Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014/05/28 - ADMIN - Minutes - Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular OFFICIAL MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2015 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK 6:00 p.m. The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a meeting on May 28, 2015, at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota – Council Chambers. Members Present: James Gainsley, Justin Kaufman, Paul Roberts, Henry Solmer Members Absent: Susan Bloyer Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 24, 2014 Commissioner Solmer made a motion to approve the minutes of July 24, 2014. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0. (note: Commissioner Kaufman arrived at 6:05 p.m.) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance: Floor Area Ratio Location: 5305 Parkdale Drive Applicant: St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Mgr. Case No. 15-18-VAR Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He explained that the applicant is in the process of remodeling an industrial building into an indoor self-storage facility. The applicant would like to construct a second floor inside the building. The 0.5 FAR maximum, however, limits how much of the building can be improved with a second floor. The applicant is requesting a 0.2 increase to the allowed 0.5 maximum floor area ratio. If approved, the variance would allow the applicant to construct a second floor throughout the building. Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals May 28, 2015 Page 2 Mr. Morrison reviewed zoning code regulations regarding Floor Area Ratio within the I-P (Industrial Park) District. Mr. Morrison reviewed staff findings for variance criteria. As regards whether or not the request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, he stated that an increase of FAR to 0.7 is not in harmony with the intent of the ordinance. He stated that all properties in the I-P district are required to maintain a FAR less than 0.5. The request to exceed the maximum would give the applicant more rentable floor area than allowed at any other property in the district. Mr. Morrison said staff is unable to determine that a practical difficulty exists to prevent conformance with the 0.5 FAR. Mr. Morrison said staff has not been able to find unique circumstances applying to the property that would require increase in FAR. Mr. Morrison stated that the 0.5 maximum FAR does not prohibit reasonable use of the property. The building has had reasonable use since construction, and the applicant is in the process of renovating it into a self-storage facility that meets the 0.5 FAR. Mr. Morrison said a practical difficulty does not exist that would require a FAR greater than allowed by City Code and applied to other properties in the district. The applicant has reasonable use of the property, and has already begun construction of that use. He said it appears that the request would result in a convenience that would allow more rentable floor area. Mr. Morrison stated that based on the review, staff is recommending a motion to adopt a resolution denying the requested variance. Commissioner Kaufman asked for additional background as to criteria regarding whether or not a request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance as it relates to FAR. Mr. Morrison responded that FAR addresses building bulk, height, and traffic. He added that it also addresses a level playing field; all properties have a certain amount of floor area to work with. Commissioner Kaufman asked for an example of a unique circumstance. Mr. Morrison answered that typically in looking at unique circumstances with a variance request it is easier to point one out that applies to setbacks because the shape of the property comes into play or maybe the property is impacted by a Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals May 28, 2015 Page 3 wetland. He said in the current request the property is approximately 2.95 acres in size, plenty of area to construct a building that does meet the FAR requirement. Staff has been unable to come up with something related to the property that is unique to that property that would require it to have a higher FAR than other properties in that zoning district. Commissioner Solmer inquired as to the zoning and desired use in the West End area. He asked what desired uses might be. Mr. Morrison said the property is guided Industrial and is zoned Industrial Park. He said uses that are anticipated include multi-family, office or MX-Mixed Use. Commissioner Roberts asked how something is categorized as a practical difficulty. Mr. Morrison said staff looks specifically at the request, asking what would justify going from a 0.5 to a 0.7. What kind of practical difficulties exist to justify that increase. He said typically when looking at a variance one argues that the property owner does not have reasonable use of the property without a variance. He said in this case staff cannot come to a conclusive answer to be able to say to the board that this variance is needed for this property to have a reasonable use. He said it has had a reasonable use since it was built. Staff has not been able to come up with a practical difficulty, something unique to this property that is preventing them from having reasonable use. He added that variance requests are reviewed by the entire Planning Department. Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing. Todd Jones, Jacobs Management and St. Louis Park Properties, LLC, applicant, said they are very pleased to be moving forward with the construction of the project. He said they believe it will be an excellent location for the company, residents and small businesses of St. Louis Park. He said there is no question that there is significant demand for this product in St. Louis Park. He said if the demand is not satisfied in St. Louis Park additional storage facilities will be developed elsewhere in the market. Mr. Jones stated St. Louis Park has an IP District, which allows 0.5 FAR, and it has an IG District which allows FAR of 1.0. He said across the street 1.0 is allowed. His company is asking for 0.7, which is in-between. Mr. Jones discussed construction plans. He said the expansion would be within the existing envelope. The request is not to expand the exterior or the footprint but to expand the building floor area utilizing only the space within the existing building envelope. He said plans would significantly reduce the present hardcover on the site. Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals May 28, 2015 Page 4 Mr. Jones discussed the business. He said most of the customers come from a one to two mile radius. He said 25 % of their customers are small business owners in the community. He said the use is a very low industrial use and the lowest generator of traffic. Mr. Jones said the company is local and has developed properties nationally for over 25 years. He distributed before and after photographs of several properties the company has developed. Mr. Jones stated that the building is a bit of an oddball. The north building was built as a separate building in 1960 with frontage on Parkdale Dr. The south building has frontage on Cedar Lake Road. Forty years later a company gained control of both buildings and they built a middle building in 1999 which connects all the buildings together. He said the building isn’t impossible but very difficult with different floor elevations, different roof elevations, and different ceiling heights. He said there are a series of ramps tying the buildings together internally. He stated that these conditions are very unique to this property. It makes it very difficult for any use to go in there. Mr. Jones said they found a way to do it as they have flexibility with their product type. Mr. Jones discussed exterior improvements which will coincide with the interior floor expansion. These include reduction of hardcover on site to be replaced with a rain garden and significant landscape design. The rain garden would control rate and quality of stormwater discharged from the site. An interior drive- through loading area is also included in the expansion. The north and south building facades will be enhanced and updated with contemporary design. Mr. Jones distributed photographs of similar conversion projects the company has completed. Mr. Jones said the request is not all about economic gain. He said it is a feasible project. It is going forward. They want to provide the best development plan possible for the benefit of everybody. He said he has discussed the plan with many neighbors in the community. They all support it and cannot imagine the variance request not being approved. He said the company has one opportunity to do the project right. William Griffith, Larkin Hoffman Attorneys, representing the applicant, discussed the criteria regarding reasonability. He said the Minnesota Courts have said “Is the applicant proposing something that is reasonable in light of the locality, impact on neighbors and impact on infrastructure?” Mr. Griffith said the applicant submits that it is a reasonable proposal. In regards to the rational basis of FAR and is it negatively impacted by granting a variance, Mr. Griffith submits that generally the purpose is to control bulk, height, density, intensity of use to as not to burden the public infrastructure and over burden the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Griffith said he did not believe the purpose of zoning is to regulate economics. He asked is the zoning ordinance undermined by granting what the Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals May 28, 2015 Page 5 applicant feels is a modest variance. He said the answer has to be no, based on staff’s own findings. Mr. Griffith said regarding reasonability, the variance would create no impact on surrounding properties. The additional site enhancements would improve the property and be upgraded for the area. Mr. Griffith said storage center uses are the lowest trip generating uses. Mr. Griffith said he wanted to read four positive findings about the use found in the staff report. He read those findings. In summary Mr. Griffith asked why grant the variance? Mr. Griffith said the proposed use is reasonable. Mr. Griffith discussed the unique circumstances. He said to not grant the variance wastes the opportunity to maximize this use in this location. If the city does not want to see the use proliferated then why would it deny a variance that would maximize the use without impacting neighbors. He discussed the service provided to the community. Mr. Griffith discussed the zoning rationale for FAR. He stated the rationale basis for FAR is not undermined by a modest increase from 0.5 to 0.7. Commissioner Roberts said practical difficulty was mentioned in the attorney’s letter multiple times. He asked Mr. Griffith to comment. Mr. Griffith said the applicant finds the practical difficulty is having an industrial building with this configuration. Because it is not generally amenable for typical industrial use or industrial park, to make the best use of the building under the 0.5 FAR creates a practical difficulty in re-using the building. Construction is already underway for a storage center. How do you best use the building? And is the proposal for best use of building reasonable in light of the circumstances and what is that impact on others. And that is part of the practical difficulty finding. Mr. Griffith said that is in case law. Commissioner Kaufman asked Mr. Griffith if he was saying the practical difficulty lies with the nature of the property, not of the applicant’s making. Mr. Griffith said that was correct. Commissioner Solmer asked if any of the projects the company has developed involved an increase in the FAR. Mr. Jones said no variances were required. The Chair closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to speak. Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals May 28, 2015 Page 6 Mr. Solmer asked about the potential buyer for the property proposing retail development who was discouraged by the city from going forward. Mr. Morrison said a proposal was brought forward for a one-story strip mall. Commissioner Kaufman asked if that proposal was for a tear down. Mr. Morrison responded that it was for a tear down. Commissioner Kaufman stated if the issue for the FAR is bulk, height and traffic with no effect on surrounding area, that sways him a little bit. He said his other concern regards the difficulty with a three building connection and using the property as it is, as opposed to a tear down. Commissioner Roberts said those were his concerns too. The FAR is 3 of the 4 things staff mentioned. He said the one thing he is hung up on is the fairness of everyone having to comply with the 0.5 FAR in that zoning district and if there is unfair advantage there. He said he could be persuaded either way. Chair Gainsley said the applicant is given a very wide latitude with the 0.5 FAR and is being given just about everything in the way of reasonable use and there is really no hardship. The building is there, the space is there and it is being used to its fullest capacity, using it reasonably, and will make money with it. Chair Gainsley said he doesn’t see there is any particular problem with the project and doesn’t see any reason to have a variance. He said he doesn’t see a practical difficulty that would be of such an immediate need that a variance would be warranted. Commissioner Kaufman asked if the bar for practical difficulty was so that high that the property could not be used but for the variance? Mr. Morrison answered that it used to be that high. He said there is a little more discretion in the recent statute changes. Reasonable use is still part of the consideration. Can this property be used as it is? Yes, it can. He said the Novartis property is a primary example of that as it was built in several stages with uneven floors and that is not uncommon in St. Louis Park. These buildings are old and have been added on to. And they are being re-used. The Novartis building was snatched up immediately and is almost fully complete and almost fully occupied. Commissioner Solmer stated that by allowing the requested variance, the board would be letting the developer push the city into a different direction long-term for the use of this land than the city has currently planned. Official Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals May 28, 2015 Page 7 Chair Gainsley made a motion to deny the variance request based on the staff report. The motion failed on a vote of 2-2. (Gainsley and Solmer voting to deny; Kaufman and Roberts voting against motion to deny). Commissioner Kaufman made a motion to approve the variance. The motion failed on a vote of 2-2. (Kaufman and Roberts voting to approve; Gainsley and Solmer voting against motion to approve). Mr. Morrison read the statement regarding appeal to the City Council. 5. Unfinished Business 6. New Business A. Election of Officers Commissioner Roberts nominated Justin Kaufman for Chair. Chair Gainsley remarked that Justin Kaufman had not yet served five years. Chair Gainsley nominated Paul Roberts for Chair. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. Chair Gainsley nominated Justin Kaufman for Vice-Chair. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. 7. Communications 8. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Administrative Secretary