Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 12/12/1985 APPROVED MINUTES • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, DECEMBER 12, 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: Krueger and Sandvick were absent. I. MINUTES A. Minutes of November 14, 1985. This item will be continued to the January 9, 1985 meeting. II. VARIANCES A. Request #85-50, submitted by Hoyt Development for property located east of Washington Avenue, south of 76th Street. The request is • for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , 1 Section 11 .50, Sub- division 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 con- struction of an office building 74 feet in height. Code maximum is 30 feet in height 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 impervious coverage) . Brad Hoyt, representing Hoyt Development, reviewed the request with the Board. Technology Park V, VI, & VII, is the site being developed. It is part of Eden Prairie Technology Park, which is a PUD. A key issue is the City' s desire to retain the natural character of the wooded knoll . The wooded knoll reaches a height of 100 feet above the Nine Mile Creek elevation. Fifteen different design alternatives for the project were studied. Lynch wondered if the Shoreline Ordinance was under the jurdisdiction of the Board of Appeals. Durham said that the Board can vary the Shoreline Ordinance. The DNR has reviewed the variance request. The DNR requirement is only 75 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark of the creek. The variance request is not a major concern with the DNR. Hoyt said that they have received Watershed District approval . • Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - December 12, 1985 Durham stated that the actual site is 7.88 acres, but because of the wooded knoll being saved and the Shoreline Ordinance, the real • building area is reduced to 4 acres. Hoyt said that the true building coverage overall is 19%. The building will be a combination of glass and reddish brown granite. Hoyt noted that the Staff recommended that the parking structure be enclosed and buried up to the second floor. This will allow complete screening of the parking ramp adjacent to the creek. A berm will be put in all the way up to the top of the guard rail on the upper deck. A large grove of evergreen trees will be planted to screen the view of the ramp. The cost for screening will be $200,000. The ramp is a $1 ,000,000 expense. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-50, submitted by Hoyt Development with the following findings: 1 ) It has gone through the 1st Reading of the City Council . It has been approved by the Planning Commission. 2) The builder and architect have made a plan that meets for maximum use of the City property allowing for retention of the wooded knoll . It is harmonious with the land con- formations and Staff recommended the variances. 3) Contingent upon meeting all requirements and conditions set forth by the Planning Commission and City Council approval . Anderson seconded the motion, Motion carried unanimously. B. Request #85-51 , submitted by Bruce Long, Jr. for property located_ at 11802 Mount Curve Road The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivls!on 2, A, 8, to permit a driveway Z' from a side lot line. Code re uires 3' from side lot line. Bruce Long, 11802 Mount Curve Road, spoke to the request. The driveway was constructed !- foot from the lot line. The builder was not aware of the City ordinance requiring a 3 foot setback from a side lot line. The whole driveway would have to be demol- ished in order to conform to the zoning ordinance. Photos were displayed. Dickey asked if the driveway was blacktop. Long stated that it was a concrete aggregate finish. Long noted that when the plan was submitted it was approved showing the driveway within 3 feet of the side lot line. The plan should • not have been approved by the City. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - December 12, 1985 Dickey inquired if neighbors were spoken to. Long said yes, there were no problems. Durham stated that no phone calls were received by the City. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-51 , submitted by Bruce Long, Jr. for property located at 11802 Mount Curve Road with the following findings: 1 ) Owner shall be responsible for replacement of driveway, should the City be required to utilize the drainage and utility easement. 2) There were no adverse comments from the audience or in writing. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. C. Request #85-52, submitted by Milton Wallace Corporation for pro- perty located north of Bluff Road and west of County Road 18. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .70, Subdivision 3, to permit a non-accessory temporary real estate sign for the Deerfield residential area to be located approximately 150' north of Bluff Road and west of County Road 18. Wally Hustad Jr. , representing Milton Wallace Corporation, presented the request to the Board. A 4' x 8' directional sign is requested for purposes of convenience for people coming off of County Road 18. A concern with directing traffic down Homeward Hills Road to Deer- field Addition is raised because of its close proximity to the land- fill site and power lines. Eighteen lots were opened up this Fall . There are 52 lots in the area. To get the traffic off of County Road 18 and on to Riverview Road is a more desirable entrance to the project area. The sign is coordinated colorwise with the other signs used in the Deerfield area. (An off-white cream color. ) Lynch wondered if there could be alternatives to the proposal such as dealing with the existing signs located at Pioneer Trail and County Road 1 . Hustad said that the sign on County Road 18 is not on Hustad property. The only sign for Bluff West is off of County Road 1 . There is a sign on County Road 1 and County Road 18 shared by other companies. Hustad said that he would not be adverse to getting an extension on the sign at County Road 18. Lynch said that he would look more favorably on an addition to the existing signs than adding another sign. Hustad noted that they control most of the southeast quadrant. It is not a congested sign area. Hustad asked what his alternatives were.. Lynch said that an alter- native is to go back and look at the sign and bring in a proposal • dealing with the existing signs. Lynch stated that if a new sign is put in, other builders will come in and feel that Hustads are being favored. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - December 12, 1985 Hustad asked what alternative proposals there would be. Dickey • said that there is an option of taking the existing sign and asking for a continuance of Variance Request #84-18. Durham noted that directing vehicular traffic on Riverview Road to County Road 18 is very dangerous. The intersection has poor site lines. Dickey suggested Hustad ask for a continuance and vsork with t,le City. Hustad asked the Board for a continuance to work with the City on an alternative. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Dickey made a motion to continue Variance Request #85-52, submitted by Milton Wallace to January 9, 1986. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried --2-1-0. (Lynch voted nay. ) D. Request #85-53, submitted by Prairie Village Apartments Ltd. for property located at Wagner Way, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The re uest is for a variance from Cit Code, Cha ter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 3, H, 3, 1 To permit underground Ea.rkin stalls at 18' length Code requires 19' len th, 2 To ermit curb to curb width at 61 Code requires 63' • This variance request will be continued to January 9, 1986. E. Request #85-54, submitted by James E Hildreth for property located at 8515 Hiawatha Avenue The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 03, Subdivision 2, B, to permit con- struction of a bedroom addition over a garage 5' from the side lot line Code requires minimum of 10' and from Developer's Agreement dated October 16, 1979 between Zachman Homes Inc. , and the City of Eden Prairie requiring a 15' setback from a side lot line for 1 and 2 story homes. James E. Hildreth, 8515 Hiawatha Avenue, spoke to the request. He desires to add living space above his existing garage. Several al- ternatives were looked at. Lynch read a letter received by George Butler, dated December 4, 1985. Butler felt that the design of the addition was inappropriate for the surrounding area. Butler felt that it would have a tendency to lessen surrounding property values. Lynch questioned if the action were entirely revenue related. Hildreth said that it would be costly to build on to the back of the house. Also, a deck was added on to the back of the house which would in- crease construction cost of a room. • Lynch stated that the original intent in the neighborhood, in the Developer's Agreement, was to provide a smaller type home with less Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - December 12, 1985 side yard setbacks, but provide adequate spacing between the • structures. Lynch asked Hildreth's opinion on Alternative #3, constructing a room over z of the garage. Hildreth said that he had considered that alternative. Dickey stated that the best alternative would be to go out the back. No variance would be needed. Hildreth said that it would cost him twice as much money. Dickey stated that if Hildreth wanted to go along with Alternative #3, he could ask for withdrawal of the variance. Hildreth agreed. MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve withdrawal of Variance Request #85-54 submitted by James E. Hildreth. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. F. Request #85-55, submitted by Opus Corporation for property located west of Prairie Center Drive and south of Valley View Road. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 3, H, 5, b, to permit parking 0' from a side lot line, Code requires 10' minimum). Mike Arneson, Director of Development for Opus Corporation, presented the plans to the Board. A two story office building is proposed north • of the Norwest Bank property for the Allstate Insurance Claims office project. A shared access easement was created on the north side of the property when the Norwest project was developed. When the ease- ments were made it inhibited some access opportunities on the site, creating a hardship. Arneson stated plans for the "L" site which is poor design: 1 ) The "L" plan would create an island along the property line. 2) It would increase the total asphalt on the property. 3) It requires independent drive widths. This reduces the green area around the building. Arneson said site Plan "M" positions parking for the Allstate building with a 0' lot line setback from the south property line. Anderson inquired why the island was there. Arneson said that it was there to prevent people from crossing over the lot line when backing out of the parking stalls. Durham added that the island is for green space. Dickey asked if the variance were approved according to Plan "M" if City would be satisfied. Durham said that it is an acceptable plan. • There were no comments from the audience. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - December 12, 1985 Anderson asked how Norwest Bank felt about the variance. Arneson • said that he felt Norwest would like to see them come in the neigh- borhood. MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-55, submitted by Opus Corporation with the following findings: 1 ) The City has recommended that site Plan "M" be chosen, with a 0' parking setback from the south property line. 2) It is for the benefit and health and welfare of the citizens of Eden Prairie. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. H. Request #85-57, submitted by Brauer Group, Inc. for property located at the northeast corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and State Highway #169 The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 3, K, to permit an office building with a wood building exterior in excess of 25% Code maximum for wood exterior is 25% or less for each elevation . Don Brauer, representing the Brauer Group, Inc. , reviewed the request with the Baord. On November 11 , 1985, the Board approved a variance request regarding moving the office building to the northeast corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Flying Cloud Drive. It was overlooked that the wood siding violates permitted exterior siding in an Office • Zoning District. The Parkway Office Center, in which the building is located, has been approved and zoned by the City. Lynch noted that the wood siding on the building is such that it lends itself better as a transition from a neighborhood to a commercial area, than if it were built according to Code. Brauer agreed; he said that the neighbors prefer it the way it is. Brauer stated that the building is up to Code. There were no comments from the audience. Dickey said that it was a quality building. It is an excellent tran- sition building from office to individual dwellings. MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-57, submitted by the Brauer Group, Inc. Dickey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. G. Request #85-56, submitted by Vantage Properties, Inca for property located at east side of Highway #169 , south and west of Prairie Center Drive The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 3, H, 5, b, to erm�t arkin 0' from a side lot line. Code requires 10' minimum. • Bruce Watson, representing Vantage Properties, Inc. spoke to the request. Three separate alternate methods of locating the northeast Board of Appeals and Adjustments 7 - December 12, 1985 property line of Crossroads Center were submitted ( A, B, & C) . • Alternate "A" was approved by the City Council and the Planning Commission. At the time of the original master planning of the retail center site, they were looking at an adjacent restaurant site to the north. The parking setback issue affects the north- east property line of the retail center addition to the restaurant site. There is a 35' building setback along the northwest property line with street frontage on two sides. Market studies indicate the minimum building pad area must be 6,000 square feet to make the 1 .28 acre restaurant site economically viable. There would be a minimum of 80 parking stalls. Alternate "A" did not meet minimum market requirements for building pad size and parking. Alternate "B" was a scheme suggested by City Planner, Chris Enger. Eight parking stalls are omitted, allowing conformance with the ordinance requirement of a 10' yard separating parking lots from property lines. There would be an access lane with no parking. Alternate "C" is preferable to Vantage. A property line would be set up down the adjacent center line of the common access drive to the retail center and still maintain a 10' green space between the parking lot of the restaurant site and the retail center. This would allow the largest possible building pad area and doesn't adversly change the parking count. Alternate "A" was approved for Vantage and Alternate "C" is being requested. Alternate "B" satisfies the ordinance, but robs the • retail center of 8 parking stalls. Therrestaurant site doesn't need 9 additional parking stalls . Lynch inquired if the restaurant was still a question mark for the north site. Watson said that they were looking for approval for the site. Durham said that they were looking for an access to the site. When you have a common access drive off of a lot line, you can serve two small commercial parcels more economically and efficiently. Staff is concerned with the amount of green space lost. MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-56 with the following findings: 1 ) Granting of a 0' parking setback from the north property line. A 5' parking setback from the building must be maintained, as well as 18'6' length parking stall . 2) When the north 1 .28 acre site develops to the north, a 10' green space will be maintained, as approved in this var- iance request, between the drive access lane and parking to the north, Dickey seconded the motion, adding that the Staff has recommended approval in Alternate "C It maximizes the green space. Motion carried unanimously. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 8 - December 12, 1985 III. OLD BUSINESS Durham stated that the phone directory for City Officials and Staff will be coming out in February 1986. Lynch inquired about adding 2 members to the Board of Appeals. Durham said that it was approved by the City Council at the November 5, 1985 joint meeting of the Board of Appeals and the City Council . It will be established in February 1986. Durham also noted that there was a discussion regarding downsizing the PUD requirement. It would eliminate many of the large developers having to come to a third meeting. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Propose 1986 Variance Fee Schedule Durham stated that the City spends $6,000 a year to process variance requests (legal descriptions, staff time, etc. ) . This does not include attorney's fees. The revenue that comes in is about $3,000. MOTION: Anderson made a motion to increase Residential Variance applicant fees to $75.00 and New Development applicant fees to $125.00. Dickey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Lynch to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 PM. Motion carried unanimously.