Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 08/08/1985 • APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS THURSDAY, AUGUST 8, 1985 7:30 PM, ADMINISTRATION BLDG. , ROOM 5 8100 SCHOOL ROAD BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Richard Lynch, Roger Sandvick, James Dickey, and Hanley Anderson BOARD STAFF: Assistant Planner, Steve Durham and Recording Secretary, Lynda Diede ROLL CALL: Dickey was absent I. MINUTES A. Minutes of July 11 , 1985. MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Sandvick, to approve the minutes of July 11 , 1985, with corrected pages #13 and #16 by Roger Pauly. Motion carried unanimously. • B. Minutes of July 25, 1985. MOTION: Lynch moved, seconded by Krueger, to approve the minutes of July 25, 1985, with the following amendments: P. 6, para. 11 , line 2, change "that" to "this", and strike the word "not". Motion carried --3-0-1 . (Sandvick abstained. ) II. VARIANCES A. Request #85-21 , submitted by Hampton Inn for property located west of Highway#169, south of Valley View Road, east of Highway #5._ The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2 B, to permit the construction of a 125 room hotel with a floor area ratio of .47. Code permits a maximum F.A.R. of .40. This meeting was continued from the July 11 , 1985 meeting. City Council approved 1st Reading of the Hampton Inn at the August 6, 1985 City Council meeting. Wally Hustad, representing Hampton Inn, reviewed the request with the Board. The restaurant has not been before the Planning Commission yet. The two parcels combined, would meet the ordinance at .39 F.A.R. The reason for the .47 F.A.R. request is that Hampton Inn wishes to construct the lower level in the building. Construction of a base- ment makes sense even though there is no specific use for it besides storage. There is a possibility in the future for a meeting room. Planning Staff suggested Hampton Inn seek the F.A.R. variance. If there is a desired use for the basement, a parking variance could be requested. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - August 8, 1985 Krueger asked if it was possible that the driveway would be • included on the plat. Durham stated that City Planner, Enger said that at this time the actual lot had not been decided upon. Durham noted that the parking is based on the hotel useage with no meeting facilities . Lynch questioned if the variance could be granted with the condition that it not be used as a public facility without prior parking re- quests. Hustad said that the meeting space is not a typical part of the Hampton Inn's use itself. Lynch remarked that there is a need in Eden Prairie for meeting space. Hustad said that they would be willing to accept the stipulation in the approval . Sandvick noted that it is a small variance request. Also, besides the storage use, the basement is a safety factor. Sandvick inquired if there were any comments from the audience. There were none. • Sandvick asked if there was any long range figures or time frame. Hustad replied no. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request # 85-21 , with the following findings: 1 ) A basement under the building lends itself as a safety factor during inclement weather. 2) The proponent's intent is to use the basement for storage. If in the future, Hampton Inn intends to use the basement level for a public meeting facility, a variance will be required for parking. Sandvick seconded the variance. Motion carried unanimously. B. Request#85-25, submitted by William Kelly for property located at 17301 Padons. Drive. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .50, Subdivision 6 B, C, to ermit construct- ion of a garage 25 feet from Ordinary High Water Mark Code requires 100 feet This meeting was continued from the July 11 1985 meeting to allow proponent time to prepare alternative plans and talk with neighbors. • William Kelly, proponent, spoke to the request. His alternate plan is to attach the garage to the house. This would be maintaining 38 feet from the lakeshore which is 2 feet above flood plain. Plans were displayed. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - August 8, 1985 Krueger asked what the elevation of the house was. Durham said • that it was at 920 feet. The garage would be level with the house. Lynch asked what the variance request was now. Kelly said that the request was 38 feet from the lakeshore. Sandvick asked how it fit in with the DNR. Durham said that he had spoken with Bob Obermeyer, of the Watershed District. Obermeyer's main criteria was that the garage be 2 feet above the flood plain level . They would also like a grading permit to be filed. Lynch inquired if any significant land alterations were required. Kelly replied no. He thought the elevation of the proposed garage addition was 917 feet. Durham said that the Watershed District would like to see a new survey done showing the elevations. Kerry Moeller, 17300 Padons Drive, stated that he had no objections to the request. MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-25 submitted by William Kelly with the following find- ings: 1 ) A certified land survey be prepared indicating true • location of existing house and proposed garage in relation to the Ordinary High Water Mark of Duck Lake. The survey must also include topography at 1 ' elevations. 2) The garage addition must be located 2' above the Ordinary High Water Mark elevation of 915' . A certified survey must indicate the elevation of the proposed garage. 3) The proponent must submit an application for a grading and land alteration permit to the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District prior to construction. Lynch seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. C. Request #85-27, submitted by E.A. Sween Company for property located at 16101 West 78th Street. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 3, d, 1 , to permit out- side parking of trucks over /4 ton in northwest corner of site. Variance #83-41 prohibited parking in the northwest corner of the site. George Hoff, attorney, and Douglas Fincham, vice-president of E. A. Sween Company, were present, representing E. A. Sween Company. Hoff reviewed the background information. In 1983, E. A. Sween undertook an improvement of the property on Highway #5. As part of the Develop- er's Agreement, there was a request that an application be filed for a variance for parking over 3/4 ton vehicles on the property. An application was filed with the City pursuant to the request. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - August 8, 1985 legal description covers the entire parcel of property. Also, E.;�A. Sween deeded over to the City the access to property, public roadways, and an agreement for Burger King to have access to the property. The application was heard before the Board in November of 1983. There was discussion at that time regarding parking on the entire property. There was parking in the northwest corner and it was related to the maintenance operation. The variance request was granted. Additional language stated that it relates to the areas discussed and reviewed by the Commissions and the Council . It is the position of E. A. Sween that the variance was granted in 1983. They are here as a bookkeeping matey. Hoff felt that the agenda was in error when it stated Variance Request #83-41 prohibited truck parking. Hoff noted that E. A. Sween has been utilizing the property in the same manner for 14 years. In 1979, the company built Fleet Main- tenance Buildings. They have 2 maintenance bays. There are no parking facilities. Trucks to be serviced are parked nearby. For the City to deny the use of the maintenance building would make the building virtually unusable and constitute a great hardship. E.A. Sween is not waiving any of its rights relative to non-conforming status. Variance Request #85-27 is being filed as requested by the City. Durham noted that the City's position is somewhat different, Within the past 2-3 years, there has been an increase in the Fleet Mainten- ance buildings. In 1979, all storage was to be inside 5 buildings. • In 1983, the site plan was changed and the 5 buildings were elimin- inated. The Fleet Maintenance Building had already been constructed. This presented a problem for outside storage. At that time, the City Council approved the project and said that they would be required to get a variance. The variance was granted, but the Board placed a condition on the variance that parking occur in the area reviewed by the City Commissions and Council ,and berming and landscape be com- pleted within one year. There was no parking in the northwest corner. The trucks were to be parked in the Staff portion and screening and landscaping put in. The 1983 variance request was to permit outside parking of vehicles over 3/4 ton necessary to the operation of the principal use,to be stored and parked in the parking lot. The principal use is that of Stewart Sandwiches. The City Council did not know that there was to be an increase in the Fleet Maintenance trucking facilities. The minutes of November 1983, stated that few trucks would be parked in the maintenance area. Krueger asked how many trucks were parked there. Durham said that there were 3 or 4 there right now, Durham displayed photos taken in April 1985 of the site: April 24 - 10 trailers were visible - 10:00 AM April 17 - 9 trailers were visible - 8:00 AM April 15 - 10 trailers were visible 2:50 PM • April 11 - 9 trailers were visible - 11 :15 AM Durham noted that all trailers were visible from County Road #4, Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - August 8, 1985 Fincham said that when E. A. Sween Company was granted the is variance to park, they were given a security gate by Burger King which was to accordion off the parking area from the Burger King traffic. This would prevent non-employees coming in to the facility after working hours. This created the need for temporary surge parking overnight for E. A. Sween, (For vehicles coming in and also for customers that are being serviced. ) Lynch inquired what the normal number of vehicles would be. Fincham said that it varies. On an average, there could be 10 trailers parked on the entire property, The section in question will accommodate 7 or 8. Durham said that in the entire property, there are 10 trucks just in that one area. Fincham stated that there are several trucks waiting for maintenance in the background, The trucks in front are staged for immediate movement. Lynch felt that it was an eyesore situation. The City is asking for some sort of a screening process. Fincham said that the solution that was proposed by their landscape architect was rejected by City Staff, It appears that there is not much that can de done to screen the vehicles from County Road #4. Lynch felt that the impact could be softened. Lynch said that one of the problems arising from the proposal sub- mitted, was that the fence was not on E.A. Sween property. Fincham agreed. He said that Burger King was not interested in putting a fence in there because they want parking in that area. Fincham noted that to reach the proper level for screening would require a 30 foot fence. E. A, Sween is not in a position to do that; they are hoping that a smaller fence would be appropriate. Durham said that a fence is one option. Plantings could also be used. Krueger asked how high the semi-trailers were. Durham said that they were from 13-15 feet high. Krueger inquired if the vehicles are parked up to the property line. Fincham said that they go out beyond the berm. There is natural foliage. A 20 foot berm protects the view from County Road #5. From County Road #4, you can see the vehicles for 12 seconds as you drive by, or if you are in the Burger King parking lot they • are visible. Krueger suggested putting in a 4-5 foot high berm with 8 foot high trees, for 40 feet, for the length of the trailers. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - August 8, 1985 Krueger read the Variance Request from the November 11 , 1983 • meeting: "Request #83-41 , submitted by E. A. Sween for property located at 16107 West 78th Street. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 39 J. Outside Storage & Displays, 1 , to permit outside parking of vehicles over 3/4 ton necessary to the operation of the principal use to be stored and parked in the parking lot. " This request was approved with the following findings : 1 ) Parking occur in the area reviewed by City Commissions and Council and berming and landscape work be complete within one year. 2) If additional plant material or berms are found necessary by the City Landscape Architect, that E. A., Sween install additional material as requested by the Landscape Architect. Fincham felt that his supervisor would not approve of additional berming. He would like to look at additional plantings. Durham said that E. A. Sween's architect was working with Scott Kipp, Assistant City Planner.. Some of the problems on the site • were that some of the original landscaping was not there,or it was put in the wrong place. Fincham felt that to talk about an extremely expensive remedy is inappropriate. Lynch said that there is an operation at E. A. Sween that is not intended to be there. It was sold as a service center for the trucks and is another business now. Fincham said that E. A. Sween is performing the same function for customers as for their own vehicles. Lynch noted that there is a lot more activity there now. Anderson stated that in 1983� there were concerned neighbors at the meeting. Fincham said that the reason that they are doing outside business is to use the facility as much as they can to help defray the expenses of the facility. Krueger suggested that the request be continued. Fincham agreed. MOTION: Anderson made a motion to continue Variance Request #85-27, submitted by E. A. Sween Company to the next regularly scheduled meeting, September 12, 1985. This will allow pro- ponent time for further planning and to work with City Staff. Lynch seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 7 - August 8, 1985 D. Request #85-28, submitted by Vantage Companies for property_ • located on the east side of Highway #169, south and west of Prairie Center Drive. The request is for a variance from IT—City IT—City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2, B, to permit a floor area ratio of .213, Code maximum permits .20) , 2 City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 3, H, 3, to permit a 60' curb to curb arkin dimension, Code requires 63 feet) , 3 City Code, Chapter 11 .03, Subdivision 3, H, 4, to permit parking at 5.4 stalls per 1000 square feet, Code requires 8 per 1000 square feet) . The City Council approved lst Reading of the proposed project on July 16, 1985, contingent upon the Board of Appeals and Adjust- ments approval of the variance request. Bruce Watson, architect, representing Vantage Companies, reviewed the request with the Board. Plans were displayed. Vantage Com- panies is proposing a 27,700 square foot retail center on 2.99 acres. Originally, the site was proposed to be 4.68 acres, accommodating a building area of 33,260 square feet for retail and restaurant usage. A revised proposal divides the 4.68 acre into a 2.99 acre parcel and 1 .5 acre site. The 2.99 acre site will be utilized for retail space and 1 .5 acre site for future free-standing restaurant. Vantage is requesting a F.A.R. of .213 for the retail site with a maximum of 7500 square foot restaurant, which would give the overall area F.A.R. of .183. They are not • looking for a variance, but an interpretation of the ordinance to allow approval . The projects, combined, have an F.A.R. of .183, which is lower than the .2 F.A.R. maximum permitted by City Code. Krueger inquired if parcels could be combined. Durham said that the Board could place conditions where they felt necessary. Watson read from the Planning Department Staff Report of June 12, 1985. It reads in part: "The size of the restaurant for a portion of Site 6 has been reduced from 9,500 to 7,500 square feet, which results in a corresponding decrease in the increased P.M. peak hour traffic, from 19% to %5. Staff is comfortable with this as long as Vantage is willing to commit to working with the City to work with traffic generation on adjacent sites within the Southwest Crossing Planned Unit Development, and, if necessary, reduce the traffic generation on other sites." Watson noted that Staff has endorsed this concept of combining retail and restaurant site for F.A.R. of .183. Watson said that the F.A.R. could be reduced by adding an additional 3 feet to the property dimension and increasing the site area. An additional 3 feet for landscape will not do much good. The primary • concern is the economics of the project. There are a number of exorbitant expenses incurred in the project such as: prorata share of roads, utilities, and developing a second access to this site. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 8 - August 8, 1985 Substantial mass grading is required. There are also areas of • poor soil . The land use economics of adding 3 feet onto the rear property line by 580 feet long at a retail cost of the land of $10 a square foot,would be adding an additional $17,400 in land costs just to this project. In a project of this size, Vantage would not be able to compete with the marketplace. Watson noted that with the two projects together with an F.A.R. of .183, they are in line with existing shopping malls in Eden Prairie. Krueger said that if we can put a stipulation that the overall between the 2 sites is comparable with the existing shopping malls, then there is no problem regarding the 63 foot curb to curb dimension required by Code. Watson read from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 3, H,, Off Street Parking Facilities. It reads in part: 2. "Parking Spaces Defined. For purposed of this Chapter, a parking space shall be defined according to the following table of dimensions except that a parking space in a garage or carport shall not be less than 10 feet wide and 20 feet long. " • Watson said that the ordinance does not address the difference between a curb to curb situation versus a wall to wall situation. Vantage is looking for an interpretation of the ordinance, not a variance, to allow an overhang credit where the stalls abutt up to the landscape area or walkway. The overhang would not obstruct pedestrian traffic along the walkway. Krueger asked how wide the sidewalk was. Watson replied that the sidewalk is a minimum of 5 feet at the sides of the building. Across the base of the building is 8 feet to the canopy line with an additional 2 feet above the overhang. Krueger felt that if the variance is granted, it would set a pre- cedent. The parking areas are tight. Watson stated that documentation has been submitted to the Planning Staff regarding what other municipalities are doing regarding zoning ordinances, magazines articles from national authorities, in-trade journals on parking design and automobile sizing. These articles are pointing to a trend of down sizing of automobiles. The 63 foot curb to curb parking stall is designed for the bulk of the cars in the mid '60's that were in the 18-19' range. The average length of car on the road now is approximately 15 feet. Lynch asked what was wrong with downsizing the sidewalks on the 8 • foot sidewalk. Watson said that it would be preferable to adding site areas. An adequate compromise would be to allow a 61 foot Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 9 - August 8, 1985 curb to curb and take out 1 foot in the overhang so it would be • down to a 5 x 5 foot area, clear between the column and the store- front. Krueger asked if we are in the parking setback at 63 feet. Durham replied no. Krueger did not see the hardship in the variance other than the economic one. Lynch felt that the building did not fit on the lot. The economic problem does not concern the Board. Compliance with the ordinance or some kind of hardship is the concern of the Board. Watson said that there are three options of approaching the request for a smaller parking stall : grant a variance for the 60 foot park- ing dimension, a Code amendment change or asking the Board if the Code could be interpreted to include credit for an overhang condition. Watson read from the Staff Report of June 12, 1985. It reads in part: "Staff would be more comfortable with processing a request for Code amendment; however, based upon a preliminary survey of adjoining communities , Staff feels that there is not enough evidence that would indicate that Eden Prairie's • requirements are excessive. Some communities give credit for an overhang condition, between la to 22 feet. This may have some validity in situations where parking directly abutts a sidewalk, and if there is adequate room for two- way pedestrian movement, between the building and the bumpers, or in situations on the perimeter of the parking lot where the overhang would not interfere with snow storage areas, or plant materials required for screening of parking areas. Credit for an overhang condition may have merit, and asking the Board of Appeals for an interpretation of the ordinance to allow this, would not, in Staff's opinion, be a wholesale change in the ordinance, and also would not require a variance, which could be a precedence setting condition. If the Board was to deter- mine that the overhang condition has validity, Staff would monitor projects to determine if there were parking and man- uevering problems. Watson said that the Planning Department very strongly endorses the interpretation of the ordinance to allow 1 .6 overhang and the curb to curb situation as having reasonable validity. Krueger stated that he designs parking lots and is not comfortable with the plan. Lynch is uncomfortable with the plan as there is too much on the piece of ground. Lynch felt that a 1 foot snowstorm would pose a • concern. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 10 - August 8, 1984 Watson did not want snow removal brought up as an issue. Their standard policy on snow removal is to remove it from the site. They do not stock pile snow on the site. Watson noted that in 5 years, they have developed 3 different properties in Bloomington. They were granted 61 foot curb to curb parking dimensions without having to go before the City to get a variance. Watson said that they did look at 9 other municipalities. Of those 9, the average curb to curb dimension is 59.77. The mean is 60 feet. Documentation has been submitted to the Planning Department. Watson stated that as developers, they are not asking for anything more than anything they could get from any other muncipality. Watson noted, in regard to the parking request, Eden Prairie has granted variances for 5.5 stalls per 1 ,000 square feet. Watson said that there is the opportunity for shared parking at the restaurant site. This is in conformance with Eden Prairie's long term Land Use Guide Plan. Watson stated that they would be willing to give 1 foot at the overhang without jeopardizing the functional aspects of the project. Watson said that research has ,shown that upwards of 60% of the cars on the road are mid-size compacts or sub-compacts. Krueger felt that the 40% that don't drive a mid-size shouldn't have to suffer. Watson stated that the larger car does gain some borrowed space on adjacent parking stalls in which to maneuver. Krueger did not agree. Watson asked what it would take to get the City of Eden Prairie to review the ordinance and do research and possibly revise it. Krueger said that it would have to be brought up at a City Council meeting. They could direct the Staff to do research and change the ordinance. Watson stated that he would like to compromise. He proposed to take l foot at the canopy, add 1 foot at the rear property line and get 1 foot credit for overhang. Krueger said that the variance would be for 182 foot parking spaces then. MOTION: Lynch made a motion to approve Variance Request #85-28, submitted by Vantage Companies, with the following findings: 1 ) The F.A.R. at the time of the building of the proposed restaurant come into conformance with the total property. 2) It is reasonable to perceive that you could have 2 foot overhang in the total parking lot (either in the greenspace or on the sidewalk area). 3) The parking is not unlike variances granted for other shopping malls in the City. Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 11 - August 8, 1985 4) There is the possibility of shared parking at the time of • the restaurant construction. 5) Permit a F.A.R. of .213, (Code F.A.R. maximum is 0.20). 6) Permit a 62 foot curb to curb parking dimension, (Code requires 63 feet). 7) Permit parking at 5.4 stalls per 1 ,000 square feet, (Code requires 8 per 1 ,000 square feet). Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. E. Request #85-29, submitted by Vantage Companies for property located at 10340 Viking Drive. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2 B, to permit front yard parking setback for 6 stalls, at 30 feet PUD permitted 35 feet fron yard setback from Viking Drive, City Code requires 50 feet . Bruce Watson, architect, presented the request to the Board. Lynch noted that there was a change in the platting which doesn't require the variance. Watson said that the plat has been signed off by the City. It has been delivered to Hennepin County. The surveyor has reviewed and checked it. Once the duplicate certif- icate of title has been recorded, the surveyor will sign the plat. • Vantage is planning on a mid-November completion date. Durham said that they can continue with their building process until the next meeting. MOTION: Anderson made a motion to continue Variance Request #85-29, submitted by Vantage Companies, until the next reg- ularly scheduled meeting, September 12, 1985. Krueger sec- onded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. III. OLD BUSINESS Lynch questioned if the City Council could be approached with the possibility of adding l or 2 more members to the Board. It is an un- comfortable situation with only 3 members at a meeting. Sandvick wondered how many members were on the Boards in other mun- icipalities. Durham said that he would check it out. IV. NEW BUSINESS None V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Krueger moved, seconded by Anderson, to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 PM. Motion carried unanimously.