Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-094 - ADMIN Resolution - City Council - 2010/09/07VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. 10-094 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 36-366(B)(1)G. OF THE ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO BUILDING DESIGN TO PERMIT A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT EXCEEDING THE SHADOW REGULATIONS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT AT 5310 16TH STREET WEST BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: Findings 1. The Excelsior Group, Inc. has applied for a variance from Section 36-366(6)(1)g. of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit a Planned Unit Development exceeding the shadow regulations for property located in the Office Zoning District at the following location, to -wit: Lot 3, Block 1, THE SHOPS AT WEST END, Hennepin County, Minnesota 2. On August 18, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received testimony IIIfrom the public, discussed the application and moved approval of the variance 3. The City Council considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, Tight and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase congestion in public streets, increase fire danger, endanger public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. 5 The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which such land is located. The size of the parcel does not allow for density that was planned and appropriate for the overall PUD unless a variance for shadowing is granted. In order to meet the shadowing impact to the adjacent properties, the subject parcel could accommodate a building height of approximately 20 feet. A building height of approximately 20 feet would be inconsistent with the long-range plan for the PUD that controls the subject parcel. Resolution No. 10-094 -2- 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant It will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty The proposed 6 -story building is appropriate for this area and site. The proposed mid -rise building shadows a wall of an adjacent hotel building The hotel building wall that will be shadowed was built with the knowledge that some shadowing may occur As a result, the hotel only has windows on its south side for common hallways, there are no windows to individual hotel rooms on the side that would be shadowed. This condition is peculiar to the immediately adjoining property and would not apply generally to other land or structures. 7. The property is currently zoned office and the overlying PUD contemplates a 6 -story building. The requested variance is necessary for the property owner's ability to construct a building that is both consistent with the PUD, the underlying zoning, and the planned building height. 8. The property owner of the hotel to the north (the property impacted by the shadowing of the proposed building) is supportive of the proposed building despite the fact that the hotel will be partially shadowed by the proposed building. The hotel building was designed to situate hotel rooms so that the rooms or users would not be impacted and would have an adequate supply of light. The traffic impacts of multiple family dwellings will be less than the previous hotel concept, and the road improvements in 2009 mitigated the impact of West End development. Granting of the variance will not impact the air supply of any outdoor recreation area of the adjacent properties. The requested variance does not impact the fire danger or endanger the public safety. 10. The requested variance will have no negative impacts on the character and development of the neighborhood, nor will it unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area. The requested variance will not in any way impair the health, safety or comfort of the area. 11. The City's shadow restriction does not apply to buildings within the same PUD. The Hilton Homewood Suites hotel was built by a different developer under its own PUD. However, the planning for The Shops at West End was well along in the process and both projects were well coordinated The probable issue of shadows from the West End Apartments site onto the Hilton Homewood Suites building was identified before development of both projects. The owner and developer of the Hilton hotel was aware of the issue and provided a letter of support to Duke Realty and the City of St Louis Park 12. Given the size and shape of the parcel and the location of the buildings on adjacent properties, granting the requested variance is the only way that a building that is consistent with the overall vision of the PUD can be constructed on the subject parcel Resolution No. 10-094 -3- 13. The contents of Planning Case File 10 -25 -VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the 1110 public hearing record and the record of decision of this case. 0 14. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one year after the variance is granted. 15. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or structure for which the variance is granted is removed. CONCLUSION The application for a variance from shadow regulations for 5310 16th Street West is granted based upon the findings set forth above, and subject to the following condition 1. The property shall adhere to all other requirements of the West End Final PUD and City zoning code. ity Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the in County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Revi Ci for Administration: Attest. /' /GQiv2 Pic >4 City Clerk the City Council September 7, 2010 Mayor • IIUhI H III 101 0111 IIII MO II0 II II • • Certified, filed and/or recorded on 1/10/11 11 00 AM Office of the Registrar of Titles Hennepin County, Minnesota Michael H Cunniff, Registrar offTitles Jill L Alverson, County Auditor and Treasurer Deputy 47 Doc Name: Variance Document Recordmg'Fee Document Total,' Existing Certs 1327277 Pkg ID 684339 $46 00 New Certs This cover sheet is now a permanent part of the recorded document $46 00 • • • VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. 10-094 /3,27.2-77 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 36-366(B)(1)G. OF THE ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO BUILDING DESIGN TO PERMIT A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT EXCEEDING THE SHADOW REGULATIONS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT AT 5310 16TH STREET WEST BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: Findings 1. The Excelsior Group, Inc. has applied for a variance from Section 36-366(b)(1)g. of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit a Planned Unit Development exceeding the shadow regulations for property located in the Office Zoning District at the following location, to -wit: Lot 3, Block 1, THE SHOPS AT WEST END, Hennepin County, Minnesota 2. On August 18, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received testimony from the public, discussed the application and moved approval of the variance. 3._ The City Council considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase congestion in public streets, increase fire danger, endanger public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which such land is located. The size of the parcel does not allow for density that was planned and appropriate for the overall PUD unless a variance for shadowing is granted. In order to meet the shadowing impact to the adjacent properties, the subject parcel could accommodate a building height of approximately 20 feet. A building height of approximately 20 feet would be inconsistent with the long-range plan for the PUD that controls the subject parcel. Resolution ;\10. 1,9-094 -2- 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a • substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. • The proposed 6 -story building is appropriate for this area and site. The proposed mid - rise building shadows a wall of an adjacent hotel building. The hotel building wall that will be shadowed was built with the knowledge that some shadowing may occur. As a result, the hotel only has windows on its south side for common hallways; there are no windows to individual hotel rooms on the side that would be shadowed. This condition is peculiar to the immediately adjoining property and would not apply generally to other land or structures. 7. The property is currently zoned office and the overlying PUD contemplates a 6 -story building. The requested variance is necessary for the property owner's ability to construct a building that is both consistent with the PUD, the underlying zoning, and the planned building height. 8. The property owner of the hotel to the north (the property impacted by the shadowing of the proposed building) is supportive of the proposed building despite the fact that the hotel will be partially shadowed by the proposed building. The hotel building was designed to situate hotel rooms so that the rooms or users would not be impacted and would have an adequate supply of light. The traffic impacts of multiple family dwellings will be less than the previous hotel concept, and the road improvements in 2009 mitigated the impact of West End development. Granting of the variance will not impact the air supply of any outdoor recreation area of the adjacent properties. The requested variance does not impact the fire danger or endanger the public safety. 10. The requested variance will have no negative impacts on the character and development of the neighborhood, nor will it unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area. The requested variance will not in any way impair the health, safety or comfort of the area. 11. The City's shadow restriction does not apply to buildings within the same PUD. The Hilton Homewood Suites hotel was built by a different developer under its own PUD. However, the planning for The Shops at West End was well along in the process and both projects were well coordinated. The probable issue of shadows from the West End Apartments site onto the Hilton Homewood Suites building was identified before development of both projects. The owner and developer of the Hilton hotel was aware of the issue and provided a letter of support to Duke Realty and the City of St. Louis Park. 12. Given the size and shape of the parcel and the location of the buildings on adjacent properties, granting the requested variance is the only way that a building that is consistent with the overall vision of the PUD can be constructed on the subject parcel. ® 13. The contents of Planning Case File 10 -25 -VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision of this case. Resolution No. 10-094 -3- 14. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one year after the variance is granted. 15. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or structure for which the variance is granted is removed. CONCLUSION The application for a variance from shadow regulations for 5310 16th Street West is granted based upon the findings set forth above, and subject to the following condition: 1. The property shall adhere to all other requirements of the West End Final PUD and City zoning code. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ) The undersigned, being the duly qualified City Clerk of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, certifies that the foregoing resolution is a full, true and correct copy of the original Resolution No. 10-094 adopted at the St. Louis Park City Council meeting held on September 7, 2010. WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of St. Louis Park this 3rd day of January 2011. —Y1Nancy J. St h, ity Clerk