Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 04/10/1986 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1986 7:30 PM, ADMINISTRATION BLDG. , SCHOOL BOARDROOM 8100 SCHOOL ROAD BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Richard Lynch, Roger Sandvick, Hanley Anderson, William Arockiasamy, Lyn Dean and Steve Longman BOARD STAFF: Assistant Planner, Steve Durham and Recording Secretary, Lynda Diede ROLL CALL: Sandvick, Anderson, and Dean were absent. I. INSTALLATION OF BOARD MEMBERS Arockiasamy and Longman were sworn in as members of the Board of 'Aroeals and Adjustments. II. ELECTION OF OFFICERS MOTION: Lynch made a motion to continue the election of officers to May 8, 1986. Arockiasamy seconded the motion. Motion carried unan- imously. III. MINUTES MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Krueger, to approve the minutes of March 13, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. IV. VARIANCES A. Request #86-09, submitted by John Wood for property located at 0 Knoble Court The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 03, Subdivision 2, B, to permit new con- struction of single family residence 25' from the front property. line Code minimum is 30 feet). This variance request has been withdrawn. B. Request #86-10 submitted by Kate and Craig Halverson for property located at 10280 County Road 18 The request is for a variance from City Code, 1 ) Chapter 11 Section 11 .03, Subd. 2, B, to permit an accessory structure (existing garage) with a front _yard setback of 25 feet, (Code requires 35 feet) . 2) Chapter ill Section ll 03 Subd 3 K. to_permit wood siding as a primary exterior building_material on existing structure and accessory structure (Code does not permit wood as a primary building • material in an Office Zoning District) 3) Chapter 11 , Section 11 03, Subd 3 H 5, D, to permit a front ward parkinq setback of 15 feet (Code requires a minimum of 35 feet) . 4) Chapter 11 , Board of Appeals and Adjustments 2 - Apri1 ;10, 1986 Section 11 .03, Subd. 3, H, 5, c, and Subd. 3, H, 6, b, to permit parking lot improvements without hard surfacing and curb, C de • requires hard surfacing and curbing with office development or expansion. 5 Chapter 11 , Section 11 .20, Subd. 3, B, to permit continuance of existing on-site sanitary sewer system and water system until public utilities are available to the site, Code requires sanitary sewer service and water for buildings located in an Office Zoning District). This variance request has been continued until the May 8, 1986 meeting. C. Request #86-11 , submitted by Jim Touve for property located at 17208 & 17216 Peterborg Road, The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .50, Subd. 6, B, 1 To permit construction of a home on Lot 8, 47 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark. 2 To permit construction of a home on Lot 9, 20 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark on the east side of - pro-posed home and 40 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark on the north side of the proposed home. 3 City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd, 3, C, to permit construction of homes on Lots 8 &_9, with a front yard setback of 30 feet, Code requires a minimum of 43 feet as per the average setback of the block. Jim Touve, proponent, presented his request to the Board. Touve stated that at one time, water in the area used to dry up. The City put in a leveling area at one end of the lake and a culvert • between the lake to control the water level . The water does not dry up now and is a benefit to certain property owners. Touve consulted with the DNR at that time and was informed that he could add fill there because it wasn't part of the flood plain. The City, along with -the DNR„ now states that it is flood olahn area. Lynch inquired if Touve had seen the letter from the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District and the DNR. After reading the letters, Touve said that it was an unfair presumption on the part of the DNR to say that he should build one house on the lots. Durham said that he received a call from Bob Obermeyer of the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District. Obermeyer stated that if the variance were approved, the District and the DNR would not allow for basements, just a slab or walk-out. (No basements below grade elevation. ) Touve felt that there was no problem with maintaining the 2' above the High Water Mark. Lynch stated that the land was platted prior to the Shoreline Ord- inance. There seems to be some degree of support by the DNR and the City Staff, that possibly could support one home on the lots as opposed to two. Touve said that taxes on Lot 9 were $150 a year with assessments, • and $700 a year with assessments for Lot 8. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - April 10, 1986 Lynch would like to see the variance continued. Touve could . consider the recommendations for one home on the lot or present a case with facts and figure out why it would make sense to put two homes on the lot. Krueger felt that the Watershed District wants to see more detail . Arockiasamy said that it would be helpful to have a specific house footprint. Longman asked if the soil borings indicated that the soil was acceptable. Touve said that he had Braun Engineering do some test holes. It is a unique condition. The soil was substantial to support a building, but they recommended that steel be put in. Longman remarked that a building could be designed that doesn't encroach so close to the lake. Howard Peterson, 7021 Duck Lake Road, is also a member of the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed Board. He was not speaking officially for the Board, however. Peterson has watched Duck Lake for 24 years. It has been abused by many attempts to drain it. The water in Duck Lake is largely due to the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District. Individuals have tried to lower the lake by tampering with the outflow structure from time to time. Others have nutured it by trying to retard algae growth by privately funded chemical • treatment. Fish have also been planted by residents at their own expense. Peterson noted that Lot 8 is connected to City water, whereas Lot 9 is not. Peterson inquired as to the status of Lot 10, if it were being taxed Durham said that Lot 10 was being taxed. Krueger asked if Touve should come up with a grading plan for the Watershed District. Durham said that Bob Obermeyer requested that a grading plan for both lots be submitted to the Watershed District prior to building permit issuance. Durham said that 20' is an extreme variance from 100' . Krueger felt that the Watershed District would not have any problems as long as they are provided with detailed plans of the home, setbacks and grading. Longman said that he was most concerned with the close proximity to the water. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to continue Variance Request #86-11 submitted by Jim Touve to May 8, 1986. Krueger seconded the motion adding that there should be Watershed reviewal . Motion • carried unanimously. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - April 10, 1986 D. Request #86-12, submitted by Vantage Companies for property • located at 11095 Viking Drive. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2, B, 1 To . permit a front yard setback at 7.81 feet for the southwest corner of the parking garage. structure Code requires 35 feet) , 2 To permit a front yard setback at 24.93 feet along the west pro pert line adjacent to Prairie Center Drive Code requires 35 feet 3 To permit parking in the front yard setback adjacent to Viking Drive at 24 feet Code requires 35 feet). Bruce Watson, vice president of architecture with Vantage Companies, reviewed the request with the Board. Watson has no quarrels with the Staff Report. Site plans were displayed. Lynch asked if the variance request was for an asbuilt. Watson said yes. The building permit was issued with the actual building designed not in conformance with the ordinance. It was an oversight on the part of the developer and the City. The Finance Department caught the oversight. Krueger noted that the front yard setback was 7.81 feet. Durham said that the actual parking structure that is 7.81 , is covered. Actual on grade parking is set back about 24 feet. The parking area is not visible from surrounding roadways. There were no comments from the audience. • MOTION: Arockiasamy made a motion to approve Variance Request #86-12, submitted by Vantage Companies with the following findings: 1 ) There has been approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council . 2) The building construction is almost complete. Changes would cost a substantial sum of money. 3) The loss of time would be great. Longman seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. E. Request #86-13, submitted by Blackbourn,Inc. for property located at 10150 Crosstown Circle. The request is for .a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2, B, 1 To permit construction of a building addition 7.5 feet from a front lot line Code re uires 50 feet in an I-2 Zonin District, 2 To permit a new floor area ratio of 35.7% Code maximum 30% F.A.R. . Bradley Hoyt, partner of Hoyt Development, represented Blackbourn, Inc. Hoyt said that the variance is necessary to accommodate a building expansion of approximately 10,000 square feet for in- creased warehouse space. The unusual features of the property are inhibiting the expansion of the building. Site plans were displayed. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - April 10, 1986 Hoyt stated that there is no recorded access agreement or deeded access between this property and the property to the southwest. Hoyt said that there are concerns as to where and how to add on to the building. It is constrained due to the proximity of Highway # 169 with two front yard setbacks. The addition would not call for much of a change in the grade as it exists. Parking stalls are to the north of the building. Hoyt noted that the warehouse is located in the southern one half of the building. Raw materials are located there. In the center of the northern one half of the wing is the shipping and receiving area where the goods are packaged and sent out. All of the trucking occurs here. The other dock doors on the building have been blocked off and immobilized. This is the area where the two rows of additional parkingis proposed. In the north one half of the building is where the production area is and where the required expansion would occur. Hoyt stated that they have significant improvements in place and to have to add on in any other area would cause a great disruption to the business. The business which is printing and silk screening, is very competitive. Hoyt said that the building is 130' deep now. There is a 50' setback, but in reality, it is not a front yard setback. The spirit of the • front yard setback is to maintain a green area in front of the building to screen the parking from the street, make the buildings more attractive and provide a buffer. Driving on Highway #169, one looks down at the roof tops. There may not ever be an expansion any closer that could affect the addition. The grade is a 2 to l slope and couldn' t possibly be widened without the construction of retaining walls. If the road were increased in width, it would occur in the median and not in the outside lanes. The easement could be left unaffected. Hoyt stated that an alternative is to go to the mid section of the proposed addition and angle the wall to maintain a 15' setback. That would give 10' beyond the easement. Regarding parking, all spots are not being used. A number are available. Spots that are lost would be replaced along the back of the building where there is no truck dock useage. Hoyt felt that this was not an objectionable addition. It would not visually impact any adjacent properties. If the access was denied, it would be necessary to put in an access that would effectively use the green area, Dock doors would then need an outside dock structure to back in. Durham asked if Blackbourn went up to 72' , if they would want to • have a truck which would be able to go around the building. Hoyt said that they aren't doing it presently. It would be a bad situation if it did occur. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - April 10, 1986 Lynch had a hard time seeing the variance as a hardship. Itjis • a convenience for Blackbourn. Hoyt stated that they could accommodate a setback variance to 15' . 400 square feet of buildina would be lost. Durham asked the width of the tractor/trailors. Hoyt stated that they were 8' wide. Lynch stated that he did not have a hang-up with the parking. Arockiasamy asked if they would still be able to go around the building with the modification. Hoyt said yes. Longman was concerned with emergency vehicles getting around the building. Hoyt said that they could modify the back one half of the building to accommodate a minimum of 15' setback. Durham noted that they would like to see mechanical units screened in conformance with City Code. Hoyt said that there would not be any roof top units in the new portion of the building. They would go back to the existing building and screen the units there. There . are also a number of trees that screen the building. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #86-13 submitted by Blackbourn, Inc. , with the following findings: • 1 ) A front yard setback of 15 feet be maintained adjacent to Highway #169. 2) Floor Area Ratio not to exceed 35.7%. 3) All existing and new mechanical roof top units be screened. 4) The proposed building addition be constructed with the same building materials and color as the existing building. 5) This variance request must be utilized within one year. Arockiasamy seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. IV. OLD BUSINESS None V. NEW BUSINESS The new Board members were introduced. VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Arockiasamy, to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 PM. Motion carried unanimously.