Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 03/09/2000 APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2000 7:00 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: Michael Seeland, President, Property Resources Corporation; Kenneth Piper, Tanek, Architect for Lindberg Heat Treating Co.; Bob Manhatton, District Manager, Lindberg Heat Treating Co.; and Chuck Anderson, Estimator/Project Manager for Lindberg Heat Treating Co. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. ROLL CALL—PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Kathy Nelson, Cliff Dunham, Louis Giglio, Michael O'Leary and Mary Vasaly (arrived at 740 p.m.) Absent: William Ford and Ismail Ismail I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion/Second: Dunham/Giglio, to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried, 4-0. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of January 13, 2000 Motion/Second: Dunham/O'Leary, to approve the January 13 minutes as presented. Motion carried 3-0-1 with Nelson abstaining because of absence from that meeting. Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals March 9, 2000 III: VARIANCES A. Request#2000-03 by Property Resources Corporation, Metro RV and Mini-Storage, 6851 Flying Cloud Drive, to permit the outside storage of up to six (6) rental vehicles exceeding three-quarter ton in the I-2 Zoning District for a five-year period. (Code does not permit outside storage of vehicles in excess of three-quarter ton in the I-2 Zoning District.) Michael Seeland, President, Property Resources Corporation, explained the nature of their business and the location of the facility. The facility is a self-storage facility and includes the sale of moving and storage supplies as well as rental of Ryder trucks. Mr. Seeland stated that in 1996 a variance was approved for four trucks for a one-year period and in 1997 they received a two-year variance for six trucks with conditions. Mr. Seeland said he is now requesting a variance to permit the outside storage for six vehicles for a period of five years. He is asking that the time period be extended and that there be no increase in the number of vehicles stored. Mr. Seeland explained that the topography of the site suits their situation very well. He displayed pictures of the site from various directions demonstrating that the trucks are not visible from the street. Mr. Seeland said that all local and outbound rental activity occurs within the management office that has two employees. No maintenance of trucks occurs on the site except to add oil to the vehicles. This use is important to the community and a convenience to the residents. Mr. Seeland said he feels the operation of this facility over the last two years demonstrates their respect for the variance and they are requesting that this variance be continued for five years. Ms. Johnson presented the staff report explaining that this request has been a step process beginning with a variance for a one-year period and then a two-year variance with the applicant now requesting a five-year variance. When the variance was originally approved in 1997 there were three conditions placed on the approval. Over the past two years the City has received no complaints regarding this business. Staff does monitor the facility and feels that management has done a good job in returning the trucks to the lower level in a timely manner. Ms. Johnson explained that notices were sent to surrounding residents and no letters or calls were received regarding this request. Ms. Johnson pointed out that if the Board chooses to approve this request, staff recommends the same three conditions of approval be placed on this request. Ms. Nelson opened the public hearing. Having no one appear, Ms. Nelson closed the public hearing. Mr. Giglio suggested that should they approve this request they add a condition that no truck repairs be done on the site. Ms. Nelson said she has driven by the facility and has found it to be well maintained and has not seen any sign of trucks parked on the site. 2 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals March 9, 2000 Motion/Second: Giglio/O'Leary, to approve Request#2000-03 with the following conditions: 1. All trucks under 24-feet in length will be parked on the side of the building. 2. Proper signage will be installed on the site directing parking locations. 3. All temporary trucks returned to the site must be removed within 3-4 hours of the business opening. 4. No truck repairs to be done at this location. The motion carried, 4-0. B. Request#2000-04 by Investors Real Estate Trust for Lindberg Heat Treating, 10150 Crosstown Circle, to permit construction of a 4,966 square foot addition to the east side of the building resulting in a building area ratio (B.A.R.) of 34% (Code maximum B.A.R. is 30%). Ken Piper, Architect for Lindberg Heat Treating Co., explained that this building was constructed in 1979 and is comprised of production, warehouse and supporting office functions. This facility is located in an I-2 Industrial Park zoning district. Mr. Piper stated that the applicant is proposing an addition to the northeast portion of the building to house the production addition. Lindberg currently has two important customers for whom they perform a service and these customers want to considerably increase their orders. In order to accommodate this additional work, Lindberg needs to add additional equipment to their manufacturing floor. This addition will result in a total production area of 4,966 square feet. The applicant is proposing to match the addition with the existing structure. Mr. Piper further explained that the addition would alter some of the existing parking that is on the east side of the building. The applicant has demonstrated adequate parking with proof of parking to the northwest of the existing structure. The proposed addition will bring the building area ratio to 34%while the code maximum is 30% and they are, therefore, requesting permission for 34%B.A.R. Mr. Piper pointed out that in 1986 a variance was granted resulting in a floor area ratio of 35.7%. The 1986 variance was never used and the approval lapsed in 1987. Mr. Piper said the nature of the business is such that large equipment and floor area is required. In addition, the equipment used in this facility does not require a large work force to operate so the parking required is less than their total work force roster shows. In response to Ms. Nelson's question, Mr. Bob Manhatton, District Manager for Lindberg Heat Treating Company, explained that the heat treating function is to change the properties of metals making them harder, stronger or softer. Ms. Nelson asked if this operation caused pollution. Mr. Manhatton explained that the planned equipment is a vacuum furnace that causes no pollution. Mr. Dunham asked what type of product is generated. Mr. Manhatton responded that their customers typically manufacturer metal parts and their company performs the heat process after which the parts are returned to the customer for processing. 3 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals March 9, 2000 (Ms. Vasaly arrived during discussion of this item.) Mr. Dunham asked how the proposed addition would impact the existing equipment and space. Mr. Manhatton responded that the equipment is divided into work cells and their primary need is to accommodate the vacuum work cell that is in the middle of the building. The proposed new addition will house the existing furnace plus the new equipment being installed. This addition will also allow them some growth for the cell that exists on the north end of the building. Mr. Dunham asked if customers come to this facility. Mr. Manhatton said they do have customers that pick up and deliver parts to this facility. There is a reasonable flow of traffic both in and out. He explained that all shipping and receiving occurs on the west side of the building. There is no way for trucks to circulate around the building. Mr. Giglio asked how many parking stalls would be lost with this addition. Mr. Piper responded that in the area of the addition there are 13 stalls. Mr. Piper explained that they will be putting some parking stalls back to the rear of the building and they are also showing proof of parking. Mr. Giglio asked if this addition would allow the applicant future expansion or if they are building for current needs only. Mr. Manhatton explained that the addition will take them through their current needs and also allows expansion for a current cell. The expansion should be sufficient for at least five years. In response to Ms. Vasaly's question, Mr. Manhatton said they have been located at this site since 1992 and they have signed a 15 year lease with two five year options. The heating facility is very expensive to move. When they moved into this facility in 1992 it cost them $1 million to move and they had half of the equipment they have now. Ms. Vasaly asked if the applicant sees the potential for adding another customer similar to the one added now requiring the addition. Mr. Manhatton explained that this is a unique opportunity for them to pick up such a large piece of business. The equipment being added will have the capacity to meet their current needs and projected needs in the future and they do not anticipate any space constraints for well over five years. Ms. Nelson asked if this site would be suitable for anything other than similar warehouse uses. Mr. Manhatton explained that when they moved into this facility in 1992 it was office warehouse across the entire front of the building. He said he assumes it would continue warehouse/manufacturing if they were to leave. Mr. Manhatton pointed out that the proposed addition does meet the Code building exterior requirements and setbacks. There will be rooftop mechanicals and this equipment will be screened as required by Code. Ms. Johnson pointed out that the screening plan would be approved along with the building permit. 4 Minutes Board of Adjustments &Appeals March 9, 2000 In response to Mr. Giglio's question, Ms. Johnson explained that this request would not set a precedent. Their biggest concern would be parking and that has been taken care of on this site. Ms. Nelson asked if parking could be a potential problem for future tenants. Ms. Johnson said she does not foresee parking being a problem for this use. It is difficult to determine whether or not it would be a problem without knowing what the facility will be used for. City staff would review parking when permits are pulled for remodeling of this facility and parking may be controlled at that time. Ms. Johnson presented the staff report explaining that this building is unique in that this use has a need for floor space. The use is similar to a print shop or bulk mailing facility. There would be a limited number of people who would use this building the way it is set up. Notices were sent to surrounding property owners and no calls or comments were received by City staff. Following discussion, Ms. Nelson opened the public hearing. Having no one appear, Ms. Nelson closed the public hearing. Mr. Giglio said he would support this variance with the hardship being the nature of the business. Mr. Dunham said he would support this request even though he has the tendency not to push the ratios. However, in looking at the nature of this business the hardship would be the need for more equipment and floor space than employees or parking spaces.Mr. O'Leary said he would also support this request. The variance approved in 1986 was for almost 5%more floor area. Ms. Vasaly said she would support the variance. The applicant did not move into this site knowing that he would have a need for this addition. The problem developed over time and it appears that this addition will allow the applicant to remain at this site for a number of years. Ms. Nelson said she agrees with the issues presented. Motion/Second: Dunham/Giglio to approve request#2000-04 with the hardship being the nature of the business requiring more equipment than people. The motion carried, 5-0. IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Nelson explained that this would be her last meeting with the Board of Appeals. She has been appointed to the Community Planning Board and will no longer be serving on this Board. She expressed her appreciation to the Board members for placing their trust with her and allowing her to serve as the Chair. VI. ADJOURNMENT Motion/Second: O'Leary/Giglio, to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Motion carried, 5-0. 5