Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 08/14/1986 APPROVED MINUTES • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 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: Dean was absent. I. MINUTES A. Minutes of July 10, 1986, MOTION: Arockiasamy moved, seconded by Lynch, to approve the minutes of July 10, 1986, Motion carried unanimously. II. VARIANCES • A. 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, Sub d, 2, B, to permit construction of a garage 25.5 feet from the front property line (City' Code requires 30 feet) . This is a continued item from the June 12, 1986 and July 10, 1986 meetings. This variance request was withdrawn by Nathan Harrison on August 7, 1986. B. Request #86-32, submitted by Michael L, Wonson for property located at 14007 Holly Road, The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 ,03, Subd, 2, B, to permit construction of a garage 11 ' from the front yard property line City Code requires 30' ) , This variance request was continued from the June 10, 1986 meeting. Mitch Wonson, proponent, reviewed the request with the Board. Drawings of elevations with a flat roof and gable roof were submitted. Wonson noted that in reviewing City records, fifteen variance requests had been granted for garage setbacks in the past two years. Two variance requests were similar to this request. • Wonson said that the side elevation is somewhat deceiving given the topography of the lot. The flat roof view would not be seen from the front yard with the vegetation and topography. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - August 14, 1986 Wonson felt that the flat roof is less obstrusive. • Surrounding neighbors were spoken to and a petition was signed by six neighbors in favor of the variance request. Wonsan stated that if a gable roof was required, siding would have to be removed from the house. A fire wall would have to be constructed and a window would have to be relocated. The cost of the proposal would be increased by 17%. Wonson said that there is additional maintenance with the gable roof, Wonson is concerned with the freezing thaw line adjacent to the house. The gutter is in the front and water will freeze in front of the garage door. The driveway is steep with an "S" curve. There would be add- itional difficulties in accessing the garage. Sandvick pointed out that previous variances that were ruled on by the Board were consistent with 50% of the variance or less, Wonson is proposing a 64% variance, which is in excess. Sandvick felt that the proposal of the flat roof is not as conducive or architecturally enhancing as a gable roof, Lynch asked if the signatures on the petition were immediate adjacent property owners. Wonson replied yes. Three of the neighbors could see the garage and the others lived off the common driveway. Anderson stated that he was in favor of the variance request even • though it seems like a radical departure. The road line and the line of site is already cut by the hill . Longman stated that he prefers the gable roof as it is more architect- urally enhancing. Longman questioned if the City could make a stip- ulation for the request. Durham said that the City Attorney indicated that the Board could impart conditions that seemed reasonable, Lynch felt that the Board should not get in the business of designing, The neighbors most directly involved were not against the request. Arockiasamy said that the proposed plans are not going to look any,' worse than they are now, Arockiasaay did not have a strong objection to the variance. MOTION: Arockiasamy made a motion to approve Variance Request #86-32, submitted by Michael L. Wonson with the following find- ings: 1 ) This variance request must be utilized within one year, Longman seconded the motion, Motion carried 5-0-1 , Sandvick abstained, C. Request' #86-33, submitted by William D, Gloede for property located • af 9141 W. Staring Lane, herequestls for a variance from City Code, Chapter I I , Sect!on I I .U3, SUM -3;­C,,. on Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - August 14, 1986 of a garage addition 28 feet from the front property line, (City_ Code requires a minimum front yard set ack of 47.7 feet as pierthe average front yard setback for the block. William Gloede, 9141 W. Staring Lane, presented his request to the Board. Gloede had looked at the two alternatives proposed by City Staff and felt that neither one was acceptable in terms of economics, Krueger asked if there was a garage on the property, Gloede said no, Lynch stated that there were varying setbacks in the neighborhood. There is no specific alignment. Durham said that the minimum setback in the neighborhood is 40 feet, There is no common setback. There is a 60 foot street right-of-way, Lynch said that there are alternatives, but they would be an extreme financial burden. There were no comments from the audience. Gloede said that there was no negative feedback from neighbors that he had contacted. Durham stated that he had received no calls at City Hall , • Longman noted that the front yard setback was set at 28 feet, The drawings show a lot line of 30 feet, Durham said that he used the survey done in 1963 which showed a 40 Foot setback, The house .may have been built at 42 feet as Gloede had measured. If the house is set back at 42 feet then the structure would meet a minimum 30 foot front yard setback in the R1-22 zoning district, Long asked if Gloede measured from the property line, Gloede said yes Arockiasamy said that there would be a difference when you look at the other houses, Arockiasamy asked if the garage slab was going to be on grade, Gloede replied that it would, Anderson asked if the garage slab would be a little bit below the height of the ceiling in the addition, Gloede said no, the roof will be kept as is. There were no comments from the audience, Arockiasamy asked about future plans for the gravel road, Durham said that eventually the road would be upgraded when there is future • development and sewer and water connected, Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - August 14, 1986 Gloede asked when sewer and water might come in. Durham said that • it could be between 5-10 years. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #86-33, submitted by William D, Gloede with the following findings: 1 ) The garage addition architecturally match the existing dwelling in style and color. Architecture will be reviewed at the time of the building permit review. 2) This variance request must be utilized within one year, Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously, D. Request #86-34, submitted by Mark Charles & Urban Unit Corporation for property located at 10220 County Road #18. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .70, Subd, 3, J, 4, to permit a temporary real estate sign for the Autumn Ridge residen- tial area to be located 70 feet from an existing residential structure. Cit Code requires 100 feet setback from a re-existing residential structure. This variance request is continued until the September 11 , 1986 meeting because of a previous commitment for the proponent, E. Request #86-35, submitted by Vantage Properties, Inc. for property • located at 7905 Triangle Road. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 ,03, Subd. 3, F, toypermit con- struction of a transmission`tower at a height of 198 eet City Code maximum for a 'transmission tower in the I=2 Zoninq District is 65 feet. Dale Beckman, BRW, . represented Vantage Properties, Inc. Beckman stated that KMSP would like to build a tower within Vantage's Southwest Crossing Business Park, The project is for the production facilities and offices of KMSP television. The site chosen would not adversely affect future development in the subdivision and adjacent property, Drawings were displayed indicating location of the tower which were taken off of actual photographs, The first phase of the building is a 46,000 square foot production office facility. The site is designed such that there can be expan- sion for an additional 20,000 square feet of office space, KMSP needs a 200 foot tower to adequately transmit their microwaves from the production towers around the twin cities. Beckman stated that there were four dishes on top of the tower. One is eight feet in diameter and three are six feet in diameter, Beckman said that the tower is set to the back side of the building, People in office buildings adjacent to the site will be looking at a Board of Appeals and Adjustments _ 5 , August 14, 1986 two story building along with the tower, Staff suggested blending the • tower with the background which would include a color similar to what NSP towers are painted, Beckman noted that a major woodland preserve area is adjacent to the area where the transmission tower would be, Anderson asked if there was a transmission tower on York Avenue in Edina. Beckman said yes, it was 50-70 feet in height. KMSP must transmit from that tower to another tower to reach over buildings in downtown Minneapolis, This process decreases the quality of the transmission so they are looking for a new site which will accommodate a one step transmission. Sandvick inquired who determined the height of the tower, Beckman said that KMSP commissioned someone to do the test from the site. Lynch asked what would happen when someone builds a 30 story building in the line of transmission. Beckman said that it would create problems. If it were not adjacent to the site, it would not create a problem, Anderson asked if the dishes could be put on the building. Beckman said that the transmission tower needs to be exactly adjacent to the building. The quality of the transmission is critical , Sandvick inquired if the tower had guidelines, Beckman said that it did • not. Gary Ratcliffe, president of Cherne Contracting Corporation, expressed his concern over the request. (Exhibit A) Their office building is located across the street from the proposed site. The tower will be four times higher than the Cherne office building. Occupants of the building would see the tower structure from their windows, Ratcliffe pointed out that the tower is nearly twice as high as the NSP lines. Ratcliffe wondered whether a different design could be used, Beckman stated that more of the tree line can be seen with the tower structure than an eight or nine story building. Longman said that existing office buildings had to blend into the topo- graphy with berms and screening and it was not fair to adjacent property owners who were required to design their building to meet codes. Longman asked if Beckman had seen the letter from the Minnesota Vikings, Beckman said yes, they are aware that they have a restrictive easement, Jeff Diamond, assistant general manager to the Vikings, explained that the "line of site easement" is in all of their documents, (Exhibit B) The Vikings request that should the Board grant the variance request, there be a condition that the Viking's concerns are satisfied, Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - August 14, 1986 Brad Hoyt, Technology Park & Associates, stated that their develop- • ment is to the north. Without the tower, the environment in a creek corridor is devoid of any undue intrusions, Hoyt has spent approx- imately one million dollars to preserve the land which includes the cost of the land, retaining walls, berms and moving the road. iHoyt has invested 28 million dollars in the office park. Hoyt noted that the top of the tower would be 130 feet higher than the top of the hill which he was required to preserve. Hoyt's corporate headquarters building would look directly at the tower. Hoyt stated that it would not be an asset to the development. Lynch asked how far Hoyt's building was from the tower. Durham said that it was between 300-350 feet. Emerson Greenberg, vice president of Gelco Corporation, voiced his concern over the request. (Exhibit C) From the front of the Gelco building, 90-95% of the tower would be seen. Gelco has not been in opposition before, but this request is not in the best interest for the people in the area. Beckman stated that if multi-story office buildings were constructed instead of the tower, it would block views, Lynch asked if there were any alternatives for the tower, Beckman said no. • Krueger said that there is no hardship for the request, It is not in keeping with the spirit of the development going on such as saving hills and trees and trying to maintain the natural effect throughout the creek corridor. Sandvick felt that the tower would be distracting, Sandvick stated that it is an extreme variance and he would have a difficult time granting the variance. Lynch said that the tower may fit better in another location. MOTION: Sandvick made a motion to deny Variance Requdst #86-35, submitted by Vantage Properties, Inc, with the following findings: 1 ) A 200 foot tower is in excess of the zoning code for 65 feet. 2) It does not fit the environment through the creek corridor. Arockiasamy seconded the motion, Motion carried unanimously. Krueger stated that the proponent's alternative is to take the request to the City Council . F. Request'#86- 6' submit od b West, had rne' for ro ert located at • 660-- City West Parkway.. The -request is ,for a variance ,from City Code, aqt er I I ; Socti on ; suRr. 2 9 , B to permi t an a u i Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 7 - August 14, 1986 at 34 feet. (City Code requires 35 feet front yard setback in the • Office Zoning District. Milo Arkema, general partner with Vekich, Arkema Company, reviewed the request with the Board. The one foot encroachment was discov- ered as a result of a survey.. This portion of the building is in violation of City Code, The area in violation does not contain actual office space. Arkema stated that there is a hardship involved. There were no comments from the audience, MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #86-36, submitted by West Shady Nine with the following findings: 1 ) The building is existing and it would be impractical to change it. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. G. Request #86-37, submitted by Dalls Development Corporation for property located at S.E. corner of Bury Drive and County Road #67, The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .30, Subd. 3, C, to permit construction of a buildinQ in an I-2 Zoning District, with 85% office space, City Code limits office space within an I-2 Zoning District to 50% of the total floor area of a structure. • Bernie Frey, representing Dallas Development Corporation, spoke to the request. Dallas Development is the owner of Westwood Industrial Park. Their client is interested in developing a 15,126 square foot office/warehouse building. They like the site because of the location and most of their employees live in Eden Prairie and Minnetonka. Frey stated that the Floor Area Ratio is 19%. There is plenty of parking and green area. Site plans were displayed. Longman asked what type of business the occupant did. Frey said that they were food brokers. Durham said that one alternative would be to rezone the property from I-2 to Office. This would include a guide plan change, The Staff would not support this however, as it would be spot zoning, Krueger inquired about the 85% office space being requested. Durham said that traditionally, either through a PUD process or the Board, variances have been granted up to 75%.office space. Usually, with it the character takes on an office look. Krueger asked what the exterior materials were. Frey said that they were burnished block, There is a substantial amount of glass also, • Krueger asked what the time schedule was. Frey said that it was tight, The old building was just sold and they can stay in the building until Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 8 - August 14, 1986 April 1987. • Lynch said that part of the problem is the lack of detail . Frey stated that they came to the Board with the minimum. Durham said that out of the 37 acres, the increase in office space is not that significant. Lynch did not have a problem with the concept, but with the building materials, MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request #86-37, submitted by Dallas Development with the following findings: 1 ) Site plan and landscape plan be reviewed by Planning Depart- ment, prior to building permit issuance, 2) All mechanical rooftop equipment be screened with materials integral to the exterior building materials, 3) All loading docks be down sized double door openings and be completely screened. 4) Exterior building material be upgraded to brick, stone or glass for all exterior elevations. The building must not exceed 25% exterior wood trim, 5) Office space be limited to 85% of the total floor area, • Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously, III. OLD BUSINESS None IV. NEW BUSINESS None V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Sandvick moved, seconded by Longman to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 PM. Motion carried unanimously, • - 9 - EXHIBIT A CHERNE SINCE loge • CI3EIZINE CO-TIZACTI\G C0I?P0RATI0N POST OFFICE B O X 9 7 5 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55440 G. A. RATCLIFFE TELEPHONE 612-944-26SO TWX 910-576-2766 PRESIDENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER August 14, 1986 HAND DELIVERED City of Eden Prairie Board of Adjustments and. Appeals 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Subject: Response to Public Hearing Notice Regarding Variance Request No. 86-35 Southwest Crossing Development Gentlemen: Vantage Properties, Inc. has submitted a request to the City of Eden Prairie for -• a variance to erect a transmission/receiving micro-dish tower at 7905 Golden Triangle Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. As the owner and occupant of a five- story office building located at 9855 West 78th Street,. we would like to for- . mally protest and object to the granting of the request for variance. In selecting the 17 acre site which we choose for our corporate headquarters in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, one of the primary considerations was the aesthetic quality of the Anderson Lakes area. Because of the beauty of the area, we choose to construct a largely glass walled building to take advantage of the views. Others in the area have also constructed glass curtain wall buildings. We do not believe that the construction of an approximately 200 foot high tower in the immediate vicinity of these office structures is compatible with these buildings. Certainly the occupants of our building do not want to now have their view of the surrounding landscape marred by the proposed transmission tower structure. At the time that we were planning and designing our office building, the City of Eden Prairie rightfully insisted that we take certain steps to screen and landscape various areas in order to shield the public frc,r undesirable views of our parking lot and other areas of the building. Although, we did incur con- siderable expense in complying with these requirements, the result has been to produce an aesthetically pleasing property. The erection of a 200 foot trans- mission tower in the immediate vicinity of the major office developments in this area is not aesthetically pleasing. • Sincerely, {X Ratcliffe /Pre ident CORPORATE ornclt-9955 WEST 76TH STNEEf-MINNEAPOUS,MINNESOTA r^6MCATI30N PLANT-P.O.BOX 667-#RONW0006 MICHIOAN 40676 GAR:jmh - 10 - EXHIBIT B • - )KO InnESorA IKI1)c7s ,kzr% sr 9520 VIKING DRIVE -EDEN PRAIRIE,MN 55344• (612) 828-61500 .'` August 14 , 1986 City of Eden Prairie Board of Appeals and Adjustments Eden Prairie , MN 55344 RE : Variance Request No . 86-35 Gentlemen : Vikings II , Inc . is the owner of the 15 acre parcel of land located immediately east of the parcel ( the "Subject Parcel " ) which is the subject of the above referenced variance request. Vikings II , Inc . has constructed its corporate head- quarters and a training and practice facility on the land and has leased the property to its subsidiary, Minnesota Vikings Football Club, Inc . ( "Vikings" ) . The Vikings facility is used by its professional foot- ball team for practice and training sessions . In the course of practices , new plays , defenses and other strategies are developed . The Vikings are quite concerned about maintaining the confidentiality of practices and the ability of persons to observe or record the practice sessions from neighboring parcels . As a consequence of this concern , the Vikings constructed , at substantial expense , an earthen tree-lined berm along the western boundary of its property to shield the practice/playing field from the view of any buildings which might be constructed on the Subject Parcel and on the other land to the west of the Vikings facility. In conjunction with the berm, the Vikings obtained a restrictive easement from Condon-Naegele Realty which sold the Vikings the site for the Vikings facility and which owned the property to the west of the Vikings facility, including the Subject Land . The easement restricts the height of any structure so that a six foot person standing on top of the structure at the maximum permitted height could not observe the Vikings practice field over the berm. - The structure which is the subject of the above referenced • variance far exceeds the height restrictions . The Vikings have not received a written request from the applicant for the variance to resolve the concerns of the Vikings over the height of the • proposed structure . Therefore , the Vikings respectfully request that , if the Board is inclined to grant the variance request , the Board condition any approval on the applicant entering into an agreement with the Vikings in form and substance satisfactory to the Vikings which adequately protects the interests of the Vikings . Your consideration of the interests of the Vikings as a neighboring land owner to the Subject Parcel and the use the Vikings have made of their property is very much appreciated . Sincerely, VIKINGS II , INC . MINNESOTA V I K I G�_..F00TBALL--GL.-U-1B INC . By • Michael E . Lynn , I Executive Vice P esident and General Manager J - 12 - r: EXHIBIT C Gwowvnfie Corporation • One Gelco Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 612-828-2666 Emerson P. Greenberg Vice President, Real Estate and Facilities August 14 , 1986 Board of Appeals & Adjustments City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie , Minnesota 55344 Attn : Mr. Ron Krueger, Chairman Dear Mr. Krueger and Members , It has come to our attention that Request for Variance No. 86-35 has been submitted to permit construction of a transmission tower at a height of 200 feet. (City code maximum 65 feet. ) • Gelco would like to be on record as strongly opposing the granting of this variance . We strenuously object to the variance based on the following: 1 . It does not preserve the integrity of the area and seems to be wholly inconsistent with forestation, landscaping and general design requirements of the City of Eden Prairie . 2 . Maintaining the general ambiance of the area has been a requirement for many years by the City of Eden Prairie. This ambiance would be destroyed by placing a huge tower and electronic equipment of this magnitude on the proposed site . When the City originally wrote the guidelines , towers were limited to a maximum of 65 feet in height, in order to maintain a certain overall tone . The request for a 200 foot tower is far in excess of that limit. It is an objectionable intrusion on the landscape and • produces a negative impact to the surrounding woods and hills of the subject area. - 13 City of Eden Prairie August 14 , 1986 Page 2 3 . We feel it is inconsistent with other uses in the area and most certainly is a poor use of this property. We believe this could have a negative impact on land values . We certainly do not anticipate that the City would allow its own guidelines to be exceeded threefold. In our own dealings with the City, we have gone out of our way to maintain the environment and to protect the landscape at considerable expense . We are here to cooperate as we always have during our long time presence in Eden Prairie . We are not here to object frivolously to this request, but have carefully analyzed the impact and honestly believe this is not good for all of us . Very truly yours , EmPson P: Gree rg EPG/ste cc: Mayor Gary D. Peterson Council Members City Manager City Director of Planning •