Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 06/08/1989 N • BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, June 8, 1989 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers, 7600 Executive Dr. , Eden Prairie, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Steve Longman (Chairman), Bill Arockiasamy Michael Bozonie, Dwight Harvey, Scott Anderson, John Freemyer, Neil Akeraann STAFF PRESENT: Steve Durham-Planning,Sharon Swenson-See'r BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT. Anderson, Bozonie I. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Longman called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Roll Call: Harvey, Freemyer, Longman, Arockiasamy, Akemann All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. II. MINUTES OF MAY 11, 1989 Harvev noted that on pages 8 & 9, the name A.kemann should be changed to Freemyer. • lie added that on page 3, he had voted against the notion, making it 4-1 in favor. On page 7, the word backlots should be changed to both lots. MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve the minutes of the May 11 meeting with the above mentioned corrections. Longman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. III. VARIANCES A. Request #89-23, submitted by DPC of Milwaukee, Inc. for property located at 625�-Bury Drive, Eden Prairie. Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 Section 11.OT,- Subdivision, H, 5, to Permit a 30' front yard parking setba-EF City Codes requires a 50' front yard parking setback. MOTION: Harvey moved and Arockiasamv seconded that the variance request 89-23 be continued to the next meeting. Motion passed unanimously. B. Re uest #89-25, submitted �j Michael Hemsworth for property located at 8794 Sycamore Court, Eden Prairie, M hrnesota. The re uest is for a variance from Cjty Code, Chapter I Sectioi 1.M Subdivision 2. B� To permit an .existin__g home with a front and setback of 201 . City Code re uires a 3front yard setback, 2 To �erm�it a deck additio-�2' from the front lot line. City Code re uires 30' . • This item continued to the end of the agenda. MOTION: Harvey moved and Arockiasamy seconded that the variance -request be continued to the end of the agenda. Motion passed unanimously. 2 • C. Request #89-26, submitted P1 Steven John Erickson for pro ert located at 1'3-53 Bridlewood Curve, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 1.03, Subdivision 2, B. to permit a deck addition 5' from a side lot line. City Code and Developer's Agreement requires a 10setback. Steven Erickson appeared to present the variance request. He noted that the deck he had proposed was 9' by 17: If he were to comply with the code requirements, he would be left with a 5' deck. Arockiasamy asked about the alternatives proposed by staff. Erickson answered that it would still leave him with a 5' deck. Arockiasamy asked if the house was parallel to the lot line. Erickson answered that it was. He added that he had checked around the City and found other residences that had similar situations, including 17892 LorencP Way. He said that his residence was on a curve, with a triple garage. Arockiasamy asked if there were, any other similar situations in this particular neighborhood. Erickson answered that there were not (right in the neighborhood.) • Arockiasamy asked if this deck had been in the plans from the beginning. Erickson said he had planned on a deck on that side of the home. Arockiasamy said there was room on the other side of the home. There would be more room on the north side of the home. Harvey asked if Erickson had built the home. Ile asked what the back yard was like. Erickson answered that he had hired it built. He added that the back yard was open. There is a cluster home development and some townhomes. nearby. There is a play area his own back yard. Harvey asked if Erickson had considered a deck on the back of the house. Erickson said he would not put one there. It would take away the intended use of that area. Harvey said he understood, but the neighborhood was platted to accompolish certain things. There should be a 20'100t separation between the homes. The lots were allowed to be smaller than suggested,but a concession had been offered to maintain a 20 foot separation between the homes.He felt it was a reasonable alternative to build in the back yard. • Erickson asked how the otter addresses he had mentioned got these variances. Durham said there could be many reasons including no building permit or,the patio could have been constructed of cement, or it may have just slipped through the process. 3 ---. • Erickson asked if the deck were grade level off the dining room, would that be acceptable? Durham answered that it would be acceptable. Longman suggested a landing and a cement patio. Durham added that fences can go on the lot line,and can be 6' high. Arockiasamy asked about the nieghbor's window. Erickson answered that it was a bedroom window. Arockiasamy noted that Erickson's home had the smallest gap in the neighborhood. Durham said no variance would be needed if the structure were grade level. Arockiasamy suggested the item be continued to enable Erickson some time to review the situation. Erickson said that would be acceptable to him. MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board grant a continuance for the variance request 89-26 until the next meeting. Harvey seconded the motion • and it passed unanimously. D. Request 189-27, submitted §1 Opus Corporation for Datasery Headquarters for property located at 12125 Technology Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Bob Worthington of Opus Corporation came forward to present the variance request. He said that the staff report explained the request well. The building was built in 1986. There were expansion plans for lot 2 within 3-5 years. The current building is in compliance with zoning. One and a half years ago, Data Serve was purchased by U.S. South. They wanted to consolidate the administration functions within this building and as a result of this, the need for parking spaces increased. The building is designed for mixed industrial/office use As more administrative functions were centered in this building, the need for parking spaces became greater and greater. Data Sery asked for a temporary lease of a parking lot'(lot 2) near the building earlier, with the-idea that when expansion of lot 2 occured, new parking would be constructed. He explained that the 2nd lot has been sold to another owner. He felt Data Serve has a unique situation. The parking spaces for the first building are now exceeding City requirements. The company is management intensive and needs more than normal parking. If they were to leave the building, all the parking spaces probably would not be used. Staff had asked that the property be replatted into one parcel. Consideration would_ not be given to buv the adjoining property because it is much cheaper to lease the lot than to buy it. As long as Data Serve is in the building, the lot will be available for lease to them. He was asking for a variance from the ordinance that states that all parking • be located on the same site. 4 Durham said that Worthington had done very well in his explaination of the facts. He added that if this situation had been taken through the system as a PUD, it may have had merit, with trade-offs. Instead of going back to the Planning Commission, the applicant came to the Board for off-site parking variance preview. The Commission reviewed the development as one parcel. He added that the Board should consider the issue in regard to setting a precedent. He explained that in the beginning this building was set up for 50-50 office/manufacturing. Later, a request for 100% office came in, and 90% was granted. At the time of approval, it was all one parcel. Harvey asked if the parking in lot 1 was sufficient for 50-50 office/manufacturing? Durham answered that it was sufficient. Arokciasamy asked if the parking ratio is related to how the building is used. Durham answered that it was. Worthington noted_ the parking on the drawing he had on display was sufficient for 90% office use. The question is the subdivision lot line. The other owner is not willing to sell, nor can Data Serve afford to buy the property. The alternate was a covenant/lease agreement to Data Serve. If Data Serve would leave, it would no longer be in effect. This would be a temporary variance. He would like to have a decision in advance of the Council Meeting. . Arockiasamy asked if an the I-2 zoning --which was to be 50-50 office/industrial) would there need to be variances to change this percentage? Durham answered that the use of the building was determined by the number of parking stalls. If this was exceeded, a varia nce would need to be applied for. Harvey asked if, originally, Opus was the owner of both lots. Durham answered yes. Lot 2 had been sold within the last 2 years. Harvey asked if the owner of lot 2 was a related company. He suspected this was the case because of the unwillingness to sell, yet willingness to sign a perpetual lease. Worthington answered that it was a subsidiary company and they were willing to forgo a higher return. Harvey said that a single owner was benefiting. He has a problem with offsite parking. Both lots could be combined and a variance would not be needed.Usually this type of agreement is in a cross easement in a common area. This is a self- inflicted wound-Opus has allowed the usage to exceed the original PUD. - Aroekiasamy asked what would happen when Data Serve leaves the site? (if they leave the site). Then antler tenant comes in to rent--has a precedent been set? He felt there still had been no hardship shown. Worthington said if this would riot be granted, one owner would have to sell development rights to Data Serve,or change Data Serve operations in the building. Data Serve does not want to buy, and the other owner does not want to sell. 5 Arockiasamy asked if Data Serve can break the lease. Worthington said no. They must comply with the existing conditions of the lease. On site parking must be reduced to comply. Arockiasamy said if Data Serve could not get out of it's committment, it would be a hardship, although he has difficulty with this situation. Harvey felt the hardship would be economic. Freemyer stated that the underlying property does not have to be owned by one owner. A plat can be vacated by district court action. He felt the platting process would work-quite well in this situation, although the mortgage companies may not go along with the situation. Harvey said that originally the mortgage was recorded on one piece of property-- when there was the same owner on both lots. Worthington said that now there was a mortgage only on one lot. The other was unencumbered. Arockiasamy asked if the two lots were combined, could the other building be built? Durham answered no, it would have to be approved first. Akemann asked why Opus would not want to buy the 2nd lot. Worthington said the price would have to reflected in the lease agreement for the building. Harvey asked if the subsidiary company was now providing free parking? Worthington answered that was true. Data Serve is taking care of the property taxes and maintenance. Akemann asked what would happen at the end of the 7 year lease. Worthington said they would hope to renew the lease, or would look for another location. Akemann asked if the variance can be tied to the owner, and not the property. Durham felt that in that instance, an agreement would be needed and attorneys would be involved. Durham answered a question from Akemann by stating the requirements for an I-2 zoning district: 1/3, office--1/3,manufacturing--1/3 warehouse.A 90% office, such as this, needed a variance. Akemann felt the hardship was an economic one. • Worthington said it certainly was part of the issue. Longman asked when the lease expired. Worthington answered it expired in 5 years. 6 • Longman felt the Board was not seeing or hearing the entire picture/information. Worthington said two separate companies own the properties. One was willing to compensate the other for parking. The owner of lot 2 does not want to sell. Longman asked why Rauenhorst would not sell lot 2 for one dollar and other consideration" Then, it could be sold back later. It would be an easy way to settle the situation. There must be a way to resolve this from within the corporation. Ile could see no hardship. Durham clarified that in 1988, Opus requested a PUD waiver to 100% office use. The Planning Commission had approved 90%. That request platted the property as one lot. It went to the Council in the same fashion. It has not gone back to the Council as 2 lots. Worthington added that the plat has not been filed. Harvey felt a hardship would be needed to be established. Longman said if the variance were to be granted, he would not like to see the parking spots in lot 2 used as a tool to rent lot 1 offices. He felt that the same owner must own both lots, if there is free parking on lot 2. • Worthington said he believed there was a lease arrangement (not a lot of money). Arockiasamy said that since there was one owner on both properties, there was no justifiable hardship. He felt this would set a precedent and a variance should be the last thing to be considered. Freemyer noted that statutes say economic hardship alone is not hardship. He would vote against it. Worthington agreed that the request had a economic basis. Data Serve may be forced to look elsewhere for offices. It should be a concern for a community. Akemann asked if the agreement on lot 2 goes with the owner or the tenant. Worthington answered with the tenant--only for Data Serve. Arockiasamy suggested a continuance until the Council looks at the matter. Durham said he did not know what bearing a continuance of the item would have. Worthington said they would go to the Council with a request for 2 lots. By having a vote now, the Board lets the Council know it's opinion. Durham noted that the Council did have the ultimate decision. • Arockiasamy said the issue was complex. He did not know if we have all the information. He can see good sides, but it does not sway his opinion to be in favor of the variance. Longman said if this was the only way to keep Data Serve in the community, he would go for it. But, he does not believe that this is true. 7 • MOTION:Harvey moved that the Board deny variance request 89-27 on the grounds that no hardship was identified(other than economic), and that there are other alternatives. Akemann seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. E. Re uest #89-28, submitted Scenic Heights Investment for pro�e_rty located east of Cou�nt� Road —and—north and east of aceshore Drive, Eden prairie, Minnesota. The re uest is for a variance from City Code Chapter , Section �T.02, To ermit proposed Lot 4 Block 5, Lot�Block Lot7, Block 3 with lot sizes less than ,O�s square feet. City Code requires a minimum lot size of ,O�s uare feet in the R172-2-Zoning District, To permit proposed Lot 2, Block 3 with lot fronta e of 82' City Code requires 100' of frontage on corner Tots, 3 Section . ,subdivision 6, B to permit an existing residential structure W from the Ordinary High Water Mark of Red Rock Lake. City Code re uires a 1( setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark. MOTION: Freemyer moved that this item be continued to the July meeting. Arockiasamy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. (Following item was moved to the end of the agenda) • B. Re nest #89-25, submitted P Michael Hemsworth at 8794 S camore Court, Eden Prairie, Minnesota.foTherrreeuestrt l�safor a variance from City Code, Cha ter Tr Section 1.� Subdivision 2z To ermit an exi_sti n home with a front and setback of 20' . City Code re uires a 30' front and setback, 2 To 2.trmit T deck addition 2' from the front lot line. C- ity Code re uires 30'. Durham explained that the hardship shown in this variance had not been created by the owner. It had been created with the extension of Sycamore Court and the south side lot line becoming a front yard. The existing home had thus become non-conforming and utilization of the sliding glass doors and deck removed. MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board grant Variance Request 89-25 based on findings: 1. The variances have not been created by the owner of the property. 2• A hardship has been created which removed the existing'home from a conforming status to non-conforming status. 3. Original use of the property has been constricted by the extension Of Sycamore Court and south lot line becoming a front yard lot line. 4. Actual distance of the home and deck to the back of the curb is 25 • feet or more. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 8 • III. OLD BUSINESS Durham mentioned that the decision on Cabriolle Center had been overturned. IV. NEW BUSINESS Longman reminded the Board of the joint meeting of the Board & Council on Tuesday, June 27th at 7:30 P.M. V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board adjourn. Arockiasamy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:25 P.M. • •