Loading...
06-22-10 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 22, 2010 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 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 - May 25, 2010 MOVED by Sell, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve the May 25, 2010 minutes as submitted. II. The Petitions are: 2940 Kyle Ave N (10-06-03) Pam Bauer, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 2 ft. off the required 30 ft. to a distance of 28 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an open front porch. Hogeboom explained the applicant's request to construct a roof (open front porch) over the existing concrete steps. He noted that this property received a variance in 1981 in order to construct a garage closer to the front yard property line than allowed. He referred to photos of the property and explained that there is platted right-of-way for a street along the north side of this property but there are no plans to construct a street in this location. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this variance request because of the proximity of the homes along Kyle Avenue to the road, there is no impact to neighboring properties and the proposed open front porch will not protrude any further toward the front yard property line than the current garage already does. Kisch referred to the plans submitted by the applicant and questioned the dimensions of the proposed porch and if the variance request should be different than what is shown on the survey. Sell discussed the location of the existing garage and the way Kyle Avenue angles in this location. Hogeboom stated that the applicant is not in attendance and suggested that this item be discussed again after the next agenda item. Segelbaum opened the public hearing, seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 22, 2010 Page 2 Kisch expressed concern about the plans being different than what is shown on the survey. Nelson stated that she doesn't have any issues with the proposed porch but agreed that there is confusion between the plans and the survey. McCarty stated that the Board could vote on the variance as requested and the applicant would just have to make the project work. Sell agreed and added that if the Board approves the variance as requested and the applicant has difficulties with her project she would have to come back to the Board with a different proposal. Segelbaum said he would like more justification as to the hardship and why this applicant needs a variance. Nelson noted that the existing garage already extends further toward the front yard property line than the proposed porch would and the proposed porch wouldn't be creating an impact to the neighboring properties. McCarty said he is in favor of the variance request as it is stated on the agenda. Segelbaum said he is also in favor of granting a variance for a 5-foot roof overhang in order to cover the front steps. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Nelson and motion carried to table this request until the end of the next agenda item in order to allow the applicant time to arrive The applicant did not attend the meeting and the Board resumed discussion of her variance request after the next agenda item. Segelbaum said he is not in favor of voting on the variance request because the plans are contradictory to the survey. MOVED by Sell to table the request to the next Board of Zoning Appeals meeting to allow the applicant to attend the meeting. Nelson said she doesn't have a problem with voting on the variance request at this meeting because she feels it is a legitimate and reasonable request. She said she would support this proposal and if the applicant wants to build something different she would have to come back to Board of Zoning Appeals with a different proposal. Kisch agreed and said he is comfortable with the variance as requested. The motion to table the request was seconded by Segelbaum and was denied 3 to 2. Sell and Segelbaum voted to table the request, Kisch, McCarty, Nelson voted not to table the request. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Kisch and motion carried 3 to 2 to approve the request for 2 ft. off the required 30 ft. to a distance of 28 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line to allow for the construction of an open front porch. Kisch, McCarty, Nelson voted yes. Segelbaum and Sell voted no. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 22, 2010 Page 3 2530 Winnetka Avenue North (10-06-04) Semper Development Ltd, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.30, Subd. 6(A) Yard Requirements . 14.2 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 20.8 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a Walgreens store. Hogeboom stated that John Kohler from Semper Development is in attendance to discuss a proposal from Walgreens to construct a 14,490 square foot store at 2530 Winnetka Avenue North. He explained that the Commercial Zoning District has a 35-foot front yard setback requirement which is required to be maintained as green space. He referred to a site plan and explained that the applicant is asking to construct the proposed new building 20.8 feet to the west property line along Winnetka Avenue. He added that no prior variances have been obtained for this property and the applicant is also going through the process to obtain a Conditional Use Permit and a Lot Consolidation. The lot consolidation is necessary because the property currently consists of three separate lots that need to be consolidated into one. Hogeboom showed the Board a location map and photos of the property and stated that as a part of Hennepin County's review they have noted a potential stacking issue with cars turning westbound onto Medicine Lake Road and therefore the County will be taking additional right-of-way along Winnetka as a part of the lot consolidation/subdivision process. Hogeboom stated that staff is recommending approval of this variance request because the County is taking addition right-of-way, the proposed plan allows for a better site configuration for parking and drive-thru traffic and it will enable the store to be more "walkable" and accessible to pedestrians along Winnetka Avenue which is consistent with the goals listed in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Nelson noted that the existing building has several addresses and asked if the proposed new Walgreens would have only one address. Hogeboom said yes, the new store will have one address. Segelbaum referred to the site plans and asked if they are taking into consideration the property before or after the County's taking of additional right-of-way. Hogeboom stated that the plans submitted show the property after the taking or as if the taking has already occurred. Segelbaum asked how the plans would be different if the County weren't taking any property. He asked about other designs for this proposal and questioned the development process. Hogeboom stated that staff realizes this location has to be sensitive to traffic issues. He explained that earlier designs of this project moved the building further east to avoid variances but it made the site and the drive-thru area more dangerous. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 22, 2010 Page 4 McCarty questioned how moving the building further to the east would cause the drive-thru to be more dangerous. Hogeboom explained that the stacking of cars was a concern in previous plans and that City staff and County staff felt that this proposal is the preferred plan because it allows the cars to move in a circular pattern and reduces the stacking of cars. John Kohler, Semper Development, showed the Board a site plan and discussed various options of situating the building on the site. He said they think that this configuration is the most "walkable" and the safest for cars and pedestrians. Sell asked about the location of the drive-thru window and how many cars could stack in the drive-thru lane. Kohler pointed out the location of the drive-thru window and stated that there is room for three cars to stack. McCarty questioned why the drive-thru wouldn't work in a different configuration if there are only two or three cars stacked in the drive-thru lane. Kohler referred to the site plan and explained the internal traffic patterns in and out of the drive-thru lane and explained how this proposed plan is safer than previously considered plans. McCarty asked if this Walgreens would be replacing the Walgreens near Byerly's. Kohler said no. Kisch asked Kohler to explain how much property is being taken by the County for additional right-of-way. Kohler said the right-of-way varies from zero to nine feet along Winnetka Avenue. Segelbaum asked how much closer to Winnetka Avenue the proposed new building would be versus the existing building. Kohler said it would be approximately 14 feet closer to Winnetka Avenue than the existing building. Kisch questioned the need for the access on the east side of the site and asked if it is a necessary access or just a preferred alternative. Kohler explained that there is a 30-foot dedicated easement along the south side of the site that is part of this property. He stated that it would also allow people to access the site from Rhode Island Avenue. He noted that there is the obvious issue of the VFWs garage located in the easement but he feels that is something that can be worked out with the VFW. Hogeboom added that the access issues will be reviewed as part of the Subdivision process. He stated that the City's Fire and Public Works Department prefer to have that third access on Rhode Island because it will relieve some of the traffic on Winnetka Avenue. Nelson questioned the hardship in this case. Kohler explained that they did come up with a configuration that would work without the need for variances but they feel this plan is better for safety, circulation and flow. He added that this plan also matches better the goals in the City's Comprehensive Plan. He also stated that the taking by the County for additional right-of-way is also creating a hardship. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 22, 2010 Page 5 McCarty questioned the demographics of the pedestrians and said he thinks there would be more pedestrians coming from the east than from Winnetka Avenue so it doesn't make sense to him to move the building further toward Winnetka Avenue. Kohler agreed there would be pedestrians coming from the east but noted they are trying to have the front of the store be on a public sidewalk. He added that they would also be willing to add a sidewalk along the east side of the property. McCarty said he doesn't understand how "walkability" is an issue in this case. Kisch questioned if the City has plans to study Winnetka Avenue, similar to what was done in the Douglas Drive corridor. He said from a planning perspective it makes sense to address street and sidewalk issues and to have an overriding plan for the area. Segelbaum suggested the row of parking stalls along the east side of the building be removed then the building could be shifted away from Winnetka Avenue and no longer require a variance. Kohler stated the proposed plan is right at the correct number of parking spaces required by City Code. Hogeboom stated that a variance would be required if the number of parking stalls is reduced. Sell said he would rather grant a variance to allow the building to come closer to a busy street than to give up any parking spaces, especially since there are no residential properties nearby. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Bill Norberg, 2525 Nevada Avenue North, member of the Golden Valley VFW, stated that there is a garage located in the easement referred to earlier which has a valid building permit. He said their attorney has stated they have a valid right to block access to that easement area and he doesn't intend to give up that easement very easily because the garage has been there for 21 years without issue. He questioned how there will be enough room for semi trucks to make the corners or back out of this property. He said there is going to be a tremendous change in traffic and all of the traffic going east is going to put an undue hazard on the VFW parking lot. He said he was at the Walgreens on 42nd Avenue in New Hope before this meeting and there were two drive-thru lanes with five cars stacked. He added that Semper Development had purchase agreements with other adjacent property owners which they could use and would allow them to follow the code requirements. Dennis Westly, 3020 Kilmer Lane, Plymouth, said he has driven semi trucks for 32 years so he knows the trucks are going to use the alley/easement area because they aren't going to be able to turn around. He stated that there is a lot of traffic and school buses going in and out of Dover Hill and he is concerned about the maintenance of the alley/easement road. He questioned why there are zoning laws if they don't have to be followed. He stated that a building permit was obtained for the garage in 1989 and if there was something wrong with it, something should have been done about it then. Jim Neuberger, 2550 Winnetka Avenue North, said his main concern is all of the traffic. He said people cut through his property on the corner a lot and he really doesn't see any pedestrians on Winnetka. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 22, 2010 Page 6 Sell asked who owns the driveway adjacent to Dairy Queen. Norberg, stated that the VFW owns 10 feet and Dairy Queen owns 10 feet. John Giese, 5545 Golden Valley Road, said there are some bad feelings toward Semper Development because they came in with purchase agreements and the promise of earnest money which was never paid to the VFW. He stated that the VFW gives the community hundreds of thousands of dollars per year and when a resident tries to get a 14-foot variance they don't have much of a leg to stand on. He stated that perhaps Semper Development could purchase the easement or move VFWs garage but any deal needs to be workable, fair and honest. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Kisch said the issue before the Board is the variance request and the other issues regarding the easements, etc will be decided by others. He questioned if the building could be moved toward the east if the Conditional Use permit isn't granted. Hogeboom stated that if the criteria in the Zoning Code regarding Conditional Use Permits are met then the City is obligated to grant the Conditional Use Permit. Kisch stated that the hardship in this case is the property being taken by the County for additional right-of-way. He added that the applicant would probably need a variance even if additional right-of-way wasn't being taken but this is a fairly large variance request. He stated that this property is zoned Commercial and any business could come in with similar traffic issues. McCarty said he is not in favor of the proposed building being so close to Winnetka Avenue. He said he'd be more comfortable with the parking and the building being switched on the site. Sell asked about Hennepin County's process for taking right-of-way. Hogeboom stated that as properties change Hennepin County takes the opportunity to obtain additional right-of-way when it is needed. Segelbaum said he thinks it is wonderful that Walgreens wants to develop in this location but he still wants to balance it against what is best for the City. He said he would prefer if Walgreens bought the entire corner because it would provide better access. He suggested a reduction in the number of parking spaces thereby allowing the building to be moved further east. McCarty agreed that there are other options and said he would like to see them. Sell expressed concern about other properties in the area requesting similar variances in the future as uses change. Kisch agreed and stated that a variance for this property might affect future decisions if the City decides to do a visioning study of the area. He said he Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 22, 2010 Page 7 would also like to see other alternatives and that he would be more in favor of granting a variance to reduce the required parking spaces instead of the variance being requested. Segelbaum suggested amending the requested variance. McCarty said he is hesitant to do that without seeing a new site plan. Nelson agreed. Kohler said he is concerned about the timing of his other applications if this proposal is tabled. Segelbaum said he is inclined to vote in favor of the requested variance. Nelson said she feels like the Board of Zoning Appeals is just one piece of the puzzle. There are other decisions to be made and she is concerned about the future impacts to other properties. McCarty said he would like to vote on the proposal at this meeting and have the applicant come back to the Board with a different plan if need be, MOVED by Sell to table this variance request to the next Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Kisch asked the applicant if he would like the Board to table this request. Kohler said he would be willing to bring the Board a different plan showing fewer parking stalls because he feels he is hearing that the Board may be open to granting a variance. Kisch stated that if the applicant wants to keep the process moving forward maybe the Board should vote on the variance as requested. McCarty said he thinks the City's parking requirements are outdated and he would be flexible regarding the reduction in the number of parking stalls but he is not comfortable having the proposed new building that close to Winnetka Ave. The motion to table this variance request was seconded by Kisch and carried 3 to 2. Sell, Kisch and Nelson voted to table the item, McCarty and Segelbaum voted not to table the item. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:04 pm. J ~.---~, ~.,~. a Chucl Segelbaum, G~fiair~~~"~~ ~°.. `Joe Ho eboom, Staff Liaison