Loading...
07-27-10 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 27,2010 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, July 27,2010 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 Cera. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes - June 22, 2010 MOVED by Sell, seconded by Nelson and motion carried to approve the June 22, 2010 minutes as submitted. Cera abstained from voting. Segelbaum referred to a recent Supreme Court of Minnesota case that talked about the standards that apply when City's consider undue hardship in reviewing variance requests. He summarized the definition of hardship as follows: 1) the property cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by official controls, 2) the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to property and not created by the landowner, and 3) the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. He said the court case appears to have modified the standards but according to the City Attorney the Board of Zoning Appeals, when discussing the Semper Development proposal on this agenda, should consider the City's existing standards because the original variance application was submitted before the court ruling. Kisch added that it is his understanding that the City Attorney will be updating the Board of Zoning Appeals at a future meeting. II. The Petitions are: Continued Item - 2530 Winnetka Ave N (10-06-04) Semper Development Ltd. Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.70, Subd. 3 Off-Street Parking Requirements . 9 parking spaces off the required 58 parking spaces for a total of 49 parking spaces Purpose: To allow for the construction of a Walgreens store. Hogeboom reminded the Board that Semper Development was on their agenda last month with a request for a front yard variance to allow for the proposed building to be constructed closer to Winnetka Avenue than required. At that meeting the Board tabled the request Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 27,2010 Page 2 and indicated to Semper Development that it may look more favorably at allowing a reduction in the number of required parking spaces instead of the requested front yard variance. Hogeboom referred to a revised site plan and explained that the applicant has moved the proposed building further to the east and reduced the number of parking stalls required. He explained that this revised proposal also eliminates the access driveway on Rhode Island Avenue so the only access points to this property are on Winnetka Avenue. Hogeboom referred to the City's parking requirements and explained that retail uses require 1 parking space per 250 square feet of retail space so the requirement for this proposal would be 58 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to have 49 parking spaces, which staff supports. Hogeboom explained that the applicant will also have to go before the Planning Commission and City Council for their Lot Consolidation request and their Conditional Use Permit request. Segelbaum asked if the closure of the Rhode Island access will reduce the number of steps in the approval process. Hogeboom said no and explained that the applicant will have to go through the same approval process and that the Rhode Island access issue would have been looked at as a part of the Lot Consolidation process. Segelbaum asked if the remaining accesses are on the owner's property of if they would go over an easement. Hogeboom stated that both accesses are on the owner's property. Segelbaum asked if the setback lines shown on the applicant's plans reflect the taking of right-of-way by the County. Hogeboom said yes, the plans take into account the County's taking of additional right-of-way. Segelbaum asked if the City's parking requirements are current or if they have been in place for many years. Hogeboom said the parking requirements have been in place for quite some time and explained that there has been a trend in some cities to reduce the number of required parking spaces. John Kohler, Semper Development, Applicant, stated that Walgreens has reviewed the proposed new plans in detail and they feel having 49 parking spaces on this property will be adequate. Sell asked how this proposed Walgreens compares in size to the Walgreens store on 42nd and Winnetka in New Hope and the store on Cedar Lake and Louisiana in St. Louis Park. Kohler said the proposed Golden Valley store will have approximately 11,000 square feet of retail space which is similar to both of the stores Sell referenced. Sell said he has looked at the parking at the Walgreens in New Hope and there have never been more than 15 cars parked in the parking lot, however the drive-thru traffic was fairly steady. He said he feels comfortable with the 49 ~arking spaces being requested. Nelson asked about the size of the Walgreens at 50 h and France. Kohler said that store is 7,000 square feet and has 13 parking spaces. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 27,2010 Page 3 Cera referred to Walgreens stores that have 2 stories and asked if those stores have a smaller footprint and if that option was considered in this case. Kohler said the footprint of the 2-story building is slightly smaller but not small enough to be able to fit more parking spaces on the site. Sell asked where the store's merchandise would be delivered. Kohler stated there is no loading dock, just a delivery door and that a truck would pull up along the south side of the building to unload merchandise once a week. Kisch referred to the site plan and asked if the Fire Department or Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed turning radius around the island area. Hogeboom said the Fire Department and Engineering Department have reviewed the revised plans. Kohler added that they are still fine tuning the island area but that the site will meet the turning radius requirements. Kisch asked about the actual impact on traffic. Hogeboom explained that the County was most concerned about traffic turning on Medicine Lake Road but they don't foresee this Walgreens store severely impacting traffic. Kohler added that the traffic at Walgreens tends to be more of a trickle and does not produce peak hour traffic like an office use might. Segelbaum asked if Walgreens has considered purchasing other adjacent properties for this proposal. Kohler said Walgreens did consider purchasing adjacent properties but it made the project too cost prohibitive. Segelbaum asked if Walgreens is continuing to look at purchasing adjacent properties. Kohler said not to his knowledge. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Sell stated that since last month's meeting he has been paying more attention to Walgreens stores. He noted that Walgreens are typically located on a corner and in this case he understands why the applicant didn't purchase the corner property because the traffic pattern in this area will work better with the store placed further away from the corner. He said he is in favor of the proposal since the traffic will be more sporadic and not all at peak hours. Nelson said she is also in favor of the proposal and feels like the applicant came back with a good revised plan. She added that she doesn't like looking at a "sea of asphalt" in the front of buildings so she is happy with this proposed plan. Kisch said he feels a hardship was forced upon the applicant in this case because of the City's parking requirements and the so called need for more parking. He said he feels a reduction in the amount parking is better because it reduces in the amount of impervious surface by 2% and will increase the amount of landscaping. He said he is in support of granting the variance request and feels it is an improved plan compared to the original proposal. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 27, 2010 Page 4 Cera said he agrees with Kisch. He said he thinks the proposed design works and it is nice to see an applicant work with the Board of Zoning Appeals. Segelbaum referred to the criteria used when deciding on a variance request and noted that the plight of the landowner in this case was not created by the landowner, the proposal won't alter the locality, in fact it would improve the locality, and it is a reasonable request in light of its use and impact so he is also in favor of granting the variance. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance request: 9 parking spaces off the required 58 parking spaces for a total of 49 parking spaces. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:37 pm. . x _,._ Chuck Segel aum, Cha' J e Hog' boom, Staff Liaison