09-22-09 BZA Minutes
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
September 22, 2009
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
September 22, 2009 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair
Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Those present were Members Kisch, Nelson, Segelbaum, Sell and Planning Commission
Representative McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative
Assistant Lisa Wittman.
I. Approval of Minutes - August 25, 2009
Segelbaum asked that the language in the motion for the variance request at 316 Meadow
Lane North be clarified.
MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Selland motion carried unanimously to approve the August
25, 2009 minutes with the above noted clarification.
II. The Petitions are:
Continued Item - 2500 Mendelssohn Avenue North (09-08-14)
Marvin Frieman, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.30, Subd. 11(6)(a) Front Yard Setback
Requirements
. 17.1 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 17.9 ft. at its closest point
to the front yard (west) property line along TH 169.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to the existing building
Hogeboom stated that this applicant was at last month's Board of Zoning Appeals meeting
with a slightly different request. He explained that the applicant's previous request was for
two variances, one along the Mendelssohn Ave. property line and one along the TH169
property line. He reminded that Board that at their last meeting they asked the applicant to
reconsider his proposal in order to make the proposed addition line up with the south end of
the existing building which could possibly include a slightly larger variance request along the
TH 169 side of the property but would require no variance along the Mendelssohn side of the
property. He noted that the applicant has shifted the proposed addition to the north and no
longer requires a variance from the Mendelssohn Ave. property line therefore, staff is
supporting this variance request and feels it is reasonable and is in keeping with what that
the Board discussed at their meeting last month.
Segelbaum noted that the benefit to this revised proposal is that the addition is further away
from Mendelssohn Ave. and that it "squares off" the building on the south end.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
September 22, 2009
Page 2
McCarty questioned if the newly submitted survey is accurate. Kisch referred to the surveys
and plans and stated that the net leasable area seems to have grown from the previous
proposal. Sell referred to the current survey and stated that the size of the proposed addition
is actually smaller than the previous proposal. Kisch stated that there is a discrepancy
between what the plans show and what the surveys show. Hogeboom explained that the
Board should really be considering the survey more than the plans because an applicant can
end up modifying their plans within the confines of a granted variance. Sell added that plans
aren't always drawn by a licensed architect, but surveys are signed by licensed, registered
land surveyors so it makes sense to consider a survey, not floor plans when discussing
variance requests. Segelbaum said he agrees, but noted that it is important to call out
inconsistencies between plans and surveys as part of the decision making process.
Kisch asked the applicant to explain the inconsistency between the plans from last month
and this month. He asked why the first proposal shows the addition to be 16 feet in width and
the current proposal shows the addition to be 18 feet in depth.
Marvin Frieman, Applicant, stated that is just the way the architect drew the plans and the
way he thought the addition would look better. He said he just wants to fix up the property
and make it look nice.
James Smith, Representing the Applicant, noted that no matter how wide the proposed
addition is they would still have to stay 17.9 feet away from the west property line if the
variance is granted.
Kisch questioned if adding leasable square footage to a building really constitutes a hardship.
He asked the applicant if he would be opposed to building a 16-foot wide addition instead of
the currently requested 18-foot wide addition.
Nelson referred to the previous survey and the new survey and stated that the addition is
smaller on the new survey than it was on the previous survey. Kisch said he was looking at
the inconsistency in the plans when trying to figure out the dimensions of the proposed
addition.
Nelson noted that at last month's meeting they discussed the taking of property along the
TH169 exit ramp and that it constituted a hardship in this case. She stated that she thinks the
applicant has done what the Board suggested he do by aligning the south side of the addition
with the existing building so a variance isn't needed along Mendelssohn Ave.
Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Segelbaum closed the public hearing.
McCarty said he is concerned about the discrepancy in the size of the addition shown on the
plans and surveys. He said he was looking for the applicant to shorten the size of the
addition and for it to be further away from Mendelssohn Ave. but the same distance away
from TH169, not closer. He stated that the building might look too large from the TH169 exit
ramp.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
September 22,2009
Page 3
Nelson noted that the difference in the variance requests from last month to this month is
approximately 5 feet. Segelbaum asked Nelson if she favors this proposal over last month's
proposal. Nelson said yes and added that having the addition line up with the south side of
the existing building looks much better.
Sell said he drove by the property and he thinks it will be difficult to even notice the proposed
addition from the TH169 exit ramp. He said he thinks the addition will look much better
"squared off" with the south side of the existing building. He added that this is a very difficult
property to work with and if Golden Valley can get a decent looking office building it will be an
improvement over what is currently there. He said he supports this revised request.
Segelbaum asked about the amount of space between the exit ramp and this property. Sell
said there seems to be quite a bit of green space between the exit ramp and the property
line.
Kisch said he does prefer the "squared off' front of the building but questioned if a 16 foot
side addition worked on the previous proposal why it won't work for this proposal. He stated
that if the width were shrunk the variance request along the west property line would be
closer to the original proposal and the City would have a larger setback area.
Segelbaum said he thinks this is a reasonable request and this new proposal has less of an
impact that the previous proposal. He added that he also likes that the building will be
"squared off' on the south end and he is in favor of this proposal as revised.
MOVED by Sell, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve the
variance request for 17.1 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 17.9 ft. at its closest point
to the front yard (west) property line along TH 169 to allow for the construction of an addition
to the existing building.
III. Other Business
Segelbaum asked Hogeboom if the property owner at 316 Meadow Lane North has appealed
the Board's recent decision to deny her variance request. Hogeboom stated that the property
owner has not appealed the Board's decision but she has until October 1, 2009 to remove
the deck or appeal the decision.
McCarty asked Hogeboom if the City could require surveys to show curb cuts, existing
conditions, surrounding conditions, etc.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 pm.
~~
Chuck Segelb~Chair
j._~
v Joe H geboom, Staff Liaison