Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 06/12/1986 - APPROVED MINUTES • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1986 7:30 PM, ADMINISTRATION BLDG. , SCHOOL BOARD ROOM 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, Arockiasamy and Dean were absent. I. MINUTES A. Minutes of May 8, 1986. MOTION: Longman moved, seconded by L�rnch to approve the minutes of May 8, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. II. VARIANCES • A. 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 11 , Section 11 .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 yard arkinq setback of 15 feet. Code requires a minimum of 35 feet) . 4 Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 3, H, 5, c, and Subd. 3, H, 6, b, to permit parking lot requirements without hard surfacing and curb. Code 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 sanitar sewers stem and water system until public utilities are available to the site, Code requires sanitary sewer service and water for buildin s located in an Office Zoning District) . This variance request was continued from the May 8, 1986 meeting to allow proponents time to revise the site plan, specifically the degree of exterior material on the existing structure, parking, and accessory structure setbacks. Kate and Craig Halverson, proponents, reviewed the request with the Board. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - June 12, 1986 Kate Halverson stated that they had removed the request for front yard parking and front yard setbacks for the accessory structures. They have agreed to hard surface the driveway and parking areas. Additional preliminary design studies have been done for alternative siding concepts. Plans were displayed. Lynch asked if they had decided on a concept. Kate Halverson replied no, but all concepts meet Code requirements. Longman questioned if the stone being considered was called "California Driftwood. " Craig Halverson said no, it is flagstone or brick veneer. Craig Halverson said that they don't see that this type of surfacing improves the look of the structure. Longman said that he felt strongly about the masonry exterior. However, the larger amount of stone isn't necessarily as attractive. Krueger agreed that a whole wall of stone is a less desirable effect. Possibly a 4' wainscotting could be used. Craig Halverson said that instead of wainscotting, horizontal blocks could be used. Anderson asked what the percentage was where a variance wouldn' t be required. Durham replied that it would be 75% masonry and 25% wood exterior. Anderson inquired about the curbing. Durham stated that Staff rec- ommended curbing remain where the stalls are to prevent people from driving over where the designated parking is. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request #86-10, submitted by Craig and Kate Halverson with the following findings: 1 ) Variance for exterior building material be 60% acceptable masonary material and 40% wood. 2) The three parking stalls in front yard setback be removed. 3) The parking area be hard surfaced and stripped. 4) Curbing be installed in areas where erosion is likely to occur and according to Exhibit B of the Board of Appeals Staff Report dated June 5, 1986. 5) The garage be made to conform with 35' front yard setback. • 6) A variance be submitted for a 5' setback for the garage. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - June :12, 1986 7) Permit a variance not requiring sanitary sewer and water • hook-up, until such time it is available to the property. At that time sanitary sewer and hook-up would be required. 8) This variance request must be utilized within one year. 9) There is considerable change from the initial request. Longman seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. B. Request #86-17, submitted by Midwest Asphalt Corporation for property located at 6401 Industrial Drive. The request is f r a variance from city Coae, chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, SUM. 2, B, o permit p a ing of Lotat 2.3 acres (Code requires 5 acre minimum o perms a minimum lot depthor Lot L of 1691 an o e requires ee 3 To permit a minimum lot depth for Lot E of 260 feet Code re uires * 300 feet) . Richard Bury, president of Midwest Asphalt, presented the request to the Board. A letter was distributed to the Board written by Thomas Manarin, president of Northwest Signs , 6280 Industrial Drive, in favor of the request. Bury would like to purchase 2 acre of land from his neighbor to • straighten out and extend his driveway and to clean up the area. There will be no new building or scale on the site. All conditions of the variance are existing and were there prior to the Building Code being adopted. Bury said that the driveway will be put across the corner of the lot. There are four pine trees and a blacktopped parking area for 3 cars to service the office. Durham said that a variance was necessary because in the I-General District, 5 acres are required. The lot from which the z acre is being purchased will be 2* acres. Lynch inquired about the Registered Land Survey. Durham said that it was recommended by the City Engineer, Eugene Dietz, that the property be recorded as a Registered Land Survey. Planning Staff recommended this as a condition of the variance. Longman asked if Staff's attitude toward the. request had changed with the scale out of the picture. Durham said that an undersized lot is being made even smaller, which is against Code. Staff is not in support of the Variance Request as outlined in the Staff Report dated June 5, 1986. • There were no comments from the audience. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - June 12, 1986 Anderson asked if a variance was necessary for the driveway. Durham . said no, it was just an access to the site. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #86-17, submitted by Midwest Asphalt Corporation with the following findings: 1 ) It is an opportunity to improve the property. 2) The two lots will always be non-conforming. 3) This variance request must be utilized within one year. Longman seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. C. Request #86-18, submitted by Hoyt Development for property located at Lot 2, Block 1 , Westwood Industrial Parka The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 3, H, 5, b, to permit construction of zero lot line parkinq (CityCode re- quires at least 10 feet setback from side or rear lot lines). Brad Hoyt, representing Hoyt Development, reviewed the request with the Board. Site plans were displayed. Hoyt said that the area in which the variance is requested is proposed to as a loading dock alley. This situation is common within the I-2 Zoning District. Hoyt stated that if they were not selling the Landscape Products building, they would not be asking for a variance. The proposal was approved by the Planning Commission and has received lst Reading at the City Council. Hoyt stated that approximately 8,000 square feet of green space which would be located between the two buildings has been relocated to the front of the building on proposed Lot 1 . The building can be moved farther back from the street and more landscaping can be put in the front. Hoyt said that additionally, they plan to downsize the building 3,000 square feet to make it 30% coverage. Durham stated that the main concerns of Staff were the landscaping. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #86-18 with the following findings: 1 ) The variance be approved based on the revised site plan, dated June 3, 1986, which includes the 8,000 square feet of green space of Lot 1 . Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - June 12, 1986 2) The variance for a zero lot side yard parking setback will • be utilized as a loading dock area and not for the use of parking stalls. 3) This variance request must be utilized within one year. Longman seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. D. Request #86-19, submitted by E.K. Ginkel for property located at 10430 White Tail Crossing. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2, B, to permit construction of a garage 10 feet from the side lot line Code requires 15 feet) . E. K. Ginkel , 10430 White Tail Crossing, presented his request to the Board. The property was purchased in October 1985. Ginkel was told by the realtor and the City Building Department that the side yard requirements were 10 feet from the garage and 15' from the house. Ginkel was told by the Planning Department in April , 1986, that the home was in a R1-22 Zoning District. The side yard setbacks in the R1-22 Zoning District were a minimum of 15' on one side and a total of 30 feet for both sides. Ginkel said that construction of the home has started, but not the garage. The 3 car garage would be 32' and the 2 car garage 27' in size. Ginkel had signatures of the neighbors on either side approving the • variance request. Krueger asked about the distance between the homes. Ginkel replied that they were 46' with a 2 car garage and 41 ' with the 3 car garage. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Longman made a motion to approve Variance Request #86-19 with the following findings: 1 ) This variance request must be utilized within one year. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. E. Request #86-20, submitted by Nathan Harrison for property located at 6287 Chatham Way. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2, B, to permit construction of a garage 25.5 feet from the front property requires 30 feet) . Nathan Harrison, 6287 Chatham Way, reviewed his request with the Board. Harrison plans to turn the existing garage into a family room and con- struct a new three car garage to the northwest side of the home. The addition will encroach the front yard setback by 4.5' . The driveway has a steep grade and would eventually be ripped up. Harrison hopes • to upgrade the home to the standards of the community. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - June 12, 1986 A letter was received by two families, Tom and Donna Heelan, ,16795 Whittington Walk and Pete and Donna Schulberg, 6915 Chatham Way, . approving the variance request. Harrison read two letters in support of his request. A letter was received by City Hall in opposition to the request from Marcel and Marcia Kulas, 6260 Harborough Court. There were no comments from the audience. Longman asked if the driveway was in excess of 13% pitch. Harrison said yes, there is no flat portion on the driveway. Harrison is already having transmission problems with his car from parking on the driveway. Longman asked the percentage of pitch for the existing driveway. Harrison said that it was 30%. Krueger said that it would be 142% pitch. Anderson asked how long Harrison had lived in the home. Harrison replied that he had lived in the home for three months. Anderson questioned if Harrison had the garage addition concept in mind prior to purchasing the home. Harrison said that he didn't think that when he purchased the property that the problem was that severe. Harrison looked at the house with the idea of expansion. • Krueger asked what the plan would do for the pitch of the driveway. Harrison said that the pitch will be substantially reduced when the driveway is added on the other side because that area is not nearly as steep. Krueger said that the street is basically level and if the other garage is set down 2' , Harrison will have 5' and less flat space for parking. Krueger asked if thought had been given to stepping the 3rd stall back in the garage. Harrison said that aesthetically, it would not fit in with the neighborhood. Lynch stated that a variance would not be required if the garage were set back to meet Code. Durham said the garage can be put on the house with no problem and it could meet Code. Longman said that it is not a viable argument that the garage doesn 't match those of the neighborhood. It is an extremely common approach nowadays to step back garages. Lynch said that Harrison could accomplish what he needs to do by following Staff recommendations without need of a variance. Harrison said that Staff recommended that he take out a bedroom window, which • he does not wish to do. Longman asked if there was still legal egress from the bedroom after Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 7 - June 12, 1986 taking out the bedroom window. Harrison said yes, there is Onother • window. Longman said that according to the survey, Harrison would not be getting any less steep of a driveway. In a shorter driveway, with the same pitch, Harrison would have less of an opportunity to have a flattened out spot on top of the driveway. Harrison decided to table the request until the next meeting. MOTION: Anderson made a motion to continue Variance Request #86-20, submitted by Nathan Harrison until the next scheduled meeting July 10, 1986. Longman seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. F. Request #86-21 , submitted by Mark Rindflesh for property located at 10178 Phaeton Drive. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2, B, to permit construction of a raised walkway 23 feet from the front ro ert line (City Code re- quires 30 feet). Mark Rosenbaum, builder for the proponent, presented the request to the Board. The grade in front of the house drops down very steeply, levels out to the natural grade and then goes out to the ravine. There is a special preservation and drainage easement and grading bond in the Bluffs 4th Addition. Rindflesh is trying to save the natural terrain of the parcel by putting in an elevated walkway. If the house:is moved back 7', four mature oak trees would be lost. Lynch inquired about the design as far as weather. Rosenbaum said that the same footings are used as on a deck. It would only be used by guests, as the family would come in through the garage. Longman asked how high the walkway would be. Rosenbaum said that the walkway would be 5-6' off the ground. The front of the door is at grade. Longman inquired if a railing would be used. Rosenbaum said yes. Durham stated that he did receive an inquiry at City Hall regarding the variance request as to what the plans were. Rosenbaum said that he talked to several of the neighbors and the comments were positive. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #86-21 , submitted by Mark Rindflesh with the following findings: 1 ) The lot has difficult topography created by the natural • features of the site. Development of a conventional side- walk to the home would create the need for large amounts of fill . Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 8 - June 12, 1986 2) The entry walkway and deck are to be utilized only as an • access to the home and not a living space, that is, an entertainment deck. 3) This variance request must be utilized within one year. Longman seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. G. Request #86-22, submitted by Earl Weikle & .Sons, Inc. for property located at 6250 Bury Drive. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2, B, 1 To permit a building addition creating a new floor area ratio to 37% (Code maximum is 30%. Richard Broms, president of Richard Manufacturing Company, reviewed the request with Board. Krueger asked why such a large addition was needed. Broms said that room is needed to store their equipment. The company manufactures mechanical components for the computer and aero-space industry. Lynch was concerned with the possibliity of the company moving out and another company moving in which required more parking. Broms said that they meet the parking setback requirements for their use. Broms felt that it was unlikely that the building would be con- verted to office space. Durham stated that if Richard Manufacturing leaves the building, the new owners space within the building is dictated by the parking area. If it was a new industrial building, Staff would review the parking on the tenants needs. If it was a s ec building, there would be 1/3 for office, 1/3 for warehousing and �/3 for manufacturing parking ratio. Anderson asked if the City monitored the companies. Durham said that a certificate of zoning is issued. The owner is asked what percentage is being used for warehouse, manufacturing and office. Based on that, the whole building can be checked out for parking requirements. Anderson asked how many employees and parking spaces there were. Broms stated that there were 45 employees and 83 parking spaces. Longman questioned the F.A. R. of 37.6%. The largest F.A.R.. granted by City was 35.7%. Longman asked if the F.A.R. was reduced to 35.7% what the impact would be on parking and greenspace. Broms said that there would be no impact on parking, setbacks or landscaping. Broms said that the exterior of the building would look identical if it were 35% or 37%. Longman was concerned with the greenspace problem. Broms did not see • any problems. Broms said that they are willing to meet the guidelines of the City Code. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 9 - June 12, 1986 Broms said that they are not violating any setbacks. From Bujry Dr. and • Carlson Dr. no one could tell if the F.A.R. was 35% or 36%. If they were allowed 30% F.A.R. , they would build out to the setbacks. They are well within any parking requirements. Durham asked if the employment base would grow over the years. Broms replied not greatly because they are strictly automated. Lynch asked if the F.A.R. and the parking ratio was different from the City of Edina. Durham said no. The Eden Prairie Code was adopted and based on the Edina Code. Lynch was concerned about a precedent setting arrangement. Longman asked if Earl Weikle & Sons, Inc. moved out, and a company moved in that was labor intensive, if they would have enough parking space. Durham said no. The new company would have to fill out the use of the building according to the ratio of warehouse, office or manufacturing. They would be bound by the number of stalls there. Krueger said that the Staff Report suggested that the Board could reduce the amount of the variance to 35%. This would reduce the total building size from 49,981 square feet to 46,438 square feet, a difference of 3,542 square feet. The reduced building area would allow for more parking and green space. However,-.this would not be of benefit to the current occupant. • Longman asked Broms how he felt about that comment. Broms said that if it was a matter of 37% and not being able to do it versus 35% and being able to see the way through, he would choose 35%. Durham indicated that property was available to the south of this site. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request #86-22, submitted by Earl Weikle & Sons, Inc. with the following findings: 1 ) It is a single use building for an existing owner. 2) No other variances are generated by the request for a larger Floor Area Ratio. 3) Parking stalls are adequate for the present tenant. 4) They are aware that the City will monitor any sale of the building. 5) Future use will be dictated by the number of parking stalls on site. • 6), Approve F.A.R. of 37%. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 10 - June 12,, 1986 l 7) The building material , color, and architectural stylle • match the existing building. 8) All additional rooftop mechanical equipment be screened. 9) Only one loading dock be permitted. 10) A landscape plan be submitted prior to building permit issuance with a total caliper inch of 156". 11 ) This variance request must be utilized within one year. Longman seconded the motion. Motion carried--3-1-0. Lynch voted nay. H. Request #86-23, submitted by Marquette Bank, Eden Prairie, for property located at 6640 Shady Oak Road. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .70, Subd. 4, E, to permit the installation of two, 176 square foot wall signs City Code allows 50 square feet) . Gene Haberman, manager of Marquette Bank, reviewed the request with the Board. The bank has been opened since February 15, 1986, under the name of Fidelity Bank and Trust. The building was zoned office use and only allowed a free standing sign 8' high with a maximum of 50 square feet on two sides. One building face sign was allowed. • The owner of the building felt that the name of a bank on the building would be detrimental to his leasing, so he used the name "Prairie Oaks". On May 1 , 1986, the name of the bank was changed to Marquette Bank. They are owned by that organization and request that the building name be changed from Prairie Oaks to Marquette. The owner/developer of the Prairie Oaks Office Building, T. F. James Company, sent a letter in favor of the variance request. The request is to mount the words "Marquette Bank" and the "M" logos on the top of the north and south exposure of the building. Each sign would be 176 square feet. Also, an expansion of the ground sign is requested to include 50 square feet on the four sides. If site lines were taken of current signage, driving down Highway #169 from the southwest or northeast approach, the sign is impossible to see until one is under the Shady Oak bridge. On Shady Oak Road, the sign is also difficult to see. The proposed signs would be appro- priate to buildings in the area. They would be prominent, but well- done, and back lit with individually cast letters. Haberman stated that signage serves an important function for the bank. The community room is often used for community events. • Todd Nesser, consultant for McCool & Company, Inc. , reviewed changes in the design of the sign mounted at the top of the building. Plans were displayed. Changes in the sign were that the symbol is done 1 ' Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 11 - June 12, 1986 higher and the letters are done 1 ' smaller. The letters are 3' and • the symbol is 5' high. The overall length of the sign is 37' compared to the previous plan of 44' . Durham asked if they were enlarging the 176 square feet. Nesser said yes, it would be 185 square feet. Durham said that Marquette Bank can not go larger, as the sign was published at 176 square feet. Nesser said that the graphics were designed for the Marquette organ- ization. The relationship between the logos and the lettering is standard throughout the organization. A restriction of 176 square feet would mean reducing the lettering also. Lynch did not feel that the sign would be disproportionate for the size of the building. Lynch said that it would be the only tenant sign on the building. Durham stated that Marquette Bank must obtain another variance request for the ground signs. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #86-23, submitted by Marquette Bank with the following findings: 1 ) No other tenant signs be permitted on the building as long as the Marquette Bank sign is on the building. 2) This variance is only valid for the Marquette Bank sign. Should the bank move out of the building, no other sign will be permitted in place of the Marquette Bank signs. 3) This variance request must be utilized within one year. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. I. Request #86-24, submitted by Anderson Lakes Center Partnership for property located at the northwest corner of Anderson Lakes Parkway and #169. Theme uest is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, 1 Subd. 2, B, to permit platting of proposed Lot 1 at .66 acres and proposed Lot 2 at .99 acres, (City Code requires 2 acres minimum 2 Subd. 2, B, to permit Lot 1 with an average lot depth of 171 feet (City Code requires 200 feet 3 Subd.3, H, 4, e, to permit parking at 6 stalls per 1000 s are feet _(City Code requires 8 stalls per 1000 square feet . 4 Subd. 3, H, 5, b, to permit construction of parkinq on the lot line Code requires a 10 foot setback. Don Brauer, representing Anderson Lakes Partnership, presented the request to the Board. They plan to build a neighborhood convenience center in a series of three buildings (cluster concept) instead of one long building. Brauer stated that the access to the street is • already there. Brauer said that there are no specific tenants for either of the separate buildings. All of the tenants want the option of owning Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 12 - June 12, 1986 the lots, so they are platted into separate lots. The parking arrangements would suit two restaurants. Durham said that City Council approved 1st Reading and the Planning Commission had reviewed the program. MOTION: Longman made a motion to approve Variance Request #86-24, submitted by Anderson Lakes Center Partnership with the following findings: 1 ) The cluster effect would be desirable to the community. 2) Staff would recommend approval of the variances requested based on the information in the Staff Report and based on the recommendation of the Planning Department and City Council . The variance is subject to all the conditions stated in the May 9, 1986, Staff Report. 3) This variance request must be utilized within one year. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. J. Request #86-25, submitted by Flagship Athletic Club for property_ located at 755 Prairie Center Drive. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 3, H, 5, d, to permit off-street parking upon a parcel of land different from the parcel of land upon which the structure intended to serve is located. Don Brauer, representing Flagship Athletic Club , reviewed the request with the Board. Flagship Athletic Club is currently before the Plan- ning Commission and City Council for platting the property into three lots. Mr. Teman's property was acquired in the middle of the winter of 1986. Flagship was commited to platting of the property, but did not want to plat until it could all be done when Teman's property was acquired. Proposed Lot 2 will be utilized to facilitate parking from the Athletic Club. Durham said that at this time, no commitment on behalf of the City for share parking is acknowledged. A future plan will have to be submitted. MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request #86-25, submitted by Flagship Athletic Club with the following findings : 1 ) Parking is needed. 2) This variance request must be utilized within one year. Lynch seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. III. OLD BUSINESS None Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 13 - June 12, 1986 IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Proposed City Code Ordinance Changes to City Code Chapter 11 . Durham stated that one of changes was a base floor area ratio. This limits the first floor area of the building to be 30%. Also, they are planning to reduce the parking stalls from 8 per 1000 commercial to 6 per 1000. That would eliminate a lot of variance requests. MOTION: Lynch made a motion that Proposed Ordinance Changes to City Code, Chapter 11 , be submitted to the Planning Commission for review. Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried unan- imously. V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Lynch made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 PM. Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. •