Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 12/09/1999 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS THURSDAY, DECEMBER 9, 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: Sigmund Helle, 2124 Stanford Avenue, St. Paul; Kevin Brink, 18585 Maple Leaf Drive; David Hanson, General Manager, Enterprise Rent-a-Car; Neal Blanchett, Larkin, Hoffman,Daily& Lindgren; Tom Olesak, Project Manager and Michelle Kimble, Civil Engineer, Setter Leach&Lindstrom CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL—PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Kathy Nelson, Cliff Dunham, William Ford, Ismail Ismail, Louis Giglio, Michael O'Leary and Mary Vasaly Absent: No one I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion/Second: Dunham/Ismail, to approve the agenda as resented. Motion carved, 7-0. pp g p i II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of September 9, 1999 Motion/Second: Vasaly/Ismail, to approve the September 9 minutes as presented. Motion carried 6-0-1 with Dunham abstaining because of absence from that meeting. Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals December 9, 1999 III: VARIANCES A. Request#99-16 by Sigmund Helle for 10025 Valley View Road, Zoned I-2 Industrial Park for approval to allow 55% office use in the existing building at 10025 Valley View Road (Code maximum is 50% office use). Mr. Helle explained that he is seeking a 5%variance on the office ratio not to get around the intent of the ordinance but to be more flexible within the ordinance so that a hardship is not created. The intent of the ordinance is to not change the character of the neighborhood and Mr. Helle said this small request certainly does not do that. Mr. Helle stated that he is seeking a 10% range, which would allow him to negotiate a bona fide lease. The 5% overage occurred because of one tenant that sought additional office space and they did not know at that time that they were in violation of the ordinance. This tenant did remain for eight years and Mr. Helle said he would not have been able to meet their needs without the additional office space. The impact of the ordinance would have interrupted the landlord/tenant relationship. Mr. Helle explained that there is a surplus of parking stalls. If the variance were approved, three additional vehicles would be added to the site, which is minimal in this area. Mr. Dunham asked if the proponent currently has a tenant for this space. Mr. Helle said he is not requesting this variance for a specific tenant,he is before this Board with an existing condition. Mr. Helle said it was found that he is 5%over in office space and he wants to address this issue. If the variance were granted,he would have the flexibility for leasing this additional space. Mr. Ismail asked if this building is fully occupied. Mr. Helle responded that it is not and at the end of November it was 84% occupied. Mr. Helle said he would like the overage issue addressed now so that when he does begin negotiations for the space he does not have to deal with this and take the chance of losing a tenant. Ms. Johnson presented her staff report stating that this property is zoned I-2 Industrial Park which limits office use to no more than 50% of the building. Variances and PUD waivers have been granted in the past on industrial sites in the City. A concern for each property, and the City as a whole, is the amount of extra traffic that would be generated if industrial buildings are converted to additional office space. This does not appear to be a concern for this site. Ms. Johnson explained that the market changes are occuring. Notices were sent out to surrounding property owners and they did receive some inquiries, however, no one spoke against this request. A building permit was.issued to build out the building and at that time staff did not notice the 5% overage. Following discussion,Ms. Nelson opened the public hearing. Having no one appear before the Board, Ms. Nelson closed the public hearing. 2 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals December 9, 1999 Mr. Ford said he has no strong negative feelings about this request and it is a fairly small change. However, he suggested that they consider this as a temporary variance and review it at a later date to see what the market has done for the proponent. Mr. Dunham said he was not convinced that all of the options for this space were explored. Mr. Giglio questioned whether or not the proponent needed the variance at this time. Mr. Helle explained that he found out after 98% of his building was occupied that he was not in compliance with the City Code. He would like to know in advance if he has the additional 5%margin to use as part of a lease deal. Mr. Giglio said he also questions the hardship for this request. Mr. Ford said he sees the hardship being the City issuing the permit for the build-out. Mr. Giglio said he is not opposed to the request. Ms. Vasaly said she sees the situation as having a building built to certain specifications and the way it was built-out creates the variance. The building is constructed, however, the proponent does not have a tenant but needs an immediate solution in order to negotiate a lease. Ms. Vasaly suggested that since they are reviewing the request in advance of Mr. Helle having a tenant, a one-year time limit be placed on the variance should it be approved. Ms. Johnson explained that the proponent would like to keep the flexibility of 55% office space. This is a physical change in the building. Ms. Vasaly said she understands the proponent did not create the problem and realizes it is only a small difference and is in keeping with the neighborhood, therefore, she would not have a.problem with approving this request. Mr. O'Leary said he agrees and would vote in favor. Ms.Nelson said she has no problem with this request. The City did give approval for the applicant to build out and if there is a problem, it is a problem created by City staff. Ms. Nelson said she feels the City will ultimately have to look at this zoning issue and the market. This particular location does not appear to have any problems with parking. Motion/Second: Vasaly/O'Leary, to approve Variance#99-16 as requested on the grounds that the hardship is that the building is already built-out to 55% office and based on prior issuances of a building permit for that amount and that the additional space has not created any difficulties in the area. Motion carried, 7-0. B. Request#99-17 by Edenwest LLC for 7525 Mitchell Road for approval for a 31.6 foot front yard setback for the existing building (Code requires a 35-foot minimum front- yard setback). 3 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals December 9, 1999 Mr. Kevin Brink, 18585 Maple Leaf Drive, appeared on behalf of Edenwest LLC, explaining that this property was built in 1974. At the time of construction, it appears that the building was built within the setback allowance. Mr. Brink stated that prior to their purchase of the property in August of 1998, a survey and title commitment showed an encroachment of the building, timber retaining wall, culvert and driveway onto a sanitary sewer easement. None of these encroachments have been changed subsequent to their original construction. It is not clear as to whether or not Mitchell Road was widened or the setback requirements changed. Mr. Brink said since they would not be expected to move the building or any of these encroachments, they were told to apply for this permitted variance. Ms. Johnson presented her staff report explaining that the building was constructed in 1974 and is in an office-zoning district with a required setback of 35 feet. Letters were mailed out and no comments or objections were received regarding this request. Ms. Nelson opened the public hearing. Having no one appear before the Board, Ms. Nelson closed the public hearing. Motion/Second: Giglio/Ismail, to approve Variance Request#99-17 as requested with the hardship being that as far as they could tell, the building was built within the Code at the time of construction. The motion carried, 7-0. C. Request#99-18 by Enterprise Rent-a-Car for 8767-8795 Columbine Road, Anderson Lakes Plaza : 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 principle building, that is 2,565 square feet(City Code would permit 426 square feet based on a building size of 21,320 square feet). 3. To permit 15 stalls to be used for outside display area(City Code permits one parking stall based on the number of parking stalls required). Mr. David Hanson, General Manager, Enterprise Rent-a-Car and Neal Blanchett, Attorney for the proponent appeared before the Board. Mr. Hanson explained that they are requesting an extension of their variance for outdoor storage of vehicles in their parking lot. Mr. Blanchett said it would be the same configuration as used for the past three years and they would like to continue this use. 4 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals December 9, 1999 Mr. Dunham questioned the necessity for 15 stalls. Mr. Hanson responded that, typically, they do have three or four vehicles stored there at one time. This variance will allow them to exercise their option to renew their lease for three to five years. Mr. Blanchett indicated that their site plan shows 15 stalls in front, however, City staff is recommending ten in front and five in back. Mr. Ismail also questioned the need for 15 spaces. He said he questioned the proponent having enough room to park five vehicles in the back of the building. Mr. Hanson explained that their business does come in flows. Sometimes an account will need seven or eight vehicles at one time. Typically, there are more vehicles parked there during the weekend with most of the vehicles gone during the week. Mr. Dunham said he was confused on what was approved in 1996. It appears that the approval was for ten spaces and not 15. Ms. Johnson explained that the original request was for 15 vehicles, however, the condition was for ten and the applicant was limited to ten spaces in 1996. Ms. Nelson said it appears that the ten spaces granted in 1996 were working and she wanted to know why the proponent needed 15 spaces. Mr. Hanson said he was under the impression that they were granted 15 in 1996. Ms. Vasaly asked if they knew on an average how many times they used the 15 spaces. Mr. Hansen said he is not sure but there are times they do use all of the spaces. On an average, there are only four vehicles parked at this site and approximately one weekend a month there are more than ten vehicles parked there. Mr. Dunham asked if they do approve the 15 spaces, what regulations could be placed on that approval so the proponent couldn't ask for 20. Mr. Blanchett pointed out that the business runs most successfully when the vehicles are out and not stored. Mr. Hansen explained that they do have flexibility in their business and they also have a seven-acre holding lot in St. Paul where vehicles can be moved. Ms. Vasaly questioned why there was a three-year period imposed on this variance. Mr. Hansen responded that the approval went with their lease. Ms. Johnson presented her staff report explaining that the original intent of this ordinance was to avoid problems with merchants leaving merchandise outside. The ordinance prevented certain tenants from displaying items in neighborhood commercial districts. Ms.Johnson reported that this building has been up for a number of years and Enterprise has been there for three years. The business to-date has been run successfully and staff is not aware of any problems. Staff would like to see the condition that they divide up the spaces with ten in front and five in the rear. Also, staff would like to see the same eight conditions placed on this request as was placed on the request in 1996. Staff has not received any complaints from surrounding property owners regarding this request. Ms. Nelson opened the public hearing. Having no one appear before the Board, Ms.Nelson closed the public hearing. 5 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals December 9, 1999 Mr. Dunham said it appears the proponent has held to the regulations since 1996 and has proved to be a good neighbor for Eden Prairie and he would not be opposed to this request. Ms. Vasaly said she agrees, however, she does not see a need for the additional five spaces but since they would be in the back she would not be opposed to those additional spaces. He will vote in favor of this request,however, he would like to go on record as questioning the five vehicles in the back. Mr. Ford said he voted against this request in 1996 as a matter of policy. The City Council did recently amend the Code to prohibit this type of outdoor storage and his feelings about that have not changed. Mr. Ford said he does live close to this facility and he has seen no problems with it. Ms. Nelson said she also voted against this variance previously but has been watching the operation over the years and has not seen any problems. Motion/Second: O'Leary/Vasaly, to approve Variance 499-18 as requested for a period of five years with the following conditions: 1. No more than ten vehicles be located in the front parking lot and no more than five vehicles be located in the rear parking lot. 2. No vehicle(s)be displayed or located above the elevation of the parking lot area. 3. The vehicles in the parking lot may not be utilized for sign purposes, other than the small `e' logo presently used. Nor shall vehicle prices or written information be visible. 4. All washing and maintenance of the vehicles is to be conducted inside the building. 5. The variance approval shall be unique to Enterprise, and not transferable to another leasing company. 6. No sales of vehicles occur from this site. 7. The variance approval shall be for a five-year period commencing December 9, 1999. 8. In the event the terms and conditions of the Final Order are violated, the City may, in addition to all other remedies afforded it herein and by law,terminate the variances upon the expiration of 15 days from the date of written notice. Voted was called on the motion with all members voting aye. The motion carried, 7-0. D. Request#99-19 for U.S. West for 10001 West 78th Street: I-5 Industrial District Variances: ■ 1.4 acres existing lot size; Code minimum is five acres ■ 14.5 foot proposed front setback for parking; Code minimum is 75 feet ■ Five foot existing/proposed side yard setback; Code minimum is ten feet ■ 10.7 foot existing/proposed building front setback back; Code minimum is 75 feet ■ 13.5 foot side setback for proposed building addition; Code minimum is 30 feet ■ 45%Floor Area Ratio and Base Area Ratio; Code maximum is 30% 6 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals December 9, 1999 ■ Existing lot width 250 feet, existing lot depth 250.18 feet; Code minimum is 300 feet ■ Construction of ten parking stalls; Code minimum is 17 parking stalls Shoreland Variances: Recreational Waters ■ 1.4 acres existing lot size; Shoreland Code minimum is ten acres ■ 90 foot setback for existing building, 155 foot setback for proposed building addition; Code minimum setback is 200 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level ■ 45% impervious surface; Code limit is 30% Mr. Tom Olesak, Project Manager with Setter Leach&Lindstrom and Michelle Kimble, Civil Engineer,with Setter Leach& Lindstrom, appeared before the Board on behalf of US West. Mr. Olesak explained their client wishes to construct a 6,344 square foot addition to its existing 14,036 square foot facility. This addition is necessary to house telecommunications equipment that will provide essential services to the immediate vicinity. Mr. Olesak stated that an alternative site would increase the costs of this project ten times because of the fiber optic cable. The expense to relocate this fiber would be prohibitive. Mr. Olesak stated that this is an existing facility that was built in the 1970's and four of the requested variances exclusively address existing conditions at the subject property and four of them address both existing and proposed conditions while the remaining three address the proposed project. In response to Mr. Ismail's question, Mr. Olesak explained that the expansion would be to the east of the site and the addition would be approximately 6,300 square feet. The building will face 78th Street. This is an unoccupied building that only houses equipment. There will be no staff increase, therefore, no additional parking spaces will be required. The addition will be used for additional equipment to handle communication traffic. Ms. Vasaly asked if the Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the increase in impervious surface. Ms. Kimble said they have not,however,they will be working with the Watershed District to address the impervious surface concerns of the DNR. They will also be meeting with the Watershed District. Mr. Dunham asked how long the communication needs would be taken care of with this expansion. Mr. Olesak said it is hard to say. US West recognizes that this expansion will exhaust any possibilities of adding any additional equipment at this location in the future. If additional space is needed, it will be necessary for them to make an additional investment into a new location. In response to Mr. Ismail's question, Mr. Olesak explained that this facility serves primarily the City of Eden Prairie. Ms. Johnson presented her staff report stating that this building was originally built in 1961 and sits on a small site. This building is in an I-5 Industrial District and is approximately 1,000 feet from the open water of Anderson Lakes. The building is 90 7 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals December 9, 1999 feet from the lake's Ordinary High Water Level. A number of the variances are a result of existing conditions of the site and the building. The front setback for parking is 12.5 feet not 14.5 feet as stated. Ms. Johnson explained that both land issues have been reviewed. The proposed addition is slightly further away than the existing building from the ordinary high water level. With regard to the storm water runoff, the Watershed District and DNR will have input and the Board may want to require this review prior to the issuance of the building permit. Located on either side of this site are five to seven story buildings that are closer to the lake than what this building is. Ms. Johnson recommended that should the Board approve the request, the following conditions be included: (1) storm water runoff be designed to accommodate the recommendations of the DNR, Watershed District and the City and (2) a landscape bond be submitted prior to the building permit being issued. Ms. Johnson said she did talk to the City Engineer and he indicated that 78th Street will be improved in the future. The applicant will also have to meet the landscaping ordinance and have landscaping plans submitted to the City prior to the building permit being issued. Ms. Nelson opened the public hearing. Having no one appear before the Board, Ms. Nelson closed the public hearing. Mr. Ismail said he is not opposed to the addition, however, the building is very close to 78th Street and is somewhat of an eyesore. He asked that should this request be approved, a condition of some type of landscaping be included to improve the site's appearance. Mr. Ford said he could not support this variance request with regard to the addition. He explained that if this addition requires that many variances, obviously it is not an appropriate addition for that lot. Ms. Vasaly said she feels it is a borderline request for the number of variances and she does agree somewhat with Mr. Ford. She said she is particularly concerned about the variances with respect to the water and the 15%increased impervious surface. In response to Mr. Giglio's question, Ms. Kimble explained how the water runoff would be handled. The runoff would come off of the building into a pipe that would run into a depression. Mr. Giglio pointed out that the impervious surface is already over the Code requirement without the current treatment for runoff. Mr. Giglio said he can understand Mr. Ford's concerns, this has been a bad site for 25 years, however, the proposed addition would improve the site. Given the quality of service, this addition would be a great benefit to the community. Mr. Giglio said he would support this request with the run-off condition previously discussed by Ms. Johnson. Mr. O'Leary pointed out that a number of the variances required are due to existing conditions. The proponent will be putting in landscaping to improve the site and water runoff will be improved from what it currently is. The addition will be an asset to the City and by not moving to a new location, communication costs to the residents may be somewhat less than if the proponent had to relocate. 8 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals December 9, 1999 Mr. Ismail said he would vote in favor of this project if he can be guaranteed that this site's landscaping will be upgraded. Mr. Olesak said he agrees that the landscaping should be improved and they will be working with the City on a landscaping plan and on screening the building from West 78th Street. Motion/Second: Giglio/Ismail, to approve Variance#99-19 as requested with the following conditions: 1) The storm water plan be worked out with the Department of Natural Resources,the Watershed District and City and the plan be approved by the City; 2) A landscaping bond be posted before the building permit is granted and the applicant work with the City to upgrade the landscaping, particularly on West 78th Street and east and west of the building. Vote was called on the motion with all members voting aye except Ford who voted nay. The motion carried, 6-1. IV. OLD BUSINESS Ms. Johnson reported that the Perkins case did go to Court and the summary judgement was made in favor of the City and has been appealed to the Court of Appeals. V. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Johnson reported that the next meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals is scheduled for January 13 and they have one item for consideration. VI. ADJOURNMENT Motion/Second: Ford/Ismail, to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Motion carried, 7-0. 9