Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 11/14/1996 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS • THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1996 7:30 P.M. CITY CENTER HERITAGE ROOM II 8080 MITCHELL ROAD BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chair Kathy Nelson, Cliff Dunham, Delavan Dye, William Ford, Louis Giglio, Matthew Hansen, Corrine Lynch STAFF MEMBERS: Zoning Administrator Steve Durham and City Recorder Barbara Anderson CALL TO ORDER Chair Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Board member Lynch arrived at 7:40 p.m. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Dye moved, seconded by Hansen, to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0. H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10 1996 MEETING MOTION: Dye moved, seconded by Dunham, to approve the Minutes of the October 10, 1996 Meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals as submitted. Motion carried 6-0. III. INSTALLATION OF NEW BOARD MEMBER New member William Ford read the Oath of Office and was duly installed as a member of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. IV. VARIANCES A. Request #96-21 by Tom Totall for vacant lot between 16200 and 16150 Hilltop Road to permit construction of a residential home with a front yard setback of 512' City Code requires a 90' front yard setback based on the average front yard setback of the existing block. Tom Totall, 6928 26th Street West, St. Louis Park, reviewed the request for a 51.2' front yard setback, which will make the proposed home even with the structures on the lots on either side of his. It will also allow him to preserve several large trees on the iproperty. Dunham inquired if the proponent was in a hurry to have the variance approved and Totall responded that he was because his purchase arrangements are under a contract for deed and it will be necessary to have City Council approval of the variance BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS November 14, 1996 Page 2 this year. Durham reviewed the staff report and noted that the new ordinance amendment now in process will allow for construction of new homes with the average of the setbacks of the structures on each side. The Public Hearing was opened. No one present wished to speak. The Public Hearing was closed. The consensus of the Board was for approval of the variance request since it will be permitted under the new ordinance amendment. MOTION: Dye moved, seconded by Crigho, to approve Request#96-21 by Tom Totall for vacant lot between 16200 and 16150 Hilltop Road to permit construction of a residential home with a front yard setback of 51.2'. City Code requires a 90' front yard setback based on the average front yard setback of the existing block based on the hardship of saving trees and to allow the placement of the new home to be consistent with those existing on either side of the subject property. Motion carried 7-0. • B. Request #96-22 by Eaton Corporation for 15151 Highway #5 to permit a temporaa office modular unit for one year adjacent to building #1 with 100% wood exterior. City Code requires in the I-5 zoning district exterior building material of face brick,natural stone glass speciWly designed precast concrete units if surfaces have been integral. treated with an applied decorative material or texture and smooth concrete block if scored at least twice, rock face. Paul Struther, Architect with Klutton Struther Architects, representing Eaton Corporation, stated that Eaton Corporation was planning a large software expansion and their request for the modular unit was based on their need to house additional software programmers. If the space was not connected to their existing facility, it would make it very difficult to implement the project, as proximity was necessary to allow the software people access to other personnel in the main facility. Utilization of the modular unit will allow the company time to make plans for expansion to the existing facility. Struther showed plans of the existing building and illustrated the location of the modular unit and the rearrangement of personnel within the facility. He described the alterations which have been made to accommodate the temporary unit, and showed a rendering of the modular unit. Lynch inquired if the proponent had considered leasing space elsewhere and Struther responded that they had, but it was important to have these employees on-site because of the nature of the project. It will take a year to get plans for an addition to the existing • building drawn up and approved, and to allow construction to occur, and this is a temporary solution until that can be accomplished. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS November 14, 1996 Page 3 Dunham inquired if the Fire Marshal had approved the facility and Struther responded that he had discussed this with the Building Department and had been told there was a provision which allows for temporary buildings to be exempt from certain regulations. They will put a foundation under the temporary structure. Dunham inquired about the color of the modular unit and Struther responded that it would blend in with the existing building. Hansen inquired about the materials in the temporary unit and Struther responded that because of the temporary nature of the structure, they will not be required to meet the exterior finishing material requirements in the Code. The exterior finish will be plywood with glass along the side facing Highway 5. Hansen inquired if they had considered brick facing and Struther responded negatively, indicating this decision was made because the building was going to be destroyed when the addition was completed. Nelson asked why the temporary structure was being placed in the front of the building, and Struther responded it was because of the location of two ramps leading to underground garages which made the location of the unit difficult. Nelson commented she would like to have the existing color of the building matched as closely as possible on the modular unit. The Public Hearing was opened. No one present wished to speak. The Public Hearing was closed. Dunham commented he had observed that businesses tended to leave expansion plans until it became necessary to take unusual measures to rectify these situations, but he supported the variance request. Giglio stated he believed the request was reasonable as long as the structure remained on the site for only one year. MOTION: Dye moved, seconded by Giglio, to approve Request #96-22 by Eaton Corporation for 15151 Highway #5 to permit a temporary office modular unit for one year adjacent to building #1 with 100% wood exterior and subject to the findings and stipulations identified in the staff report dated 11/14/96, with the additional stipulation that the color of the temporary office modular unit match that of the existing building as closely as possible. Motion carried 7-0. C. Request #96-23 by GE Capital for 3 Capital Drive to permit a temporary office modular unit for five years, a portion of which is 192' from the Ordinary High Water Level (OWHL) of Anderson Lakes City Code requires a 200' shoreland setback from the OHWL The modular unit will be located south of building#1. • Charles Wharton, Lenner Park Associates, representing GE Capital, stated they intend to comply with all requirements for materials on the temporary modular unit. The unit BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS November 14, 1996 Page 4 is being requested to accommodate several computer programmers as they do not have room within the existing building. The site is very large and the unit will not be visible from the roadways or adjacent land uses. It will also be screened from Anderson Lake. The office buildings will be expanded in the future but it will take them approximately five years to complete the planning and approval process. Nelson inquired how much the modular unit would encroach into the setback and Wharton responded that a small corner of the unit intruded 10'to I into the area. Ford inquired why the unit would be needed for five years and Wharton responded that the company cannot justify implementation of the Master Plan which is based on growth projections and it is unknown whether the temporary unit will be needed as long as five years. Dunham inquired what the exterior finish on the unit would be and Wharton responded that it will be brick and glass and will meet all fire code requirements. It is temporary, but they do not intend to keep it more than five years. Dunham inquired why the company did not implement their Master Plan and Wharton responded that the buildings were very large and it is not financially feasible to discuss construction at this time. Giglio commented he was unable to determine any hardship to substantiate granting the variance request. • Judy Brinkman, GE Capital, stated that they are trying not to destroy any culture on the site for their employees, and it would be very difficult to have the programmers located off site as it was necessary to have them close to the people they would serve. Once they have adequate personnel to justify implementing the Master Plan they will do so. Some of the garage area underneath the existing buildings has been converted to office space and the remaining garage area is for executive and employee recognition parking. Wharton showed renderings of the modular unit and described them in detail, including exterior finish which will match the existing building. He described the screening which will be done so the modular unit is as unobtrusive as possible. Hansen inquired about the setback line and how it was determined and Wharton responded the property would have to be surveyed but they will need to have the entire area and cannot reduce the size of the unit. There are also retaining walls which will remain in place once the temporary unit is removed, and these inhibit the placement of the unit. They believe it is very important to restore the site after the unit has been removed and they do not want to excavate in this area if it is at all possible to avoid doing so. Durham reviewed the staff report, and noted that the Department of Natural Resources had been notified of the variance request. The Public Hearing was opened. No one present wished to speak. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS November 14, 1996 Page 5 • The Public Hearing was closed. Hansen commented that he did not discern any hardship had been demonstrated by the proponent, and there was some flexibility in the placement of the unit. He did not support the variance request. Dunham concurred, and noted that there appear to be opportunities for expansion within the existing building to find space for the programmers. Lynch stated the 8'variance was not that large, but she believed five years was a long time to have something temporary on a site. Dye stated he believed the size of the building should be reduced to meet the setback requirement. Ford stated that he believed five years was too long to have a temporary building on a property. Giglio stated he could not see any hardship demonstrated and did not support the variance request. Nelson inquired if a three year time period would have any value for the proponent, and Brinkman responded affirmatively. MOTION: Giglio moved, seconded by Dunham,to deny Request#96-23 by GE Capital for 3 Capital Drive to permit a temporary office modular unit for five years, a portion of which is 192' from the Ordinary High Water Level (OWHL) of Anderson Lakes based on a lack of hardship demonstrated by the proponent. Motion carried 5-2. Lynch and Ford voted"nay". • D. Request #96-24 by Enterprise Rent-A-Car (1 ) To permit temporary outdoor display area for 15 lease vehicles for a greater period than 60 days or less of a calendar year. City Code maximum is 60 days (2)To permit outdoor display area greater than 2% of the base area ratio of the principal building, that is, 2.565 sp. ft. City Code would permit 426 sq. ft. Based on a building size of 21,320 sq. ft.. (3 ) To permit 15 stalls to be used for outside display area City Code permits 1 parking stall based on the number of parking stalls required Bill Griffith, 1500 Northwest Financial Center, representing Enterprise Rent-A-Car, noted they had submitted a letter from Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, & Lingren LTD. He reviewed the proposal for display of lease vehicles outdoors and discuss the trend toward local retail centers which reduce the size of leasing offices with large parking lots. He believed this use was becoming inappropriate for retail locations and would bring rental cars to the patrons that will use them. The hardship for Enterprise is they are not able to meet the needs of their customers within Eden Prairie and found no other convenient locations that would work for them. These cars are not offered for sale but will be leased so there will be no stickers or banners outside. The operation will be very low-key. He noted that the City Code does not recognize this use, which does not create the impact of a car dealership. He noted that the majority of vehicles would be parked behind the building. By allowing rental vehicles the City would reduce the number of trips on its roadways, and this would also reduce peak hour traffic as car rental was a business which usually took place in the early morning. He noted there was a large berm around Eden Place which would screen the parking area from the residents. He requested approval of the variance request. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS November 14, 1996 Page 6 Nelson inquired why they were moving and Griffin responded that their office space at Eden Prairie Ford had been needed by that business, as their office space requirements were increasing. Giglio inquired how many cars would be parked at the new site and Griffin responded that they would have about 10 cars at any given time. They have about four employees and their hours would be from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Durham reviewed the variance request and illustrated where the car parking was located on the site plan. He explained the"proof-of-parking" requirement which allows space to be used for other things as long as additional parking spaces can be provided if need arises in the future. Discussion ensued regarding other Enterprise locations in surrounding communities. Griffin explained the philosophy of the use and how they locate these businesses to facilitate convenience for the customers, which seems to be in convenience centers and strip malls. Dunham inquired about the rental procedure and it was explained that they deliver cars to patrons which is part of their service. The office is a place for their computers and to store the vehicles which are rented. Nelson commented that if the cars are parked behind the building, the traffic flow pattern between the Tom Thumb store and the gas pumps will make the area too narrow to park these cars. Griffin stated it was 36'wide and the Fire Marshal allowed there was adequate space for emergency vehicles and traffic flow. Nelson noted that Oak Point Intermediate School was in this area and would also have heavy traffic. Griffin commented that the trip generation rate for a convenience retail center is in the 100s and this business will generate much less traffic than that. Discussion ensued regarding why the proponent wished to locate this business in a retail center and not an industrial zone where this type of use was permitted. Griffin noted that people do not want to drive to an industrial zone to rent a car and would rather do this where they buy groceries or gas or shop. The cars do not have anything to distinguish them from the cars everyone else drives. This type of location will allow them to move the cars around from site to site as they are needed. Durham reviewed the staff report and noted that if the variance were approved staff would have to answer questions from every other car leasing agency regarding whether it was an appropriate use or not. These requests will have to be reviewed on a case-by- case basis. Most retail centers could have one parking stall but some could have two or three stalls if they were large enough. Hansen inquired about stipulation #8 requiring cleaning and maintenance to be done inside and Griffin responded that they had allowed space for vacuuming and washing but any other types of maintenance would be done at the dealership. He noted that they would still store some vehicles at Eden Prairie Ford because they would be leased from • this facility. Hansen inquired if the vehicles could be stored inside a building at a different location and Griffin responded that most landlords did not want to have vehicles stored inside their buildings because of the Fire Codes. They have been unable to find a site to build a building which would meet their needs. Most dealerships do not have BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS November 14, 1996 Page 7 • the space for their offices. Discussion ensued regarding the parking requirements for the business. Nelson asked about the reasons for requesting fifteen spaces at this site instead of parking the cars off-site and bringing them in as needed. Griffin responded that their business is to keep the cars on the road but they have to allow for a turnaround time to get the vehicle ready for the next rental. The cars would be parked in back for screening and so they don't interfere with other tenants. The Public Hearing was opened. No one present wished to speak. The Public Hearing was closed. Ford asked about the number of conditions attached to the variance approval and Durham reviewed the history of why they would be attached to the approval so both parties would know what to expect. He noted that they were relatively standard stipulations. Giglio inquired if Eden Prairie Ford had a variance and Durham responded affirmatively. Giglio stated he would support the variance if it were limited to ten vehicles. He was concerned about granting the variance for three years. • Discussion ensued regarding the precedent-setting issue and the likelihood of other rental agencies coming into Eden Prairie. Dye commented that these issues are reviewed on an individual basis and if there are no complaints, perhaps a Code amendment should be enacted to deem this an appropriate use for this property. Nelson commented it seemed an inappropriate use for a neighborhood retail center and far too large for its purpose. She did not support this type of use in this facility. She did not want to change City policy to keep regional retail centers as such, and believed other locations could be found. Dunham commented that office space could be found anywhere but the proponent may have a point that this is a unique business which deserves special consideration. A regional center serves the needs of the residents who live in the area, and he believed this could be considered as a need which the proponent would be providing. Lynch stated she did not believe the use was appropriate for this site and other alternatives were available. She did not support the variance request. Hansen was concerned that allocation of parking spaces to Enterprise could cause hardship for the other tenants in the center. Durham responded that was not likely although there was always the potential for parking problems to arise. Hansen inquired if the tenants of the center had been notified of this request and Durham responded only the owner was notified. Hansen commented he would be interested in the tenants response to the idea of the new business coming in. Dye stated it was a moot point because tenants do not make • decisions regarding leasing space. He had not observed any parking problems there and believed this would be a unique opportunity to provide a service to the citizens of Eden Prairie. Ford stated he had difficulty approving something that the Code had been specifically amended to prohibit, which was the type of outside storage the proponent BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS November 14, 1996 Page 8 was requesting. Discussion ensued regarding the unique nature of the business, providing a service to residents and setting a precedent. MOTION: Dye moved, seconded by Giglio, to approve Request#96-24 by Enterprise Rent-A-Car (1.) To permit temporary outdoor display area for 15 lease vehicles for a greater period than 60 days or less of a calendar year, (2.) To permit outdoor display area greater than 2%of the base area ratio of the principal building, that is, 2,565 sq. ft. and, (3.) To permit 15 stalls to be used for outside display area subject to the conditions and stipulations listed in the staff report dated 11/14/96, with the following changes: 1. Only 10 vehicles shall be allowed on the site. 2. The variance is approved for a three (3)year period. 3. The only maintenance of vehicles which is allowed on the site is washing and vacuuming and general cleaning which must be done inside the building. Motion carried 4-3. Nelson, Lynch, and Ford voted "nay". V. OLD BUSINESS • None. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Joint City Council/B.O.A. Meeting of December 3, 1996 Durham inquired if there were any issues the Board members wished to discuss with the City Council at their joint meeting in December. Dunham stated that requests for antennas were always coming before the Board. Dye commented perhaps some correlation for the variances they were seeing coming from projects approved by the Planning Commission, which are not picked up when staff reviews the plans. He believed the Building Department could also be more involved in this process. He thought footpad sizes should be spelled out on plans which would alert staff to prospective variances. B. Proposed Code Amendments 1. A proposed Code change to amend the City Code regulation relating to the calculation of a required front yard setback when 40% of a block is developed. Presently, the code requires an averaging of all structures in the block; the proposed change will be for an average of the structures on either side. Durham stated this will eliminate the need for variances by permitting something the Board has typically approved. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS November 14, 1996 Page 9 • 2. A proposed Code change to amend the City Code regulation relating to the minimum area for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Presently, the code requires a 15 acre minimum; the proposed change will be for a 5 acre minimum. Durham noted that the proposed code changes would permit development of PUDs with a minimum size of five acres as opposed to 15 acres as were previously required. He noted that this will also allow the Planning Commission to grant shoreland setback variances for larger projects. Nelson commented perhaps they should format an ordinance amendment to ensure that open space/wild area stays that way by being placed under a conservation easement or some other device to prohibit future development. 3. City Update Durham noted the inclusion of the City Update in the packets which was being produced to keep the Boards and Commissions throughout the City informed of what the others were doing. VI. ADJOURNMENT • MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Dunham, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.