Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 09/14/1989 APPROVED MZN[= BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, September 14, 1989 7:30 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers, 7600 Executive Dr. , - Eden Prairie, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Steve Longman (Chairman), Bill Arockiasamn Michael Bozonie, Dwight Harvey, Scott Anderson, John Freemyer, Neil Aker-iann STAFF PRESENT: Steve Durham-Planning,Sharon Swenson-Seo't BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Neil Akemann (Anderson arrived at /:35) i. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Longman called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Roll Call: Longman, Arockiasamy, Bozonie, Harvey, Freemyer, (Anderson arrived at 7:35) All present recited the Pledge of Allegiance II. MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 1989 MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve the Minutes of August 10, 1989 • as submitted. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. III. VARIANCES A. Variance Request #89-43' submitted by A & J Enterprises for property located at 6843 Washington Avenue South, Eden Prairie Minnesota. The request is for a variance from City Code, Cha ter 11, Section 11.b'3, on Subdivisi 2 6, to ermit a building addition 1 the rear lot line. City Code requires a 25' rear and setback in the I-2 Zoning District. A representative of Best Line Builders appeared to present the variance. He explained that the reason for the request was that they were trying to locate more trucks with- in the building since there was not outside storage. The addition would be within the allowance for square footage, but a variance would be needed for the rear lot line setback. The addition would be 12' from the rear lot line instead of the required 25' . Granting of this variance would allow the squaring off the of addition and more appealing lines would result. *Anderson arrived at 7:35 PM. Johnson ncted letter from Braun Engineering Company O.S. Braun) which cited concerns regarding, the variance. She called the Board's attention to a photograph of the back yard and also an aerial photo of the property. The other three sides of the building are restricted with parking. The 12' space in the rear is the minimum for a one way drive. The snow storage issue should be reviewed. • Arockiasamy asked Hulbert what his response had been to the letter from Braun Engineering. Hulbert had not seen the letter and read it at this point. 2 • The representative from Best Line Builders noted that the building was located half in Eden Prairie and half in Edina. He said there was plenty of room for snow storage as all the parking area is not needed- the need was for truck storage. In response to a request by Arockiasamy, he explained the present request to the Board. Harvey asked if Hulbert understood that the screening of the roof top was for the entire building and not just the addition. Hulbert responded that he could not store vehicles in the parking lot, when others do. He noted a lighted, directional sign on Washington Ave also, and felt that there were inconsistencies in enforcement of code in Eden Prairie. The Best Line Builders representative said that the screening for the rooftops would be done on the entire building, not just the addition. Freemyer and Bozonie had no questions. Anderson asked how many square feet of the building were occupied by the renter. Hulbert answered about 13,000 square feet and there was a remaining 3-4 year lease on the space. MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board approve Variance Request 89-43 on the • grounds of hardship, demonstrated regarding site constraints limiting the ability of A & J Enterprises to provide screening for vehicles over 3/4 ton. All rooftop mechanical will be screened with the addition and screening plans are to be submitted prior to the release of a building permit. The variance approved shall be based on plans submitted which include a 20' by 56' and a 25' by 56' addition as noted on drawing 4 of 4. The total square feet of this structure is to be 2,520. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. B. Variance Re uest #89-44L submitted � Sin Consultants, loc tea d at Prairie Center Drive, �' Inc.for ro ert Eden Prairie Minnesota the re uest is for a variance from City Code, Cha ter 1 , Section .70, Subdivision 3D� 1T� To ermit two rivate directional si ns within ublic right-of-wa . City Code does not ermit si ns other than Governmental signs within any street right-of-way To ermit a —monument sign 11' from a front lot line. City Code re wires a front yard setback of 20' . = To ermit two rivate directional si ns 0' from the fron— line. City code re wires a 20' setback. Richard Lang, of Sign Consultants Inc. , appeared to present the variance. He explained that they would like to install directional signs on the corner of Frenlo and Prairie Center Drive. The melon in front of Lunds does not allow a left turn in front of Lunds. The current set back is 20' from the property line and they are asking for 38' from the curb or 10' in the right of way-They would also like a lighted identification sign at the back end of the store, as this would minimize traffic • in the front. The directional signs are very small and the purpose would be to route westbound traffic south to the Franlo Road entrance. Harvey asked who would be assisted by the monument sign. Lang said that if the sign was clear and well marked, people will use that entrance. The posts will be aluminum skinned. 3 • Johnson said that regarding the sign off Frenlo Rd, she felt there were identifiable constraints. The set back seemed appropriate. She did not recommend the two directional signs within the right of way as snow storage problems and snow damage from plowing could occur. She felt a better location would be half way up the hill or some modification between the 0 and 20' setback lines. Anderson asked how many feet the signs would need to be moved (from the location asked for in the variance request) to be out of the right of way. Johnson answered they would need to be moved 11' . Lang noted that the signs will be 46-48 feet from the road, well beyond the snow plow area. Anderson said he was not in favor of signs within the City right of way. Bozonie felt it should be further up the hill. Freemyer was opposed to signage in the right of way because of safety and utilities. He felt he may be in favor of it,if a. variance of at least 1' setback beyond utility easement but could not agree with 0' setback. He felt there could be problems with footings for signs and underground electrical and telephone wires. Harvey said he was against request number 1-his concern was also for underground • utilities. He could see a need for directional signs on Prairie Center Drive. Regarding the monument sign that would direct traffic to enter via the rear entrance: He felt it could be at the 20' setback and still be visible for people going south on Franlo Rd.There was no need to vary from code. Arockiasamy stated that he.was against request number 1. He felt that request number 2 could be done at 20' , and that request number 3 should be done at least 10' from the property line or more. He asked if one directional sign could be used. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board deny part one of variance request 89-44 dealing with signage in the right of way. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Bod approve an 11' setback for part 2 of variance request 89-44 with hardship demonstrated as being site con- straints. Anderson seconded the motion. Motion received a tie vote: Longman, Anderson,Freemyer voted in favor of the motion and Bozonie, Arockiasamh, and Harvey voted against. Motion did not pass. Lang noted that a number of trees would obscure the sign if it were farther from the setback line. Harvey felt the sign could be "framed" within code by shrubbery, etc. No member of the Board was willing to rephrase the motion. . 4 A • Lang said that if signs are too close, it becomes congested. Arockiasamy noted that if signs are too low and close to the road, they will be covered up in the winter months. MOTION: Anderson moved that the Board approve item 3 of variance request 89-44 with an 11' setback from the property line, not 0' as had been requested, because of the large amount of right of way affecting this site. Arockias-,bmy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Arockiasamy noted that the presentation by Lang had been a very good one. C. Variance Request #89-45, submitted by Opus Corporation for Viking Press, Inc. for Propert loE—ateTat 7000 Washington Avenue South,Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The re nest is for a variance from Cit Code, ._ Cha ter 11, Section 11.03, Subdivision 2, B, To permit a floor area ratio FAR of 44, City Code maximum is .30. Previous variance 84-1 permitted .34 FAR. To permit a base area ratio BAR of .44, City Code maximum is .30. Previous variance re uest #89-22 a permitted .42 BAR. _ Bob Worthington of Opus Corporation and two representatives from Viking Press appeared to present the variance request. Worthington explained the request to the Board and noted that it was an amendment to the existing variance. He felt the variance was justified. • The representative of Viking Press explained that there are presently 240 employees at the site and there will be 300 (in three shifts). The peak shift now has 115 employees. There is a shift overlap, but the shifts are being jockeyed to help the situation. Worthington said the addition will be done in phases. More parking than necessary will be on site. A question arose regarding the time limit on variances after they were granted. Johnson answered that as long as any part of a variance is utilized within one year it is still effective. Harvey asked if vehicles over 3/4 ton will be screened with this addition. Viking Press representative answered yes & added that loaded trailers are set out in the lot for pick-up. MOTION: Arockiasamy moved that the Board approve variance request 88-45 based upon the following findings and conditions: (a) All existing and proposed rooftop mechanical equipment be screened with the new building addition. (b) No additional parking, parking setback, or building setback • variances are required. (c) Split work shifts are utilized to reduce traffic and parking congestion. 5 (d) Prior to building permit issuance an amended landscape plan be submitted for approval . The landscape plan must match • and exceed the previously approved plan in variance request #89-22. (e) All truck parking over 3/4 ton capacity on site be stopped unless at a loading dock. He added one additional condition: If the office space is not completed within the 36 month period, berming or acceptable screening (acceptable to City Staff) will be provided-Upon completion of Phase I, no more outside trailer storage will be allowed. The previous variance is cancellec except for the exterior material variance of 89-22. Harvey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. D. Variance Le uest #89-461 submitted � David and Pe Inman for ro ert ocate at �4Y __ — Village oo s rive, Eden�rairie, i�1'nnesota. 1'�ie request is for a variance from City Code, Cha ter 1�Section .03, Subdivision 2, Bz. To ermit an above round ool 17' from the front lot line. City Code re wires 30' . 2 To ermit an above round pool 5' from a side line. Cif Code re wires 10' — — _ David Inman appeared to present the variance. He displayed pictures and explained the situation. He said he had begun the excavation himself and had uncovered a well. At that point he had consulted the City and a variance was precipitated. He has a corner lot with 2 front yard setbacks. Arockiasamy had concerns with erosion problems. • Inman said there were no objections from the neighbors. Johnson noted that there are some alternatives noted in the Staff Report and that code could be met through soil compactions and swales. Another option was a smaller pool. Inman took exception to the suggestion of moving it closer to the home as drainage problems could be created and it would be very expensive. Freemyer said he had problems with the side set back (17' vs 30' ) because it was a street there. Bozonie noted that economics were not considered a hardship. Harvey added that it could not be the sole hardship. Bozonie said he felt Scenic Heights Road will be expanded. Johnson noted thatstandard road is 28-32 feet curb to curb. Harvey said he understood Inman's problem because of steep slopes north to south. There is a drainage problem. As a result of the Scenic Heights Road improvements and work on 212, the volume on Scenic Heights Road may be decreased. He had concerns on the front yard setback. Arockiasamy felt that Inman knew there was frontage on two sides when the property. • was purchased. All the conditions were there then. If Inman could come up with some alternatives, he could possibly consider them, but now this was too big a variance. Inman said the minimum request would be 20' . It would reduce the size of the pool 6 and he would need to put in retaining walls. • Johnson said that retaining walls were permissible to put in if under 4' 4' , approval of City Engineer was required. A retaining wall can be built at then easement line. MOTION: Harvey moved that the Board grarit a continuance for Variance Request 89-46 until the November meeting to allow consideration of alternatives. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. III.OLD BUSINESS Discussion took place on past variances and decisions on those variances. IV.NEW BUSINESS None V.ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Bozonie moved that the Board adjourn. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:35 PM. •