Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15-085 - ADMIN Resolution - City Council - 2015/07/06• RESOLUTION NO. 15-085 RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND DECISION REVERSING THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS' (BOZA's) DENIAL OF ST. LOUIS PARK PROPERTIES APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the following Findings and Decision are adopted reversing the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) denial of St Louis Park Properties application for variance to the maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR). PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. On or about April 28, 2015, St. Louis Park Properties filed a written request for a variance related to the Floor Area Ration ("FAR") Specifically, the applicant is requesting a 0.7 FAR where only a 0.5 FAR is allowed. 2. On May 28, 2015, BOZA conducted a public hearing regarding the application. 3. BOZA voted 2-2 to approve the variance, which means the variance request was denied. BOZA adopted Resolution 1-15 2015. • 2015. 4. St. Louis Park Properties appealed the decision to the City Council on May 29, 5. The City Council conducted a public hearing regarding the matter on June 15, 6. The record consists of the following: a Council staff report — June 15, 2015 b. Draft resolution upholding the BOZA determination c. Letter of appeal to city council, dated May 29, 2015 with enclosures (i) Letter requesting variance, dated April 28, 2015 (ii) Development plans d. BOZA resolution denying appeal e BOZA staff report with attachments — May 28, 2015 f. BOZA minutes (unofficial) — May 28, 2015 g. Exhibits submitted to BOZA at the public hearing. 7. The City Council closed the public hearing, and on a 4-2 vote directed staff to draft a Resolution approving the variance application 8. The Resolution approving the variance to allow a 0.7 FAR instead of the maximum 0.5 FAR allowed by code came before the City Council on July 6, 2015. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is located at 5403 Parkdale Drive, St. Louis Park, Minnesota ("Subject Property"). 2. The Subject Property is zoned Industrial Park (IP). Resolution No 15-085 -2- 3 The applicant is seeking to add a second floor inside the building that would result in a 0.7 FAR where 0.5 FAR is allowed. 4. When reviewing a variance, the following criteria are examined: A. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The construction will be contained within the existing building, and therefore, will not add additional height to the structure A self -storage facility generates minimal traffic. B. Whether or not the request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The project is a low intensity warehousing -type use, which is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The purpose and intent of the I -P District is to provide locations for large and small scale industrial enterprises engaged in activities including storage, warehousing, and light manufacturing, which are not typically associated with high levels of noise, soot, odors and other potential nuisance impacts upon adjoining properties in and industrial park setting. C. Whether or not the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The request to allow a greater FAR than is otherwise allowed per the zoning ordinance is not addressed by the Comprehensive Plan. D. Whether or not the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. Practical Difficulty means: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the zoning district in which the land is located. A variance can be requested for dimensional items only. The storage facility is permitted in this zoning distnct. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and specifically the existing structure on the property. These circumstances are existing conditions and not created by the landowner. The building was constructed in three different phases, initially as two separate buildings that were later connected at the center. The result is a varying floor to ceiling clearance that is, in a large portion of the building, substantially higher than a traditional building story The result is that the development of any usable space on the first floor leaves a substantial portion of "dead space" where a second floor would be located 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Resolution No. 15-085 -3- The additional floor area is contained entirely within the existing building, and is not noticeable from the exterior. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations are not the pnmary issue to be remedied by the variance. The practical difficulties arise out of the design, construct, and operation of a facility in which a portion of the structure remains dead space that must be designed around and also heated, cooled and secured 5. Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Access to direct sunlight is not a factor in the request or the project E. Whether or not there are circumstances unique to the shape, topography, water conditions, or other physical conditions of the property. The resulting physical condition is a varying floor to ceiling clearance that is in a large portion of the building substantially higher than a traditional building story. The result is that the development of any usable space on the first floor leaves a substantial portion of dead space where a second floor would be located The dead space creates operational (heating, cooling, security, safety, etc) concerns. F. Whether or not the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. The granting of the variance enables the property owner to utilize the space resulting from the high ceilings, and to put the property to more efficient use. G. Whether or not the granting of the variance will impair light and air to the surrounding properties, unreasonably increase congestion, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety. If approved, the proposed variance would not impair light and air to the surrounding properties, or increase the congestion, danger of fire, or endanger public safety. The storage use generates less traffic than other uses allowed in the zoning district H. Whether or not the granting of the variance will merely serve as a convenience or is it necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience. The design and construction of the building results in wasted space that requires the expenditure of energy and resources to heat, cool and secure DECISION Based upon the above findings, the Board of Zoning Appeals' denial of St. Louis Park Properties variance application is reversed The requested variance for 0.7 FAR instead of the maximum 0.5 allowed by the zoning ordinance is approved with the condition that the pavement Resolution No. 15-085 -4- in the southeast portion of the property is removed and replaced with a rain garden and the addition acade improvements are made as illustrated in the Official Exhibits Reviewed +r Administration City M Attest. Adopted by the City Council July 6, 2015