Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 03/11/1999 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS THURSDAY,MARCH 11, 1999 7:30 P.M. CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD: Kathy Nelson, Chairperson; Cliff Dunham; William Ford;Louis Giglio; Ismail Ismail; Michael O'Leary; and Mary Vasaly STAFF: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator Carol Pelzel, Recorder GUESTS: Mary Corya, 9000 Riley Lake Road Gary Gandrud, Faegre &Benson, Attorney for The Pillsbury Company; Mike Nordstrom, Vice President of Business Services for The Pillsbury Company; Wayne Jeske, Architect for The Pillsbury Company; Randy Herman, 2792 Piper Ridge Lane, . Excelsior CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Kathy Nelson, Cliff Dunham, William Ford, Louis Giglio, Michael O'Leary and Mary Vasaly Absent: Ismail Ismail I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion/Second: Dunham/Vasaly, to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried, 6-0. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of February 11, 1999 Motion/Second: Dunham/Vasaly, to approve the January 14 minutes as presented. Motion • carried 3-0-3 with Nelson, Giglio and O'Leary abstaining. Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals March 11, 1999 III: VARIANCES A. Request#99-04 by John Bushey for 9000 Riley Lake Road for approval to expand a non-conforming single-family home in the Rural District that has an existing sideyard setback of 16 feet (Code requires 50 feet). Mary Corya, 9000 Riley Lake Road, appeared before the Board explaining that the house was built in 1967 as a caretaker's home for the existing church camp. In 1983 the camp property was subdivided with the subdivision occurring halfway between the house and the lodge, resulting in a non-conforming setback. Since that time, the lodge has been torn down. Ms. Corya reviewed the proposed changes to the house explaining that they are proposing to connect the house and the garage on the lower level to avoid having to use stairs and to provide a second outside entrance. The other proposed additions will increase the practicability of the house. The proposed changes will not bring them any closer to the side-lot line. The changes will have a low profile, all within grade and within the shore land and bluff setbacks. Ms. Corya said they are making every effort to lower the impact of this remodeling. The house is of unusual construction being constructed with logs, which limits what they can do. • Mr. Dunham asked how many sides of the house would be affected by the proposed changes. Ms. Corya explained that the east elevation would be the connection of the house to the garage at grade level. The second addition will be the dining room extension on the east side which replaces an existing concrete porch with an iron railing. And, the third addition to the master bedroom would be on the south end. Mr. Dunham asked if all of the additions would be set back further than the existing house from the lot line. Ms. Corya responded that the first addition is the largest and is further back than the rest of the house. The addition on the south end does not decrease the existing minimum setback and the addition on the south end does not extend any further than the existing structure. Mr. Ford asked if the applicant has considered tearing the house down and building elsewhere on the lot. He said the reason for the question is that the staff report indicated that the house was expected to be removed and a new house built. Ms. Corya said they have no desire to tear the house down. Removal of the house would also result in the removal of trees, which they are trying to avoid. Ms. Nelson asked if the applicant intends to continue with the log construction to be consistent with the existing structure. Ms. Corya responded that the log look is inside of the house, with the outside appearing as standard construction. There will be a lot of windows and the log look will be extended inside. • Ms. Johnson presented her staff report to the Board stating that the zoning on this property is rural with five acres in size. The existing home has a setback of 16 feet 2 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals March 11, 1999 with the additions being 18 feet or greater from the side lot line. The shore line requirements and setbacks are being met. In 1983 this property was a part of a larger track of land and at that time it was divided into three tracks. The older cabins had been removed, however, there was no requirement that this structure be removed. The owners have made substantial improvements since that time. Ms. Johnson explained that in the future, if this property is rezoned, it could be further subdivided and setbacks would be consistent with the R-1 Districts. Ms. Johnson reported that the immediate neighbor did review the plans and has no objection to this request. Their only concern was that all construction activity and materials are kept off of their property. Ms. Vasaly said she was surprised that the applicant needed to request a variance given the circumstances. Ms. Johnson responded that any addition needs to meet the new requirements and also, their expanding the structure makes it a non-conforming use. Following discussion, Ms. Nelson opened the public hearing. No one appeared before the Board, therefore, Ms. Nelson closed the public hearing. Motion/Second: Vasaly/Dunham, to approve Variance Request#99-04, to expand a • non-conforming single-family home in the Rural District that has an existing sideyard setback of 16 feet with the proposed addition being 18+ feet from the side lot line. Ms. Vasaly said she is recommending approval of this variance based on the grounds that there is a hardship with the existing non-conforming use. This variance does not increase the violation of the ordinance in order to make the improvement as requested. The improvements are reasonable given the situation of the house. The motion carried, 5-0-1 with Mr. Giglio abstaining. B. Request#99-05 by The Pillsbury Company for 7752 Martin Drive and 14615 Martin Drive to: • Permit off-site parking on the vacant lot at 14615 Martin Drive (west of Pillsbury), (Code requires parking on-site); • Permit 0' setback to the property line for the off-site parking (Code requires a minimum 10 foot setback); • Permit (3) driveway widths at street curb off of Martin Drive;two at 40 feet and one at 94 feet (Code maximum is 30 feet for drive width at street curb). Gary Gandrud, 5617 River Bluffs Drive, the Attorney for The Pillsbury Company, explained that this request is the direct result of Highway 212 improvements and an attempt to keep the property functioning smoothly during the highway improvement project. Mr. Gandrud indicated that the parking setback variance is to replace parking • taken by the highway project. The State will be providing The Pillsbury Company with land to the west and will be transferring that property to Pillsbury. Mr. Gandrud 3 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals March 11, 1999 explained that Pillsbury has made a PUD application to the City to combine the properties and enlarge the building. Because of the projected construction start dates, it is necessary for them to build replacement parking and a staging area for delivery trucks prior to getting through the PUD process. Once the PUD is approved, the lot with the zero lot line will disappear and there will be no need for the variance for the zero foot setback. Mr. Gandrud further explained that the variance request for driveway widths deals with the truck circulation. The State's reconstruction of Mitchell Road will significantly re-route to and increase traffic on Martin Drive. This in turn will make maneuvering and staging by trucks now approaching the site from the west highly problematic if not impossible. The applicant will relocate this truck activity to the Pillsbury site but will need accommodations to make it feasible. Mr. Dunham asked how many parking spaces would be eliminated by the road construction. Mr. Wayne Jeske, the architect for the applicant, responded that they will lose approximately 69 stalls and they are proposing to construct 153 in the temporary lot. Mr. Dunham asked if they need that much additional parking. Mr. Gandrud explained that the PUD plan shows a 23,000 square foot addition on the west side which requires the additional stalls. Mr. Dunham questioned the width of the driveways and the necessity of having three driveways. Mr. Jeske explained that the driveways would be used for semis and the driveway widths are necessary for . movement of the trucks. Mr. Giglio pointed out that staff is recommending a one-year variance and he questioned if this one-year limit is adequate. Ms. Johnson explained that the reason staff put the year limit on the variance was to allow enough time for the PUD process. Once the PUD is approved, the variance will end. Mr. Dunham said he does not feel the wider driveways will solve the applicant's problems of getting trucks in and out of the parking lot. Mr. Mike Nordstrom, representing The Pillsbury Company said he feels this will be a great solution to getting the trucks off of the street. Mr. Dunham asked if truck parking on the street would be eliminated once this lot is built. Mr. Nordstrom said that would probably be the case. They are proposing to develop a staging area on this lot for the trucks. In response to Mr. O'Leary's question, Mr. Nordstrom explained that the building addition would not result in that many more employees. However, the additional parking is needed to meet the number required by City Code. Mr. Giglio asked if there would be any landscaping for the new parking lot. Mr. Jeske explained that there are some existing berms that will be maintained along the back as well as a masonry retaining wall. All of this will have to be approved by the PUD. Ms. Johnson presented the staff report explaining that the variance does involve two properties, one that contains the Pillsbury building and the other vacant. Both sites 4 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals March 11, 1999 • are zoned I-2 Industrial Park. The parking and driveway widths have been created by the Highway 212 construction. The off-site parking situation will be corrected when the property is transferred and the 0' setback to the property line will also be eliminated. Staff anticipates that the PUD process will take into account any of the final planning issues on the property having to do with parking stalls, landscaping, screening or any mechanical equipment as well as the loading dock or floor area ratios. Staff does recommend that any approval on this request be for no more than one year. They do expect the PUD will be before the Planning Commission and City Council within the next six months. In the interim, the applicant has requested these variances so they can stay on track with their necessary work issues and to accommodate the State. Ms. Johnson stated that notices were sent to surrounding property owners and they have not received any comments. Ms. Vasaly asked if the variance is granted and the construction is done, how do they determine whether or not the widths of the driveways need to be narrowed. Ms. Johnson explained that this would be addressed when the PUD is reviewed and at that time they may determine that the width of the driveways will be permanently needed. This is something the Planning Commission and City Council will look at. Mr. Dunham asked if the Traffic Division has reviewed the driveways. Ms. Johnson said they have and they have determined that the turn radius will be needed in order to get • the semi traffic in and to accommodate the flow of employees coming in and out. Mr. Giglio expressed concern that they were granting a variance on property the applicant does not own. Ms. Johnson stated that the State did also sign the variance request. Ms. Nelson opened the public hearing. Mr. Randy Herman, 2792 Piper Ridge Lane, Excelsior, explained that he owns two neighboring buildings, indicating on the map where they are located. Mr. Herman expressed concern that the proposed addition would result in more truck traffic and additional trucks parking on the street. Mr. Nordstrom explained that the building addition would be used as a freezer area with the existing freezer being converted into production which would not result in that much more truck traffic. Mr. Herman said he is not opposed to Pillsbury's plan as long as it gets the trucks off of the street. He asked how many trucks could be held in the staging area. Mr. Jeske said it would hold five trucks. Mr.Nordstrom said there are approximately 12 or 13 trucks that come through in one day. Mr. Herman said that if they can hold five trucks in the staging area and there is not a substantial increase of truck traffic he feels that the parking of trucks on the street will be eliminated. He also asked that the dumpster located on the street be moved. • Mr. Ford suggested that since Mr. Herman has so many questions regarding this project the applicant consider holding a public meeting for surrounding property 5 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals March 11, 1999 owners to explain what they are proposing. Mr. Ford also asked what the ordinance states for parking of trucks on Martin Drive. Ms. Johnson responded that the issue would be whether or not the vehicle is impeding traffic and how long it is sitting there. If it is impeding traffic, the Police Department would require that the vehicle be moved. If the street is posted for no parking,tickets may be issued. Mr. Giglio suggested that any approval of the variance include the condition that no staging take place on Martin Drive. It is a very curvy street and he does not want the trucks parked on this street. Mr. Nordstrom explained that they do not always have control of trucks parking on the street. Mr. O'Leary said that this Board cannot place conditions on vendors that are delivering products to Pillsbury. Mr. Giglio pointed out that they have received testimony that there are safety issues on Martin Drive and this is the opportunity to make sure that these safety issues do not continue. Ms. Vasaly asked how they would deal with enforcing any conditions they place on the variance. Mr. Giglio stated that this Board does not have enforcement authority. However, if the applicant violates their variance consistently they have authority to go back to the applicant and ask them to fix it. If they ignore the problem, the applicant can continue to do the truck staging on the street and only make it worse. Mr. Giglio said the applicant is violating the street parking now and it has been a problem and nothing has been done about it. Mr. Giglio said he would like the solution to be very clear. He does not want any more trucks on the street. Mr. Nordstrom stated that conceptually they have no objection to Mr. Giglio's request. However, what do they do with someone who they have no control over that parks on the street?Ms. Johnson said staff is very comfortable with the Board making conditions that are pertinent to the property and the request. In this situation, the Board may be stepping beyond the property because this is a public street. Staff could make the City Council aware of the Board's concern regarding parking on the street. Ms.Nelson asked if the truck staging has always been a problem or if this has just come up now because of the proposed roadway changes. Ms. Johnson responded that in the past it has been noticed that it was occurring, however, there was never enough identification on the trucks to know which business was using the street. Mr. Nordstrom said he feels comfortable that the proposed changes will address the issues of truck staging on the street. Mr. O'Leary said he feels they would be overstepping their boundaries if they placed a condition on the variance regarding street parking. It appears the applicant will be taking care of this problem by developing a staging area. Mr. Giglio asked that staff bring to the City Council's attention the problem of truck parking on Martin Drive and that the Police Department also be notified. Mr. Ford said that initially he liked Mr. Giglio's suggestion, however, the trucks may have a legal right to park on that street and if not, the adjoining property owners do • have the right to call the Police to have them moved or ticketed. Mr. Ford said he does not feel it is necessary to place a condition on the variance since the mechanism 6 Minutes Board of Adjustments & Appeals March 11, 1999 • to get these vehicles off the street already exists. Mr. Ford said he would support the variance. Mr. Dunham said he agrees on the first two requests about the setback and the parking, however, the driveway widths tying into the parking are a concern. Mr. Dunham said he would support the variance requests, however,he would encourage the City to monitor the driveway widths and the safety of those driveways. Mr. Giglio asked if they should consider landscaping as a condition to this variance. Ms. Johnson indicated that the Planning Commission and City Council would address that under the landscaping requirements in the City Code. Motion/Second: O'Leary/Vasaly, to approve Variance Request#99-05, allowing off- site parking on the vacant lot at 14615 Martin Drive; allowing 0' setback to the property line for the off-site parking and to allow three driveway widths at street curb off of Martin Drive,two at 40 feet and one at 94 feet with the following conditions: 1) The variance be granted for no more than one year. 2) The variances will lapse at time of final Planned Unit Development approval by the City. Mr. O'Leary explained that the variances are being created by Mitchell Road and State Highway 212 construction and the proposed construction will be correcting a potential safety issue by getting the trucks off of the street with the proposed staging area. The motion carried, 5-0-1 with Nelson abstaining. IV. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to be discussed. V. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to be discussed. VI. ADJOURNMENT Motion/Second: O'Leary/Vasaly, to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Motion carried, 6- 0. • 7