owner, said that it would be • a hardship if it were closed. Durham wondered why it was shown closed off on the original site plans. McGlynn said that they must have forgotten about it. Dickey asked if there would be a problem increasing the number of caliper inches for landscaping. McGlynn said no. MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-40 submitted by McGlynn Bakeries, Inc. with the following findings: 1 ) A minimum 12" metal fascia panel and a maximum of 24" metal fascia panel be placed on the new building addition at the discretion between the architect and City Staff. 2) There be some color continuity throughout that would make the building more pleasing. Paint the new addition a color which will match the existing building. Color must be approved by the Planning Department. 3) Submit a revised landscape plan to the Planning Department for approval , which meets the current minimum Code require- ment of 300+ total caliper inches. 4) A landscape performance bond be required for the revised • landscape plan. 5) There was only one letter of concern against the issue, which was from the Edenvale Corporation, dated October 3, 1985. 6) This variance request must be utilized within one year. Sandvick seconded the motion, adding that the mansard roof be deleted from the previous Variance Request #84-55. Also, the depth of the fascia be expanded to a measurement that would be arrived at between the Staff and proponent that would take on a visual continuity from either Mitchell Road or Martin Drive. Motion carried unanimously. B. 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 requires 15 feet). This variance request has been withdrawn. C. Request #85-46, submitted by Beryl D. Blanchard for property located at 9690 Franlo Road. The request is for a variance • from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2 B, to permit the construction of a garage addition 10 feet from a side lot line, Code requires 50 feet . Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - November 14, 1985 Jack Ovick reviewed the request with the Board. The 24' garage • will be approximately 12' away from the property line. Krueger asked if the garage could be put on the other side of the house. Ovick said that the living room is on the other side, which has a steep grade. A lot of fill would be required to bring it up to the proper elevation. There were no comments from the audience. Durham stated that the neighbor most affected, Michael J. Adams, did write a letter in support of the variance request on November 4, 1985. Dickey had concern that it was a 40 ' variance. Durham said that the surrounding land use is zoned R1-13.5. The Blanchard lot is a one acre lot which was zoned rural when it was built in 1956. It is a remnant parcel which eventually will be zoned R1-13.5. MOTION: Krueger made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-46, submitted by Beryl D. Blanchard with the following findings: 1 ) The request is reasonable. 2) There are no other alternatives for the addition of the • garage. 3) The surrounding property uses are compatible with the proposed setback. 4) There is no impact on the health and welfare of the citizens of Eden Prairie. 5) This variance request must be utilized within one year. Dickey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. D. Request #85-47, submitted by Michael J. Adams for property located at 9720 Franlo Road. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2 B, to permit the construct- ion of an accessory structure 22 feet from front property line Code requires 50 feet , and 15 feet from the side lot line Code requires 30 feet). David Van House, attorney with Gustafson and Adams, presented the request to the Board. Mr. Adams proposes to construct a cabana/ changing area adjacent to a swimming pool that was constructed in the Summer and Fall of 1985. The cabana as proposed would be 22 feet from Brassie Circle. The minimum setback is 30 feet. The • cabana will provide a changing area for the pool and screen the pool maintenance equipment. The decking and landscaping adjacent to the house extends all the way to the area where the cabana is Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - November 14, 1985 proposed, so it is impossible to build further from the rear lot . line. There is a basketball court on the other side of the pool . Dickey asked who had the deed to the outlot. Durham replied that Adams had the deed. Dickey wondered if the outlot was officially turned over to Adams when the property was developed. Durham said that it was turned over to Adams shortly after the development. Dickey asked if there were any other plans that the City would have concerning that parcel of property. Durham said no, it is not a part of the one acre lot. There is a lot line separating the two lots. Connection of the outlot with the one acre site would be required prior to building permit issuance. Dickey noted that there is no sanitary water and sewer system. MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-47, submitted by Michael J. Adams with the following findings: 1 ) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must apply and receive approval from Hennepin County to combine Outlot C with the existing .91 acres. 2) Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant submit • an exterior material plan to cover exposed concrete block. 3) Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant submit a landscape plan with plant material to lessen the impact of the cabana visually from housing units on Brassie Circle. 4) The cabana will act as a screen for pool from adjacent R1-13.5 land use. The characteristic of neighborhood is not severely impacted. 5) There were no critical or negative responses. 6) It will not enganger or jeopardize the City of Eden Prairie. 7) The fencing be approved by the Planning Department. 8) This variance request must be utilized within one year. Sandvick seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. E. Request #85-48-M, submitted by The Brauer Group Inc. The petition is to review and consider a building moving request. The building is to be moved from 7751 Flying Cloud Drive to the northeast corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and State Highway #169. • Don Brauer, representing the Brauer Group, Inc. , spoke to the request. The building will be moved in four sections. Brauer has met with ad- jacent neighbors five times. The Planning Commission has recommended Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - November 14, 1985 • approval of the Guide Plan, Zoning, Platting and Site Plan approval required for the entire project! Dickey inquired if it was a proper transition building. Durham said that even though it is an Office Zoning District, it will be a building that is residential in character and considered appro- priate. Brauer said that the building is a house with an office added on to it. The new building will be of the same character. Dickey asked if the six car garage went with the house. Brauer said yes. Four more garage stalls will be put in the basement area. MOTION: Krueger made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-48-M with the following findings: 1 ) It is an excellent building. 2) The variance be approved conditional upon Parkway Office/ Service Center receiving 2nd Reading by City Council . 3) Prior to issuance of a building moving permit, applicant provide a mass planting of a mixture of plant materials along the east .property line. The plan must be approved by the Planning Department. • 4) All Planning Commission recommendations be made part of the condition of approval . 5) This variance request must be utilized within one year. Sandvick seconded the motion, adding that there were no objections from the neighbors. Motion carried unanimously. F. Request #85-49, submitted by Charles Development Corporation for property located at the northwest corner of Highway #169/212 and Eden Road. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter Ti—,—IT—Section 11 .03, Subdivision 3, H, 5, d, to permit parking 17.5 feet from front property line along Highway #169 Code requires 35 feet 2 Section 11 .03, Subdivision 4, to permit parking at 6.39 stalls per 1000 square feet Code re uires 8 stalls er 1000 square feet 3 Section 11 .50, Subdivision 6, B, 4, to permit construction of a building 27 feet. from the Ordinary High Water Mark of Lake Idlewild, Code requires 200 feet setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark). Bob Vanney, representing Charles Development Corporation, reviewed the proposal with the Board. The three variances are being asked because of some unusual site conditions such as: two street fronts, a lake front, and 2 foot property lines that abut an existing PUD. . Along one of the property lines a future connection is being proposed that would serve as a connection to the remainder of the PUD, plus a frontage loop road. This would provide a second means of egress. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 7 - November 14, 1985 The site is of an unusual shape. There is an unusual amount of • right-of-way, dedicated to #169 from this property. There are also some unusual grade conditions on the site dropping down to Lake Idle- wild. Vanney noted that the Staff recommended that Charles Development Corporation reduce the parking from 8 stalls per 1000 to 6.39. This parking ratio is used at the Eden Glen Shopping Center, a similar facility to the Convenience Center. Durham stated that they have been to the Planning Commission and had 1st Reading at the City Council . Sandvick asked what type of business it was. Vanney said that it would serve two functions: a food fair restaurant of 6,000 square feet and a retail tenant of 9,750 spaces. The type of tenant would be Office Service Retail . (Ex. Beauty Salon, Barber, AAA, and Travel Agency). There are two fronts to the building, one addressing the lake and one addressing the street. Dickey asked if Charles Development Corporation had other developments in Eden Prairie, Vanney said that he did not know of one in Eden Prairie. There is a facility in Edina on 77th and Industrial Boulevard, and one in the process of development in Lakeville. MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to approve Variance Request • #85-49, submitted by Charles Development Corporation with the following findings: 1 ) Planning Commission has reviewed and approved the development, based on recommendations identified in the October 4, 1985, and August 23, 1985, Planning Commission Staff Report. 2) Coniferous plantings along Highway #169 and Eden Road be added, to better screen parking areas. A landscape plan must be. reviewed and approved by the City Planning Depart- ment, prior to a building permit issuance. Dickey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. G. Request #85-50, submitted by Hoyt Development for property located west of U.S. #169, east of City West Parkway. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter ll , 1 Section 11 .50, Subdivision 6, C, 3, to permit construction of an office building 100 feet from Ordinary High Water Mark of Nine Mile. Creek, Code requires 150 feet). 2 Section 11 .50, Subdivision 7, B, to permit the construction of an office building at 74 feet, Code maximum is 30 feet). 3 Section 11 .50, Subdivision 7, C, to permit total area of impervious surface adjacent to Nine Mile Creek at 35% Code maximum is 30% total im er- vious coverage). This variance request has been continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting, December 12, 1985. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 8 - November 14, 1985 III. OLD BUSINESS None IV. NEW BUSINESS Sandvick requested that a directory of Board and Commission phone numbers be made available to Board members. V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Krueger moved, seconded by Dickey, to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 PM. Motion carried unanimously.