Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 12/14/1995 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS THURSDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1995 7:30 P.M. CITY CENTER 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Arthur Weeks(Chair), Cliff Dunham,Corrine Lynch, Kathy Nelson STAFF LIAISON: Scott Kipp,Planner Kelly Kroeninger,Recording Secretary BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Delavan Dye,Matthew Hansen, Mary Vasaly CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE • Chairman Weeks called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Dunham moved that the Board approve the Agenda as published. Nelson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. II. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 9, 1995 MINUTES The minutes were not approved due to some questions and changes that will be corrected and brought up for approval at the next meeting. Additionally, it was decided to bring the October 12,1995 minutes to the next meeting enabling the board to render final approval on these minutes. A motion was made by Dunham and seconded by Weeks based on the discussed amendments. Two abstentions were made by Lynch and Nelson, and the motion carried 2-0-2. III. VARIANCES Weeks explained the order of the variance presentation process to those in attendance. i1 MINUTES Board of Adjustments& Appeals December 14, 1995 • A. Request Number 95-37 by Challenge Printing/Robert Lothenbach for 7500 Golden Triangle Drive to permit construction of a building addition with a portion of the northeast corner 16.3 feet from a side lot line. City Code re uires a side yard setback of 20 feet in the I-2 Zoning. This is a continued item from the November 9, 1995 meeting. Tom Hart, legal counsel stated the nature of the variance goes from 0 to 3 Meet at its widest point on the northerly end of the Challenge property. Hart remarked that they found out very late in the stage of development during a discussion with Opus Corporation that the proposal could not be accomplished without a variance. Upon having a formal survey done on the building, Hart commented that it found the need of a 3 %Z feet variance at the northeasterly corner of the building over the setback line. Additionally, Hart stated that the characteristic of the lot that requires this • variance is as follows. On this lot, the northerly and westerly lines exists at an angle that is less than 90 degrees. He further stated that the building is rectangular in shape and there are special architectural and engineering reasons for that. Hart indicated that Challenge Printing has expanded, but that it is still necessary to maintain on-site approximately 19,000 cubic feet of storage. Hart said that this is a desirable variance in that it is 3 %Z feet closer to the lot line, but keeps all of the off-site storage space on-site. Hart stated that Mary Vasaly inquired at an earlier meeting,if it was possible to redesign the angle of the roof on the second story and gain additional space to achieve the inside needed space. In response, Hart asked for a continuance and the opportunity to speak to David Zeman, President of Zeman Construction Company. Zeman sent a letter to the Board stating there is no alternative and there was sound structural engineering reasons for that angle of the roof and to do otherwise simply makes no sense. Hart stated that they have met the requirements for a variance and have demonstrated sufficient hardship. Hart asked the board to please keep in mind that they are not trying to cram too much space into one area. Additionally Hart • 2 MINUTES Board of Adjustments&Appeals December 14, 1995 commented that they have not exceeded the permitted floor area ratio for the site. Hart remarked that he was aware of opposition to this variance from the neighbors to the north who were here this evening to speak to the board. They have tried to work out an agreement to this variance and have two principal concerns: * want sufficient landscaping ensured through adequate screening in the form of trees, also maintain a maintainable surface between those trees. A landscaping plan has been submitted to them. * concerned with storm water run-off that will be collected on the roof. All roof run-off will be collected by drains and will be run out to the western side of property, not on to their property. Hart remarked that they had provided the needed information to all involved parties and are willing to work out these differences with them. Hart went on to state the difference of the 3 %Z feet over the setback line is virtually imperceptible visually to the occupants of that building.. Weeks asked Scott Kipp to present the staff report on this issue. This property was reviewed at the last meeting and because of the questions on the roof design and racking space,the proponents have included a letter from Zeman Construction Company as well. Weeks asked Kipp if the city has reviewed the building plans at this point. Kipp responded that it was on hold at building permit review and has not gone farther than that. Lynch asked if they were concerned on encroaching on future parking easements with this request. Hart responded that they are not encroaching and that there is adequate space that meets code requirement. Nelson stated that if you were to build that wall at a slight angle,how much loss of space would it require. Hart stated that the problem is that aisles need to be so wide to allow forklifts for storage space to get through the aisle. Dunham inquired that assuming the parking easement remains, is there a chance 3 MINUTES Board of Adjustments&Appeals December 14, 1995 that they will eventually be used. Kipp stated that the requirement for the easement was when the Gustafson building was approved by the City. A large amount of proof of parking was provided,including a row of spaces on the Challenge Printing site. Zeman stated that in terms of existing roof enforcement and the desire to build a higher roof adjacent to it,there is snowdrifting issues that have to be engineered. Additionally it would require an increase in the size of the column and footings. Dunham stated that there appeared to be no discussions with any construction engineer. Zeman stated that it is a forgone conclusion that the room will not carry the snowload. Dunham asked Zeman to define for him, as stated in his letter,what defines reasonable costs. Zeman stated that they had not run full estimates on this particular project but that it would definitely be in excess of$100,000. Dunham stated his disappointment that he felt they were returning to this meeting without having firmly researched the items asked for this meeting. Weeks inquired as to how new steel and the new addition tie into the existing steel. Zeman stated that an expansion joint will be put in between the new and the old steel. When the wall is removed the row of columns remain in place. Weeks asked as to how the new steel and the old steel tied into that beam and column line, is there one row of columns or two currently? Weeks also asked if they could put two rows of columns there, to which Zeman replied yes. Weeks responded that if two rows of columns were put there,the load would be reduced on existing columns to some degree. Weeks then inquired as to whether they had any information from the structural engineer to demonstrate that. It is very difficult for the board to evaluate that without information. That was the critical issue discussed at the last meeting,to have a structural engineer validate that the new construction could not move closer to "grid A", as shown on the floor plan. • 4 MINUTES Board of Adjustments &Appeals December 14, 1995 Hart remarked that perhaps they did not understand the nature of the detail that the board was requesting. As they understood things,they were to determine what it would take to change the angle of the roof from an engineering perspective. Hart also stated that he was not aware that the specific cost amount was at issue here either. The cost of shutting down Challenge Printing business would be enormous. Additionally, as stated by Mr.Zeman after consultation and study with his structural engineer,the cost of putting in an additional joist is significant, and would be over$100,000. Hart also commented that they would certainly research and acquire more information if that is what the board required. Weeks stated that you can alleviate the column loads by putting another column line adjacent to the column. With regard to the joist, Weeks asked for more information to validate it. Zeman inquired as to whether Weeks was referring to"gridline B". Weeks stated that he was referring to"gridline A". • Zeman then stated that with an alleviation of the column associated with"gridline A", "gridline B"would need to be beefed up. Nelson inquired as to whether the parking area of this property already had a variance upon it and was extra landscaping required. Kipp stated yes, it was a condition of the variance. Dunham requested a further explanation of the parking north access clause. Hart stated that at the northeast corner there is an access easement that Challenge purchased from Mr. Hoyt to develop a possible secondary driveway access to the Challenge site. Additionally Hart stated that they explored alternative site plans and currently are not using that easement,but do not wish to relinquish it. Weeks asked Zeman,returning to the elevation with regard to the curved roofline. He stated that they were talking about a matter of 3 feet to 4 feet, and that the racking begins at the top of the curve so we only have to shift this roughly 4 feet to the left to have the racking and the floor plan in compliance with the setback on the site. Zeman verified that Weeks' information was correct. 5 MINUTES Board of Adjustments&Appeals December 14, 1995 Weeks then inquired as to why this could not be done. Zeman stated that this moves the proposed wall,that also carries a back portion of the roof load, off the column. To move that off of the column line increases structural stress and didn't know if that could be done. Weeks inquired as to whether that possibility had been discussed with the engineer. He stated that if this was done,you would be impacting the column on "grid A"and essentially reducing the load and still achieve racking within the setback limits on the property. Weeks also inquired that if a new column were introduced,what effect would that have on the racking configuration. Zeman responded that the addition of a column would go to the floor level, and not penetrate up to the roof. However, the other column would then go to the roof to keeping the racking configuration correct. Weeks remarked that the board's intention was not to be difficult, but to receive all of the needed information to see that there is a true hardship with regard to • this variance. Weeks opened the public hearing. Jeff Johnson, addressed the board and stated that he was here to represent the owner of 7490 Golden Triangle Drive, and that they stood in opposition to the requested variance. Additionally at the meeting was Amy Melkier,the Property Manager of CB Commercial Services, and Virgil Lund,of Gustafson Inc.,the tenant of the building at 7490 Golden Triangle Drive. Johnson stated that they were in opposition to the variance for several reasons. First and foremost,they felt this would have an adverse impact upon their property value, additionally the variance was inconsistent with the city stated objective to protect the integrity of these developments. Additionally, Johnson remarked they also felt that it was in direct violation of several of the code sections. Johnson stated that they failed to see any undue hardship,nothing unique to the property to cause a hardship, and the size of the structure addition would clearly change the feel of the area. Johnson stated that if their 12 Moot parking easement was not utilized then there would be adequate space. 6 MINUTES Board of Adjustments&Appeals December 14, 1995 Johnson remarked that another issue needing to be discussed is the impact on the Gustafson building and the property value. In particular due to the orientation of the front of the Gustafson building including the windows,the doorway and the main parking all facing to the south. Thereby, facing the area where the addition is proposed. Johnson stated that they had looked at the storm water issues and they were comfortable with that. He still maintains that they cannot see where the standard of an undue hardship has been met. Johnson felt that Challenge's desire to build a bigger building,to encroach into the setback area,is mandating their variance request. Johnson remarked that if the city wants to allow businesses to build into the setback with no real show of hardship,then the city should look at their zoning ordinances and reduce the size of their sideyard setback. He said that if this passes the undue hardship test he would be hard pressed to find a request that would not meet the standard of undue hardship. Virgil Lund then commented that he has worked for 30 years at Gustafson, Inc., and that he objected to this variance,not because Challenge Printing wanted to expand,but because he had been with his building from the ground floor up and ran into some of these same problems,but that they stayed within city code and worked around them. Lund also stated that the hardship will fall on Gustafson,the building will be closer to their property, and there is already a snow drifting problem. If they put two buildings that close together,there will be a tremendous amount of snow piling up. There are many people walking around the building daily, trucks driving around everyday, and as the snow continues to blow,that hazard will become worse. Weeks asked the board members if they had any questions for Mr. Lund or anyone in the audience who wished to address this request. Hart responded that Mr. Johnson indicated that if they meet the hardship test, virtually anyone would meet the hardship test. Hart stated that if they applied the strict interpretation that Johnson espouses,then no one would ever receive a variance. Further he stated, that there are always reasonable uses that can be put to industrial lots,however,they are not proposing such a thing,they are here because they need this space. Hart remarked that they would be happy to provide more specific structural 7 MINUTES Board of Adjustments&Appeals December 14, 1995 engineering information that the board wishes to see. He stated they would also stand ready to explore any other viable alternatives. Weeks closed the public hearing. Weeks asked the board members to discuss their feelings about this case. Nelson stated that this addition would only provide the space that they need, and that they are currently leasing elsewhere. She remarked that they discussed adding presses which she assumed meant expanding their business,how will this impact on their future needs space with the addition of presses, etc.? Bayliss stated that the need for immediate rack space is for their customer base, additional printing does not mean they need additional rack space. We will be able to be at this location with this space for approximately 5 to 7 years. Nelson inquired as to what about long term, 15 to 25 years from now. Bayliss stated that they would prefer to be in their building for 25 to 30 years but the variance request is for this time period only. • Weeks asked about the column issue and urged people to remember that there is no pre-existing condition and there are ways to alleviate through design efforts, the amount of impact of snow on the existing roof. He remarked that with regard to the columns, what was preventing them from putting the first column line by "grid AA" and shifting to the left 4 feet so that the 45 degree angle comes right off of the existing construction. Weeks also stated that this should not cause an economic hardship as they would still be putting in the same number of columns. They would not be impacting the existing roof with snowload because they would still be maintaining the same 45 degree slope. He remarked that it would impact their floor area and this was something that they would need to demonstrate to the board that would be virtually impossible to live with to consider that a hardship. Weeks stated that these accommodations would pull their north wall within the proper setback limits. Zeman remarked that the 45 degree angle shown is not a wall or the roofline but merely a precast panel architectural design at the end of each wall. Weeks stated that he was troubled because there is no pre-existing condition, if this were a building that had already been built and was then discovered to already be over the setback limits is one thing. However,we have some 8 MINUTES Board of Adjustments&Appeals December 14, 1995 flexibility in terms of being able to modify the design and to make this work. Our charge as a board is at all times to minimize or reduce to the extent that we can, the variance request. Additionally, Weeks stated that for the board to be convinced that there is a true hardship,they must also have the knowledge that every option has been researched. He felt that they did not show this tonight. Zeman said he was trying to understand what the board was wishing to receive from them beyond what they have already given them. Weeks remarked that he was suggesting that with some minor refinements between the spacing of"grid A"and"grid AA"there may be no need to make any modifications. He also stated that he was not a structural engineer and didn't know for sure, but felt the impacts would be relatively minor. This is something that the engineer would have to analyze. Weeks stated that he does not have an engineer's report before him that looks at this scheme, looks at some alternative schemes, and states that all of the options . have been totally exhausted. Dunham remarked that part of the problem is the lack of the full presentation before the board, and we can only guess as to what you would do with the space. There are some creative solutions that could be researched. Nelson stated the slanted property line does cause some problems,but she was more concerned with the parking easement being encroached upon. Also, with the two story nature of the building. Weeks stated that from his perspective he needed more information, and he was not really that concerned about the parking easement as it was not really an issue. He stated that relinquishing a cross access easement should not be a condition of any variance as requested by the neighbors to the north. Corrine Lynch stated that her feelings echoed those of Nelson and she always felt uncomfortable when a neighboring business objects. Weeks asked the proponents if they would be willing to come back to the board with the additional information and a continuation or would they like the board to take action tonight. Hart responded that it is critical to get going in the spring and would need to have a decision made on the variance at the next board meeting. He stated that 9 MINUTES Board of Adjustments &Appeals December 14, 1995 he would provide the requested information for the next board meeting. Weeks stated the board was not trying to be difficult but they must go through the correct process to make sure that all of the options have been researched fully. Hart inquired as to when the next board meeting would be held. Kipp responded that it would be held on January 11, 1996. Hart stated that they would be in contact with Scott Kipp to make sure of the level of detail for information that the board is requesting. MOTION: Dunham moved for a 30 day continuance on Variance #95-37 with additional information being received at that time. Nelson seconded the motion. Kipp asked the board if they wanted to elaborate more on exactly what they were looking for at the next meeting for this variance. • Dunham amended the motion to include a more detailed floor plan of equipment placement, various options on column placements, and engineering input. Nelson seconded the amended motion. The motion passed 4-0-0. IV. OLD BUSINESS Kipp stated that he would be with the board for most of 1996 in order to give Jean Johnson a break. He also gave a brief description on future variance requests and board meetings occurring in 1996. V. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to discuss. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. 10