Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 07/10/1997 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS • THURSDAY,JULY 10, 1997 7:30 P.M. CITY CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 8080 MITCHELL ROAD BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Vice-Chair Cliff Dunham, Delavan Dye, William Ford,Louis Giglio,Matthew Hansen, Michael O'Leary STAFF LIAISON: Zoning Administrator Jean Johnson and City Recorder Barbara Anderson MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Kathy Nelson, Louis Giglio CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Dunham called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Kathy Nelson and Board Member Louis Giglio were absent. • I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION:Hansen moved, seconded by O'Leary,to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried 5-0. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -June 12. 1997 MOTION: Dye moved, seconded by Hansen, to approve the June 12, 1997 Minutes of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals as published. Motion carried 5-0. III. VARIANCES A. Request #97-09 by John Kottke for 7665 Smetana Lane to construct a 30' X 90' metal building 30 feet from the front property line and 70 feet from Nine Mile Creek(Code requires a 50 foot setback and a 100 foot setback respectively). John Kottke reviewed his request to construct the metal building on his property 30 feet from Smetana Lane. He will be able to get approval from Nine Mile Creek Watershed District to construct this building. The building will be corrugated steel and will be an earth tone color but he was amenable to suggestions from the Board. He was requesting the variance because the Watershed was raising the water level which will compromise • the use of the existing barns on his property, which, if destroyed, cannot be rebuilt. Hansen inquired what the proponent used the barns for and Kottke responded that he stored his landscaping business equipment in it along with some personal recreational equipment. He also has a couple of old cars stored inside the barns. The water level will BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MINUTES • July 10, 1997 Page 2 be raised about 1.5 feet and the Watershed District will not be required to compensate anyone for the loss of their property from this action. However, Kottke noted he was being compensated for the roadway easement. O'Leary inquired if Kottke would keep the existing barn structures and Kottke responded he would continue to use them as long as it was possible. The buildings could not be insured because they could not be rebuilt if they were severely damaged or destroyed by fire or any other means. Dye inquired about the building pad size which would allow for a 60'X 30'building or if his intent was to construct a larger structure. Kottke responded that he intended to build as large a building as possible, and if he could fit a 90 foot long building onto the site,that's what he would build. He was limited in the dimensions of the width because of the topography of the site and two large trees which he wished to preserve. Ford asked about the need to raise the existing building pad and Kottke responded that the pad needs to be raised two feet to allow any building to be constructed. He noted that the area was very rural in character, but that would change soon as residential development was occurring all around him, and he would like to get his personal . belongings under cover before the neighbors had to look at them sitting outside. Ford inquired if the building would be used to store equipment for his business and Kottke responded that there would be some business materials stored within the building as well as personal recreational equipment. There is a bobcat that he uses for both personal use and business use and some mowers that would be stored in the building. He calculated it would be 25% business use and 75% personal use of the space. The hardship is he cannot prevent the loss of the existing buildings in case of flood or other catastrophe. Dunham inquired if the size of the proposed building was definitely determined and Kottke responded that he has a pad for a 30'X 90'building and he will construct as large a building as he possibly could on the site. He noted that the width of the building was limited by the elevation on one side and the large tree on the other side. Discussion ensued regarding the type of building proposed and the aesthetics of the structure. The use of a privacy fence between the proponent's property and Smetana Lane was discussed. The future of the development in the area was discussed and ways to build the building so it was as unobtrusive as possible to the surrounding neighborhood. Kottke noted he has begun planting trees to provide screening from adjacent properties. Johnson gave the staff report and noted that staff recommended the applicant sign a Certificate of Zoning. This is necessary because code does not allow storage of business equipment in accessory buildings in the Rural District. Staff has received calls and letters in opposition to this request because of the changing nature of the surrounding area • development. Ford asked about the business equipment being stored on the site and Kottke responded that he would probably keep a bobcat on the site. Johnson noted that unless equipment is also used for personal use it cannot be stored on the property, but some people use BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MINUTES July 10, 1997 Page 3 bobcats for such things as snow removal, which allows them to be kept on their lots. The Public Hearing was opened. Mrs. Gary Kostecka, 10805 Valley View Road, stated she was opposed to the proposed building because of the commercial nature of the equipment moving on and off the property and she believed it would be very difficult to screen the building from her property, which is higher up and would overlook the subject site. Johnson noted that two letters had been received by City staff which were entered into the record. The Public Hearing was closed. Dye commented he thought perhaps Kottke should come back before the Board with a plan which would reflect a specific building size and type. Ford commented that the requested building was very substantial in size and the building should be reduced because the variance requested was large. Hansen concurred it would be nice to see a grading plan and exactly what was being built • on the site pad. He did not see any hardship other than the Watershed District was raising the level of the water and he thought perhaps it was more advantageous for Kottke to get the building pad approved than be recompensed for the loss of property due to the raised water levels. O'Leary commented he believed the variance was too great and the proposed building was too large. He would prefer to see the building reduced and moved to reduce the variances. MOTION: Ford moved, seconded by Dye, to deny Variance Request#97-09 by John Kottke for 7665 Smetana Lane to construct a 30'X 90'metal building 30 feet from the front property line and 70 feet from Nine Mile Creek on the basis that no hardship was shown and the size of the proposed building was excessive. Motion carried 5-0. B. Request#97-10 by Prairie Center Properties,LLC for Moore Leasing, Inc. For 250 Prairie Center Drive 1) To allow outdoor storage and display of 15 vehicles in an Office District (Code for outdoor storage and display is written for Commercial Districts only.) Applicant is appealing staffs decision. 2) Utilize 2,568 square feet of area of the site for outdoor storage and display(Code permits a maximum of 2% or 720 square feet, for a building in Commercial Districts only). 3) To allow outdoor storage on 11% (15 parking stalls) of the required parking stalls (Code permits a maximum of.005 or 1 parking stall for buildings in Commercial Districts only). 4) To allow loading/unloading of vehicles in parking lot trafficway (Code does not permit obstruction of trafficway), and 5) To reduce the required parking • on site from 135 existing spaces down to 120 spaces. Jeanette Pohehnan,Property Manager for Prairie Center Properties, LLC, requested that the Board approve the variance requests so she will be able to keep her tenant, Moore BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MINUTES • July 10, 1997 Page 4 Leasing, Inc. In her building. Bob Moore,President of Moore Leasing,Inc. stated they were asking permission to park no more than 15 vehicles in front of the building for a short time. This will prevent his losing business because the vehicles are not readily accessible when the demand is there, and having the cars parked on the site would enable him to make sales more easily and thus to remain in business. He noted he had lost a sale because a desired vehicle was not available immediately, and he could not afford to have this continue. He stated his was a small operation and he did not desire to have it grow larger. He showed pictures of the site and what it would look like with 14 vehicles parked on the lot. He noted that it did not appear any different than any other similar parking lot, and there was ample parking remaining on the site. He described how his business was conducted and noted that there was no signage other than an 8.5 X 11 sheet of paper placed inside the vehicle describing the vehicle and listing the price. Poehlman stated she had received two letters of complaint during the time he had been in business in Eden Prairie; one from the manager of the Eden Prairie Center and he believed those concerns had been addressed buy not allowing any unloading to occur in the Eden Prairie Center parking lot during business hours. Moore commented that he would like to visit with the gentleman from Eden Prairie Center because people who buy cars from him to right across to the Eden Prairie Center to shop. The loss of business is creating a hardship for him which is why he is requesting the variances. Dye inquired how much space was leased by the proponent and Poehlman responded that Moore leased 12,00 sq. ft. Hansen inquired if the purpose of the business had been made clear when the space was leased, and Poehlman responded affirmatively, noting that Bob Moore had been a good tenant during the 1.5 years he had least space from her, and she would like to have him remain there. Discussion ensued regarding the property owners and how they felt about this use of their property. Moore stated they were not interested in getting any larger and would not come back before the Board later to request additional variances. He stated he lives in Eden Prairie, works in Eden Prairie, and would like to remain in Eden Prairie, but he needs the variances to do so. O'Leary referenced a letter from Bob Moore stating there would not be any vehicles displayed or stored outdoors and this was the basis on which he obtained his dealership license from the City for this location. Moore stated he was requesting the variances because he has found there is a need to have some vehicles stored on the site so he would not lose sales because the vehicles were stored elsewhere. Dye inquired if another prospective car leasing tenant wanted to lease space would Poehlman rent to them, and Poehhnan responded that she would not because it was not good business to have more • than one use in the same building at the same time. Moore commented that most people want to look at cars in a relaxed atmosphere and do not want to drive 45 minutes or more to look at a car. Ford referred to the complaints included in the packet and asked why the proponent was BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MINUTES July 10, 1997 Page 5 displaying vehicles outdoors when he knew it was against the ordinance. Moore responded that he wants to have 15 cars displayed but was amenable to having 12 if the Board believed that number was more appropriate. Ford asked about using other commercial space in Eden Prairie which would suit his purpose and not require a variance and Moore responded that they don't want to move as this is a good location for this business. Ford asked about the banners and Moore responded that it was only a magnetic sign on the side of one vehicle and there was nothing painted on any windshield of a vehicle. This has not been done for over a year, and the only signage they use is a sheet of 8.5" X I I" paper listing the vehicles available and the prices. Johnson gave the staff report and reviewed the car dealership history in Eden Prairie. She reviewed the options available to the Board and noted that if the variances were approved staff recommended that the stipulations listed in the staff report be added to the approval. Two letters in opposition to the variance request have been received by staff and are entered into the record. Hansen inquired if the proponent had given any other hardship than an economic one and Johnson responded that was the only one given. Hansen inquired if there were any other . areas that could be used that would not need a variance and Johnson responded there were several commercial sites which could be used, but these may also require some variances, depending on the amount of outdoor display. Industrial Districts are also available for this type of tenant. Moore stated he was located on Washington Avenue when he first opened his business in Eden Prairie and that was not a good location. He has since been able to turn the business around after locating it at the present location, and it is very expensive to relocate a business. Discussion ensued regarding the benefits of the business being in it's present location and the potential for rezoning the property to commercial to eliminate the need for some of the variances. Johnson noted that a rezoning application would need to be made by the property owners and go through the reviewal process before that could happen. Carol Pinski,Business Manager for Moore Leasing,Inc., explained that they do not want a larger business because they had worked seventy hour weeks for too many years, and this business was just the right size for them. Dye asked if they had considered relocating to a commercial property and Moore responded affirmatively, but none of these properties were feasible for this type of business. Dye commented he believed if the variances were granted it would be extremely precedent-setting for the City of Eden Prairie, and noted that the City has to • follow its ordinances. Discussion ensued regarding whether the variance request was for a variance in use, and it was noted that the Board is not allowed to grant variances to uses. Johnson stated that staff believed this was not a permitted use, and the City Attorney had concurred with that BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS MINUTES July 10, 1997 Page 6 finding. However, it was the proponent's right to appeal this determination, and Poehlman requested that the City Attorney deliver this opinion in writing. Ford stated that any district use change must be granted by the Planning Commission and City Council. Dye stated that they were making a precedent decision, that they should adhere to the ordinance regarding the permitted usage of this property and uphold the staff position that no outside display or storage should be permitted. He believed the variance should be denied and the proponent could appeal that decision to the City Council if he so wished. If the variance were to be approved it would send a message to staff and the City Council that they believed this should be a permitted use in this zoning district. Discussion ensued regarding the action the Board should take on this item. The Public Hearing was opened. No one present wished to speak. The Public Hearing was closed. MOTION: O'Leary moved to deny the request for variances because the proponent has failed to demonstrate hardship. Motion failed for lack of a second. • MOTION:Dye moved, seconded by Ford,to continue the request for 30 days to obtain a written opinion from the City Attorney on this request for a variance from the use provisions of the ordinance. Motion carried 4-1. O'Leary voted no because he felt the variance requests should be denied. IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS Johnson noted that the Radiator variance request was appealing the Board's decision to the City Council, and the Council would set a date to hear that appeal at the next meeting on July 15th. Johnson noted that there were several outside storage and display requests that would be coming before the Board in the near future. VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Ford moved, seconded by Dye to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.