Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 05/20/1992 A • APPROVED MINUTES F BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS WEDNESDAY, May 20, 1992 7 : 30 p.m. City Hall Coamncil Chambers, 7600 Executive Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Neil Akemann, Sharon Roe Anderson, Michael Wilkm , John Freemyer, Art Weeks (Acting Chairperson) STAFF PRESENT: Jean Johnson, Planninq Joanie Reeves, Recordimg Secretary BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Donald Argue, Dwight Harvey I. CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Weeks called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken as noted above. All-present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. • II. MINUTES OF MARCH 12 AND MAY 14 A review of the minutes which include the May 14th meeting in consideration of Variance Request 92-008 . The minutes compiled from this meeting as well as the minutes compiled from the- May 14 meeting will be reviewed and approved at our next regularly schedule meeting which will be held June. 11. III. VARIANCES A. Continuation of Request 492-008 submitted by Northern Healthcare Associates for property located at 14400 Martin Drive Eden Prairie Minnesota. The request. is to allow 90% of the building to be used for office and accessory uses. (City Code Chapter 11 Section 112.30 Subdivision 3 . _C* S limits office use in Industrial. Districts to no more than 50% Mike Duffy came forward representing his client, Northern Healthcare Associates. The compromise offer gave us 60% office and 30% accessory use for office and my client has agreed to accept that. He indicated that they had sent some proposed language to Miss Johnson and we ask that you approved. Let the records show that a letter has been submitted by Mr. Duffy dated May 19 , 1992 . Johnson indicated to the Board that in addition to the May 19th letter she did include a copy of the minutes 1. from the Board's meeting in 1991 for a similar request. If you wished to refer back to those issuesyou could. No • additional information has been submitted by residents and no other calls have been received. There was a request to confirm that the 60% use would be sufficient and therefore if they would sell the property in the future the 60% would still be sufficient. Johnson assured the board that the figures analyzed at the previous meeting that at 60% use a 17, 000 sq. ft. building would require 51 parking spaces for the office portion. The remainder of the building would be used for warehousing or some other type of manufacture. They have a total of 62 spaces on the side. Through the use of certificate of occupancy and zoning certificates, the city would monitor the uses that would apply to this building. When they apply for a building permit the building officials hand them an application they must fill out and it is called a Application for Certificate of Zoning and they route that through the planning department prior to the building department issuing their building permit for . anyremodeling. It must be signed off. In that they outline the square footage of the building they will be utilizing for each type of use and we calculate parking. Akemann questioned whether the variances would run with • the property as opposed to the tenant in the consideration of sale. A variances would have to be requested should the future tenant desire more parking. Freemyer requested the statement on record he did not ' offer-compromise. Question for Duffy. Does the present tenant have any plans to move in the immediate future. Do the present owners intend to sell the property. The answers were no. No contemplated plans to sell the property. . Wilkus asked about conditions. Johnson stated the approval if given by the board be for this specific use with this percentage they are requesting based upon the fact that they not require additional parking. This would limit a future tenant that• would need more parking. They would have the option of coming before the board. A question was asked of Mr. Duffy if there was difficulty in getting insurance. He said he had not contacted the insurance company. The only difficulty would be if the building would burn, we would not be able to build the building on the current site. Have the 60%/30% issues been discussed with your insurance company. Duffy does not see a problem. . Weeks asked if another use comes into the project at some 2. future time and the parking space is not adequate at that time, will they still comply with percentages, what is • the procedure for taking care of the parking. Johnson mentioned that if the multi-tenant was creating the problem we would work with the landlord and tenants and that might take 3 to 6 months. If they need more than our 5 spaces per thousand square feet the code requires that the 5 spaces per thousand square feet be on site but they could make conditions to park offsite. MOTION: Akemann moved that the Request #92-008 submitted by Northern Healthcare Associates for the property located at 14400 Martin Drive, be granted as part of the hearings, 60% of the premises to be used for office purposes and 30% of the premises for accessory use, the condition being that there be no more than 62 parking spaces, the hardship being that the property at present is in the non-conforming zoning status. Seconded by Roe Anderson. Akemann adds that the variance runs with the property. This would be in accordance with the conditions mentioned in the staff report. Motion passed 4-1. One abstention. They would have l year to implement the variance request. B. Request #92-009 submitted by Denwal Management for property located at 12790 Plaza Drive Variance from • Chanter 11, Secton 11. 03 . Subdivision J. to hermit merchandise offered for sale in an outdoor display area exceeding 10 percent of the floor area of the building This is an amendment to Variance #90-16 granted June 14 1990. Don Brauer represented Denwal Manaagement/Eden Prairie : Ford. His address is 250 Prairie Center Drive. This subject was reviewed a year ago and approved by the City. The property is located between Menards and . Rainbow on Plaza Drive. The was approved for an automobile dealership one year ago and planned for future use as a restaurant site. The owners would prefer at this point that it be part of an automobile dealership. We need two lots plated together. We are exceeding 10% of outside display. Johnson indicated that the board received a copy in their packet of the 1990, 90-016. The approval the board gave in 1990 was conditioned upon a site plan. It was felt that it would be much clearer in the future to have the site plan outlined for the excess amount of outside merchandise for sale. This was before the planning commission and they did recommend approval for the site. The City Council approved it last evening. there has not been communication in opposition to the variance and 3. if the Board chooses to approve the variances, staff recommends a similar condition as was done in 1990 such as making reference to this site plan and we will make that part of a final order. Brauer advised that one condition was considered for revising and that was the lighting plan to meet same requirements so it has been updated. Wilkus questioned if there was a relationship of stall for restaurant vs. dealership. Because of the interceptor sewer there are 14 additional stalls, i.e. , one extra row. Freemeyr referenced flags/balloons. Johnson referenced the 90 variance request. This is an amendment to the original. All previous conditions remain. Is there a possibility of going back to Plan 1. That is the condition of automobile dealers, the display area can become smaller. Anderson questioned if there had been revisions and updates to expand 212 referenced in the 1990 plan. Johnson had not been involved in those meetings. Brauer indicated that the EIS had been done. State will balance the cost for a retaining wall. • Akemann requested Brauer to state the benefit what the hardships are. Brauer indicated that they made the mistake of platting two lots and they should have had one. The sewer is the worst hardship. Prohibits us from doing filling, landscape mounding, and limits the amount of building site available. It occupies 1/3 of the buildable area. We have the one kind of product that is located outside every place 'in town. What is the probability the wetlands could be filled in. Chance is slim to none, .designated for storm water. The landowner is Denwal Management and the condition is to not sell the property separately. Carpenter owns the west area. There is no plan to have a dealership side by side. Johnson indicated that there was a condition on the previous variance request limiting candle standards that closest to building has the most light, 11, 9, 7. Brauer pointed out the various parking area such as storage, customer parking area, employee area, etc. Used car parking was presented to council previously. There will be some used cars. Wilkus asked about routing for demonstration cars. There • is a problem with the landscaping on the entrance and exits located on the Menard property. Visibility is a hazard. 4. Weeks asked about display lessons over time, what would the property be used for. Brauer said they would begin • to market it for other uses. Freemeyr was concerned about the building that would be established for used car sales. Is there stipulations that would say the trailers are not allowed. Johnson believes the code would handle that. Freemeyr would like a stipulation be made any office be a proper building. Weeks indicated Freemeyr's point is well taken. Anderson moved that we approve #92-009 and permit merchandise on side yards. The hardship is that it is owned by same owner for consistent use. We need a zero side yard setback and the hardship. Johnson responded that the approval, if you could make it contingent upon meeting all the. conditions outlined in the plan of order 90-016 and direct the staff to amend that final order by this legal description of the legal property. Wilkus questioned if they were to scale back and sell that lot are we giving them the right to exceed 100. It would be based upon this site plan and if they make any modification with the new building they will have to come in for city approval. The motion has been made and seconded by Mr. Wilkus. The motion is to approve Variance Request #93-009 subject to those conditions under 90-60 variance and the variance runs with the property. There is also a condition that no temporary • structure be built on the property. Anderson accepts that amendment to her motion. Clarify hardship stated. There was a change in original, one consistent use for landscape on the building area. The motion was carried 5-0. One year to carry out the variance. C. Request #92-010 submitted by G. E. Capital Fleet - . .Services, Inc. for Property located at 3 Capital Drive for a variance from Chapter 11 Section 11 50 Subdivision 6. , A. , 4 . to permit construction of a recreational facility 135 feet from the ordinary High Water Level of Anderson Lakes. Judy Brinkhouse, Manager of Real Estate Facilities for GE Capital Fleet Services came forward representing GE Capital in their request for approval of a variance in order to allow us to place an outdoor fitness facility on the property of 1 Capital Drive. The primary reason GE Capital wishes to place the facility on the property in order to enhance the work environment and the health and fitness for all of GE Capital Fleet Services. We began this philosophy a year and a. half ago when we added an indoor fitness center in the original building. The reason for requesting the variance in order to add the facility in the proposed location are that the present . fitness center staff must manage and maintain this outdoor facility. It is open until 6: 30 a.m. until 7 : 00 5. p.m. This area in the meadow was an impact to consider doing so we intend to turn that into a natural prairie. • We were approved for building 5 buildings but are now considering building 3 . This is the only area other than the meadow that is secluded. One concern was that the neighbors not be able to see the facility through the woods. GE Capital will maintain the environment. The elevation is 846 and 839. There is a 7 ft. difference. GE Capital hired Karen Shick from Enviroscience to make a study, recognizing the value and to improve the prairie. The entire facility would be fenced and covered in green vinyl. The court is to be proposed to be green with white markings. Nothing would disturb the wildlife as the path would be removed. One condition is that we not build on the easement so as to leave the natural prairie. Johnson indicated there is a general staff report in the packets. It shows the proposed site plan was scaled down. -It is including 1 tennis courts, 6 golf cages and 1 basketball backboard. Screening vegetation between proposed facility and the water. The concerned residents live on the Bloomington side on the eastern boundaries. They are now in support of the proposal. Other areas have been investigated and it was decided that the proposed site is -the least intrusive. There was an attempt to place the facility as . close as possible to the building and minimize the amount of variance. We have published a 135 ft. setback on the high water level. The lineal distance that GE Capital has along Anderson Lakes is 2, 400 lineal feet. The proposal is about 15o ft. in width. It is utilizing a 6% area of the shoreland. Approval process so far has been Park and Recreation, Planning Commission, and the City . Council. The new condition is that there be a easement document over the meadow area on the east side. Anderson questioned the environment impact. Brinkhouse said it was too close to the building to impact wildlife. Akemann requested to know what the hardship. 1) placed in Western and would be difficult regarding future building. 2) If placed in parking lot they would be required to build ramps. 3) 1 person must manage indoor/outdoor facility at certain hours. Board of Appeals must identify hardship. Akemann faits to see hardship. Johnson stated that under our shoreland code we administer things such as swimming pools and tennis • courts as structures in the shoreland setback area. 6. The commissions and the council felt it would be unreasonable not to let them utilize a small portion of • the 50/60 acre site. They have agreed to do a restoration of the prairie site. Brinkhouse mentioned the City had looked at the possibility of a run-off and had determined that there would be no impact. Brinkhouse stated that the third building would be done sometime in the next year. Weeks inquired as to the timeline for improving prairie area. Shick indicated it would take two to three years. In the interim you would have species approaching. MOTION: Anderson moved Variance Request 92-010 be approved and that the hardship be that it would be reasonable on this size to place facility and the amendment would include restoring and scenic easement. This motion should be as per the material dated May 14 and site plan dated May 8. Freemeyr seconded with additional limits defined and that the hardships were weak. The mitigating circumstances are that for the facility to be on any other site would cause undo hardship regarding the maintenance of the facility during its uses. The redefining of high water mark has created a necessity for this variance. Motion was carried 3-1. One year to exercise variance. • IV. OLD BUSINESS There is an additional June variance regarding a deck request to go within 3 feet from the lot line. V. NEW BUSINESS Freem yer showed concerned with criteria for the additional special meeting. His concern is that we don't show favortism to one party over the other. Johnson indicated that Ford had been in review process since February. They would have been held up another 3 weeks. GE was also anxious to get variance approved. There should be a criteria for defining the need for special meeting especially if there is a safety issue involved or a legitmate background. Weeks questioned if there will be published minutes at the joint meeting. Anderson moved for adjournment and Akemann seconded. The meeting adjourned at 9 : 15 PM. • Respectfully submitted Joanie Reeves , Recording Secretary 7.