The URL can be used to link to this page

03-23-04 BZA Agenda e e e Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, March 23, 2004 7pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes - February 24, 2004 II. The Petitions are: 5621 Duluth Street 55422 (04-03-07) Applebee's International. Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.30, Subd. 6 Parking Requirements . 247 parking spaces off the required 713 parking spaces for a total of 466 parking spaces Purpose: To allow the applicant to operate a restaurant in the Spring Gate Shopping Center 5020 Colonial Drive 55416 (04-03-08) Ken Stone. Kodet Architecture. Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setbacks . 12 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 23 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line along Colonial Drive. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a proposed new entrance, dining room, kitchen and garage addition. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setbacks . 5 ft. off the required 26.24 ft. to a distance of 21.24 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of two new bedrooms, a master bath, and an enlarged family room. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C) Side Yard Setbacks e e e Purpose: . 9.8 ft. off the required 13.3 ft. to a distance of 3.5 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard property line. To bring the existing deck into conformance with building setback requirements. 7155 Medicine lake Road 55427 (04-03-09) Michael B. Pierce. Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.30, Subd. 6 Parking Requirements . 26 parking spaces off the required 52 parking spaces for a total of 26 parking spaces Purpose: To allow the applicant to construct a new 4,441 square foot, 2 story office building. 1529 Fairlawn Way 55416 (04-03-10) Rita and Martin Newman. Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C) Side Yard Setbacks . 7 ft. off the required 12 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second garage stall. III. Other Business IV. Adjournment 2 \ . . . Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals February 24, 2004 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Sell called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Chair Sell, members Cera and Hughes and Plan Representative Keysser. Also present were Director of Planning and Grimes and Recording Secretary Lisa Wittman. Members McCr n were absent. I. Approval of Minutes - January 27,2004 ___4@:;:..::",.. MOVED by Keysser, seconded by Hughes and motionW~i' the minutes from the January 27, 2004 meeting II. The Petitions are: Request: , Subd. 7(A) Yard Requirements 35 ft. to a distance of 8 ft. at its closest point 'ne along Boone Ave. N. Purpose: ommodate City right-of-way and sidewalk needs. Section 11.30, Subd. 7(A) Y~rd Requirements ff the required 35 ft. to a distance of 25 ft. at its closest point north property. line along Golden Valley Road. To allow for the construction of a gas/convenience store with a car wash. Request: Waiver from Section 11.30, Subd. 7(A) Yard Requirements · 17 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 18 ft. at its closest point to the south property line along TH 55. Purpose.: To allow for the construction of a gas/convenience store with a car wash. . . . Minutes of the Board of Zon.ing Appeals February 24, 2004 Page 2 Grimes stated that this request is for variances for the Amoco gas station located at the corner of Boone Avenue and TH 55; He reminded the Board that in 2001 BP made a similar request for a BP Company Store but that that was never built. He stated that the Planning Commission has recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit for this proposed use and that it is expected to go to the City Council in March. He explained that when the gas station was originally built in the 1960's a Conditional Use Permit was not required. Grimes said that the applicant is asking for three setback variances an property is unique because Boone Avenue is on one side, Golden V one side, Highway 55 is on one side and the creek is on one side He explained that the reason the applicant is requesting a v Avenue is because the City is requiring 40 feet of easemen project at TH 55 and General Mills Blvd. . Sell asked how many parking spaces would be ta the fact that the cashier's visibility can not be re c been addressed with the Fire Department and t BP w monitor their gas pumps. He said that app 1/30 pumps were allowed to be counted whe of the stored ue to e that issue has be using video cameras to e parking spaces at the g numbers. Grimes explained that the whole g the improvements being done s hump across TH 55 and adding to General Mills Blvd. and General Mills Blvd. ding issues in the area and that ve the area such as getting rid of the u I s going westbound to southbound on nes going northbound to eastbound on to Hughes asked if B r auto repair service at this location. Grimes said no. Cera compare now and noted Avenue. Grime ested in 2001 with the variances being requested y difference is the variance being requested along Boone . erence is because of the proposed road reconstruction. Ined that Boone Avenue would be much wider. Jd requ feet al referred to located. esign, architect for the project, stated that the previous variance one Avenue was 14 feet. In this proposalthe variance request is for 37 e. He said that the property would be changing considerably and ite plan to show where the new gas pump islands and building would be Hughes asked what they were planning to do to stabilize the soil on the site. Kosmas explained how they were going to build everything on new pilings. Cera asked if they would be moving the existing fuel tanks. Kosmas explained that the tanks will be moved to the northern part of the site and will be built on a platform . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals February 24, 2004 Page 3 supported by pilings underground with straps holding them in place so they will not move. Hughes asked how much the new building would be elevated on the property. Kosmas said that the new building will be one foot out of the floodplain as required and that it would be approximately l' 4" higher than the existing building. Hughes asked if the pump area would be raised as well. Kosmas said yes and explained that there will be a gradual rise to the property, not the upswing there is now. Grimes asked how the berm system will work. Kosmas said his unde the berm being built on the east side of the property will be used overflowing the banks ofthe creek and that the flow of the wat would go into a storm water pond north of Golden Valley Ro full, the water would be pumped over the berm back into th the building will stay dry because it is out of the floodplain bu the first couple rows of pump islands. He said the inte someplace to go with this relief system. as knows sure about ill now have Keysser said.that the Planning Commission has Use Permit for BP and did unanimously re the Board of Zoning Appeals. quest for the Conditional I to the City Council and to . MOVED by Cera, seconded by Ke following variance requests: ried unanimously to approve the . 27 ft. off the required 35 property line along B ce of 8 ft. at its closest point to the west . 17 ft. off the propert n distance of 25 ft. at its closest point to the north y Road distance of18 ft. at its closest point to the south enueW. 55427 (04-02-04) DlS stems Inc. A Iicant Waiver from Section 11.36, Subd. 7(A) Parking Requirements . 19 parking spaces off the required 59 parking spaces fora total of 40 parking spaces. . Purpose: To allow for the construction ofa proposed new 6,700 sq. ft. building expansion. Grimes explained that it was brought to his attention that the site plan given tothe Board was not on a survey. He said that there was an as-built survey for the property . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals February 24, 2004 Page 4 on file and that he verified the setbacks on both documents and found that what they submitted is an accurate representation of the existing conditions on the site and that they do not require any further variances other than the one being requested for the number of parking spaces to go from the required 59 spaces to 40 spaces. Grimes stated that the applicants would like to expand their existing building by adding a 6,700 square foot addition to be used as a storage area for raw materials. He said that the Public Safety Department has reviewed the proposed plans and have suggested that the curb on the east side of the site be moved to make' trucks to access the site. MO reques parking sp Grimes discussed the parkihg on the site and said that the curr for this site are one space per 500 square feet of warehous every 250 square feet of office space. He added that the Ci staff study the City's current parking requirements and that c the requirement be changed to one space per every 1, 0 warehouse space, which he feels is reasonable. H proposing to add any additional employees and any of the newly proposed warehouse space int . Keysser asked if there was on-street pa some on-street parking in the area. area. Grimes said there is Hughes asked why the curb isn' the east side. Grimes said he recommended the curb on on the west side of the site like it is on t t the Inspections Department has only anged. abel, ated that all of the proposed new space will . Is. She explained that trucks come in on the east t side and that the curb will be replaced on the east ed it when entering the site. cks typically enter the site. Tappe said large semi-trucks but that it is mostly smaller vans and trucks coming to the . 2405 Vale Crest Road 55422 (04-02-05) Fred Bruning of Sawhorse Design, Applicant (Jim Kalitowski & Debra Rae. Owners) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(e) Side Yard Setbacks . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals February 24, 2004 Page 5 · .5 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 10 ft. at its closest point to the north s~de yard property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition. Grimes explained that when the applicant originally submitted his proposal, the proposed garage was not drawn on an as-built survey. He said the City had a current as-built survey on file so he drew the proposed garage on it and it turned out that there would be. five additional feet of setback area to the north side yard pro than what was originally proposed. He said thatthe applicants are proposi their existing garage space to living .space and put a new 3-car garage' fr use. He said that there was an email from the neighbor to the west ss the ing they are not in favor of the variance request. . Grimes noted that the proposed garage is only 19 feet deep Board discuss requiring it to be made deeper because1,' front. He added that a large two car garage could all ofthe setback requirements without requesti variance was granted for this property because south side yard property line. The varianc that time was going to build a conformi that addition was never built, but the v legally non-conforming remains v . that the e oom to the roperty and still meet ce e said that in 1990a s built too close to the use the property owner at earof the house. He said ke e south side yard property Keysser referred to a large oak survive the construction of of the home would be di n n site plans and asked if it would ew addition. Grimes said that adding to rear ere is a steep slope to the creek. Hughes asked wha sure but that it is a g 's to the house to the north. Grimes said he wasn't nd the lots are large in this area. il sent by a homeowner in the area who is against this would have any visual impact on them. Grimes said that they proposed addition at all from their house and that they are feet away. whorse Designers and Builders, applicant, stated that the proposed abitable space and that most cities make a distinction between non-habitable space. Cera explained that the Board of Zoning Appeals has to look at the hardship with the property itself and asked the applicant what he feels the hardship is with the property. . Bruning said the orientation of the house on the lot minimizes where they can build . He ad.ded that the property drops-off toward the creek in the rear yard and that the owners have two cars and a boat they would like to store inside a garage and there is no storage space in the rear yard. . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals February24, 2004 Page 6 Cera explained that the precedent has been to allow a second garage stall into the setback area because having only one garage stall could be considered a hardship, but that having two garage stalls and wanting a third has not been considered a hardship. Bruning said traditionally, in the 1940's and 1950's two car garages were a luxury and in the 1960's, 70's and 80's two car garages became more of a necessity and now people two people work and they need the storage space and that they want to keep the neighborhood looking nice and don't want to store things outside. Hughes asked if it is feasible to put a bedroom addition some place Bruning said they looked at a lot of different options butthe walk- be too long. Grimes asked why they are proposing only a 19 foot deepg gain extra storage room by building a deeper garage. Brunin the plans actually measures 20 feet deep which he c . car garage but it doesn't allow for boat or car stor minimize the side yard impact Y could arage on i depth for a 2- at they are trying to Sell said when hefirst saw this request he proposed to build a sizable two car gar would certainly suggest the garage be front yard. He said he is normally stall butthat the owners in this just requesting this variance to the lot to build additional s working onan ordinanc yards. Grimes said the n parked on a hard s e plicant could have any variances. He said he ee since there is room in the ;'l'Ig variances for a third garage ining living space and that they are not r' rage. He.saidthere is no place else on space and referred to the fact that the City is t allow recreational vehicles and boats in front nce Id still allow for one recreational vehicle to be front yard. Keysser asked Bruning said it addition. age addition would be one story with a peak roof. ip roof and would be low profile and wouldn't look like an to approve the variance as requested. The motion was seconded that the motion would allow the applicant to have a to foot side yard and that the addition could be 35 feet to the front yard property line. Keysserasked if it would be a fair trade-off to allow a 22 footwide garage with no side yard. He seconded the motion for approval. Cera stated that the Board has a statutory requirement to give variance approval because of hardships and that there is no precedence and no hardship forthis proposal. He added that approving this variance request would open the floodgates for others in the City to requesfvariances for third stall garages. He said there is nothing . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals February 24, 2004 Page 7 about this lot that says he has to have a 3-car garage versus a functional 2-car garage. He said maybe this is something the City Councilor the Planning Commission needs to discuss but that it is not in the BZA's authority to approve this request right now. Keysser said he shares the same view as Cera, but in this proposal there is a very large area between the houses and the property at 2415 next to this one is in favor of the proposal. Hughes added that the rear yard is inaccessible. . Sell stated thatthe hardship runs with the land and that there is no wh on this lot. He said if there was room on the lot to build anything else say no to this proposal. Cera said the key is that the applicant does not need the thir hardship goes with the lot and not what a person needs. Keysser asked whatthe precedence has been for allo the Board has never granted a variance for a thir has been on the BZA. ges. Cera said e two years that he Grimes said that a 2 to 2 vote would mea He said another option might be to tabl present. equest would be denied. re were 5 BZA members Cera called the question, Hugh request was denied due to fact yes, Keysser and Cera voted no. The to 2 vote. ection 11.21, Subd. 7(e) Side Yard Setbacks . off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 12.22 ft. at its closest the north side yard property line. To bring the existing home into conformance with building setback requirements. d that the applicant is proposing to turn his 1 % story home into a 2 story home. he reason he is requesting the variance is because the existing home is located 12.22 feet from the north side yard property line instead ofthe required 15 feet. . Cera asked if this proposal would require a variance under the Zoning Code text amendment being proposed. Grimes said it would not need a variance under the new text amendment because the conditions of the house existed before 1982. . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals February 24, 2004 Page 8 MOVEO by Cera, seconded by Keysser and motion carried unanimously to approve the request for 2.78 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 12.22 ft. at its closest point to the north side yard property line. III. Other Business Grimes asked the Board Members if they would like to be reappointed to the BZA for another year. Hughes said yes, Sell said yes, Cera said yes. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 pm. . . . . . Planning 763-593-80951 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: March 15, 2004 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: MarkW. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: 5621 Duluth 51. 55422 (04-03-07) Applebee's International, Applicant Applebee's International has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) in order to operate a Class III restaurant at the former Blockbuster location in the Spring Gate Shopping Center. The building is owned by Spring.Gate Partners, LLP, and they have given permission for Applebee's to go through the City permit process to allow an Applebee's restaurant. In addition to a CUP, Applebee's must also receive a variance for the number of parking spaces since the Spring Gate Shopping Center currently does not meet the City's parking requirement. (Although the two buildings that make up the Spring Gate Shopping Center. are separately owned, there is a cross parking agreement over all parking areas on both lots. This means that parking for any business in either building can park anywhere on the two properties making up the Spring Gate Shopping Center. The determination of how much parking is needed for the shopping center is determined by the number of parking spaces on both properties.) Applebee's is scheduled to go before the Planning Commission for consideration of the CUP on Monday, March 22, 2004, one day prior to the BZA consideration of the parking variance. Staff will make the BZA aware ofthe recommendation of the Planning Commission atthe March 23 BZA meeting. A decision ofthe BZA is necessary whether or not the Planning Commission recommends approval or denial to the City Council on the CUP. The final decision to approve the CUP is up to the City Council. If the BZA decides to not approve the parking variance for Spring Gate, Applebee's has the right to appeal that decision to the City Council at the same time the Planning Commission's recommendation on the CUP is considered. A copy of my memo to the Planning Commission explaining the CUP request is attached. As part of their recommendation to the City Council, they may address the proposed parking variance. Vice Chairman Keyser will be able to give a report of the Planning Commission action on the CUP from the previous evening. The variance for parking is necessary because the existing shopping center with the proposed Applebee's restaurant will require a total of 713 parking spaces and only 466 spaces exist. This number of spaces has been about the same since the shopping center was developed in . . . the late 1960's. At that time, the shopping center received parking variances that allowed the shopping center to develop with about240 spaces below the amount required by the code at that time. Since that time, new parking standards have been adopted. Based on the existing parking requirements and the Applebee's restaurant was not added to the shopping center, 639 spaces would be required assuming the existing uses and a new retail (non-restaurant) use for the Blockbuster space. The existing shopping center is considered non-conforming as far as parking is concerned. At the time the sopping centerwas built, variances were also granted from setback requirements. The variances remain valid because no changes are proposed to the size of the parking lot or building. It is the intention of the OWner of the shopping center to add no parking to the site for the Applebee's other than increasing the parking by more efficient use of the current space. The 713 spaces are determined by combining all the existing uses now in the Byerly's building and the Spring Gate Partners building. The building owned by Spring Gate Partners has been traditional retail for the past 30 years or so. Retail has a parking ratio of one space for each 150 sq. ft. of floor space. The parking spaces required for a Class III restaurant is one space for every 25 sq. ft. of bar area, one space for each 40 sq. ft. of public area, and one space for each 80 sq. ft. of non-public area. The Applebee's space itself has a parking requirement of 106 spaces while the Blockbuster or othertraditional retail use would require only 36 parking spaces. Because it was known that the Spring Gate Shopping Center has less parking than would be required by the existing zoning code, the only way that a more intense use like a restaurant could be added is with a parking variance. In order to determine if such a parking variance should be considered (along with changes to the design of the parking lot and access points to the parking lot from the public street), the City hired SEH, a traffic engineering consulting firm, to study the parking issue. The result of the study is that the existing parking on the site will work with the adding of the Applebee's because of the shared parking concept shown on Table 3 in the report. This table shows that the highest demand would be 506 spaces at noon when the two restaurants are at their highest use. It is the opinion of Glen VanWormer, PE, ofSEH that the addition of additional parking spaces within the parking lot by more efficient striping and design, the number of spaces will be adequate to handle the Applebee's plus all the existing uses. This will require the elimination of the park and ride spaces now using the parking lot and the understanding that only retail and office space can utilize space in the shopping center other than Applebee's or the Byerly's restaurant. Applebee's is requesting variances from one section of the Commercial zoning district (Section 11.30, Subd. 6) related to. parking. The code states that within the commercial zoning district, the number of parking spaces required is based on the use of the building. The variance requested is as follows: · Section 11.30, Subd. 6 Loading and Parking Requirements. City Code requires that the Spring Gate Shopping Center have 713 parking spaces based on the requirement for retail stores, offices and restaurants. The variance request is for 247 spaces off the required 713 spaces for a total of 466 parking spaces. The City's file on this property indicates that the shopping center was constructed in late 1967. See Large Size Plans and/or Survey in Planning Department . lIey Planning 763-593-8095/ 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: March 17,2004 From: Golden Valley Planning Commission Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development To: Subject: Informal Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Allow Class III Restaurant at Spring Gate Shopping Center--5621 Duluth St.-Applebee's International, Applicant . Applebee's International is requesting a conditional use permit (CUP) in order to operate a Class III restaurant within the Commercial zoning district. A Class III restaurant is defined as follows: Any type of night club, tavern, restaurant or other facility providing entertainment, food and/or beverage that provides sit-down service but may also provide standup bar service and standup tables within the premises. The proposal is to operate a typical Applebee's restaurant with 157 seats in the former location of the Blockbuster Video store that recently closed. The restaurant will include a bar area as indicated on the plans. The restaurant will be a total of 5,300 sq. ft. in area. They are planning to add a small freezer/storage room on to the south side of the building that will be about 525 sq. ft. in area and meet the building setback requirement of 50 ft. from the south property line adjacent to a Multiple Family zoning district. For a restaurant of this size, the parking code requires a total of 106 parking spaces. The proposed Applebee's location is a part of the larger Spring Gate Shopping Center. There are three lots that make up the shopping center. Two of the lots are controlled by Byerly's and the other lot is owned by Spring Gate Partners where the Applebee's is planned to be located. The entire Spring Gate Shopping Center is about 8.8 acres in size. The two Byerly's lots are about 4.3 acres in total and the Spring Gate Partners lot is about 4.6 acres. The Byerly's building (grocery store, restaurant and liquor store) totals 51,500 sq. ft. in area. The Spring Gate Partners building (Walgreen's and proposed Applebee's and the businesses in between) total 42,000 sq. ft. in area. . There are a total of 466 parking spaces for the entire shopping center. There is a cross parking agreement that allows customers from either Byerly's or the businesses in the Spring Gate Partners building to park anywhere in the lot. Maintenance of the lot is shared by both of the owners. 1 . Construction on the Spring Gate Shopping Center began in 1967 with the construction of the Byerly's grocery store. The Byerly's was added on to for the restaurant and liquor store a couple years after that. The 5621 Duluth building (Walgreen's et. al.) was built around the same time. When the buildings were constructed, a parking variance was granted by the City Council to allow for the shopping center to go forward with about 240 spaces fewer than was required by code at that time. There was also setback variances granted for the construction of the shopping center. In addition to the CUP application, Applebee's is also requesting a parking variance that would allow for the restaurant. The existing parking lot of 466 spaces was designed for the retail center as it exists today, including the grocery store, Byerly's restaurant, offices and retail space. With the addition of the Class III restaurant (Applebee's), the variance that permitted the shopping center to have around 466 parking spaces is no longer valid because the restaurant has a higher parking requirement than normal retail uses such as a Blockbuster video store. This variance request will be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Appeals after a review and recommendation by the Planning Commission on the CUP. (The BZA variance consideration is scheduled for Tuesday, March 23, 2004.) The Spring Gate Shopping Center is guided on the General Land Use Plan map for Commercial uses. The property is zoned Commercial. Restaurants are consistent with both the General Land Use plan map and zoning map designations. (If this shopping center was to be built today with two distinct buildings, it would require a Planned Unit Development.) . There are a variety of land uses surrounding this site and they are listed below: . East- TH 100 (area east of TH 100 is zoned Residential) . West-Bassett Creek Office building (office PUD) . North-Property north of Duluth 8t. is zoned Institutional (MnDOT property) and Office . South-CopaCabana Apartments (zoned M-1) and Covenant Manor (residential PUD) The proposal by Applebee's is quite simple - they are converting the Blockbuster space into a 157 seat restaurant. As part of the application process they have submitted a site plan, restaurant layout, and building elevations. The staff believes that the addition of the Applebee's to the Spring Gate Shopping Center will be good for the City if certain conditions are met. These concerns relate specifically to the design of the parking lot, access points to the TH 100 frontage road and parking. At the beginning of the CUP process, Applebee's agreed to pay for a study to be done by the City's traffic engineer, Glen Van Wormer of 8EH. The reason for the study was to determine if there is adequate parking in the parking lot to accommodate the Applebee's. As part of this review, it was also determined that improvements to the design of the parking lot should be done. This redesign includes the need to reduce the number of driveways onto the TH 100 frontage road from 3 to 1. . An agreement has been reached between the City, Spring Gate Partners and Byerly's regarding the necessity of these improvements and who would be responsible for making the improvements in a timely manner. The City will be making the improvements on City right-of- way related to the driveways from the frontage road and sidewalk improvements. All internal improvements would be made by Applebee's. 2 . I am enclosing a report from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, dated February 27,2004. The report from Jeff Oliver includes a letter from Glen Van Wormer dated February 19, 2004. An additional letter from Mr. Van Wormer dated March 16, 2004 with a revised parking lot layout is also attached. This layout is the preferred layout because it adds about 29 parking spaces to the parking lot as requested by Byerly's. In terms of the adequacy of parking in the parking lot, Mr. Van Wormer indicates that he believes that there is a peak need for 506 spaces as shown on Table 3 (Shared Parking Concept) in his January 28, 2004 report. With the addition of the 30 spaces shown on the plan attached to his March 16, 2004 letter report, the shopping center will have 496 parking spaces. Mr. Van Wormer believes that his methodology is conservative and that the 496 spaces will be adequate based on the existing shopping center with Applebee's. Staff is comfortable with the number of parking spaces and proposed design of the parking lot as proposed. However, a variance from the 713 parking spaces that is required by current code will have to be considered by the BZA at their March 23, 2004 meeting. One of the recommendations of staff will be the elimination of the Metro Transit park and ride lot at Spring Gate. On some days, up to 40 cars may use the parking lot for that purpose. The City will work with Metro Transit to find another suitable location in the area for the park and ride parking lot. The most logical location is the MnDOT parking lot north of Duluth St. . FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION When considering the approval or denial of a CUP, City Code requires that findings be made on ten specified factors. Staff evaluation of the ten factors as they relate to the current proposal is as follows: 1. Demonstrated Need for the Use: The City's standard basis for determining need is that an applicant has identified a market for the proposed goods or services. In this case, Applebee's has determined that there is a market for their restaurant at this location. It is not unusual to have two restaurants or food options in a shopping center. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The Plan map identified the site for commercial uses. A restaurant is compatible with this designation. 3. Effect on Property Values in the Area: The proposed Applebee's location was previously used by Blockbuster and other retail uses. A restaurant such as Applebee's will create more traffic than a video store or many other retail stores. However, a restaurant is a typical tenant in a shopping center. With the apartment building to the south, Applebee's will have to be vigilant to police their parking area for both litter and loitering. Applebee's has a good reputation as being well managed. Although they sell alcohol, they are known more for their food than the bar. With property management, staff believes that the Applebee's will not have a negative impact on the property values in the area. . 4. Effect of any Anticipated Traffic Generation upon Current Traffic Flows and Congestion in the Area: There will be increased traffic due to the Applebee's in comparison with the Blockbuster. However, the proposed changes to the parking lot and access points will be a great benefit to the shopping center and allow the restaurant to work in this location. (Please refer to the Van Wormer reports and the memo from City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE.) 3 . . 3. . 5. Effect on any Increase in Population: Since this is not a residential use, the population will not increase due to the restaurant. However, there will be an increase of people coming to the site to eat and work. Based on the Van Wormer report, there is adequate parking on the site to handle both the employees and customers. 6. Increase in Noise Levels: Staff does not believe that the restaurant will cause an increase in noise levels. There will be some increased traffic and small amounts of noise related to car doors closing and cars starting. Trash removal already occurs in this area and the staff will suggest that the garbage haulers come no earlier than 7 AM. The dumpster area will have to be screened and made of material similar to the building. 7. Any Increase in Flies, Rats, or other Vermin Caused by this Use: Any food preparation and disposal will have to be done in a manner approved by the City Sanitarian. With proper disposal practices, this should not be a concern. 8. Any Odor from Dust, Gas or Vibration Caused by the Use: The restaurant may cause some odors related to the cooking process. At the present time, there is a restaurant at Byerly's and at Covenant Manor that has not caused complaints from the nearby residential areas. 9. Visual Appearance of Proposed Structure or Use: The Applebee's restaurant will require that the end cap of the shopping center be changed as indicated on the attached plans. All signage will have to meet the City's sign code. The dumpster will have to be screened in a manner acceptable to the Inspections Department. Applebee's has fit in well in other shopping centers with the 42nd and Winnetka Ave. N. shopping center being an example. 10. Other Concerns Regarding the Use: No other potential sources of impact on the general health, safety or welfare have been identified by staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of a CUP that would allow a Class III restaurant (Applebee's) in the Spring Gate Shopping Center. The staff is recommending the following conditions: 1. The site plans prepared by Landform and dated December 12, 2004 shall become a part of this approval. However, the design of the parking lot and access points from the frontage road is to be changed as indicated in one of the conditions below. The preliminary building elevations and floor plan submitted by Applebee's and dated 11/19/03 shall also become a part of this approval. 2. The recommendations of City Engineer Jeff Oliver, PE, in his memo to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development and dated February 27, 2004 shall become a part of this approval. The Traffic and Parking Study prepared by SEH and dated January 28, 2004 shall become a part of this approval. Two letter prepared by Glen Van Wormerof SEH dated February 19, 2004 and March 16, 2004 shall also become a part of this approval. The revised parking lot layout attached to the March 16, 2004 letter shall be considered the recommended layout for the Spring Gate Shopping Center by the City. Prior to approval 4 - -10. - of the CUP by the City Council, an agreement between Spring Gate Partners, Byerly's and the City of Golden Valley must be signed that stipulates the necessary improvements and who is responsible for their construction and its cost. If possible, all improvements shall be completed prior to the opening of Applebee's. In no case, shall the improvements be made later than August 1, 2004. 4. The recommendations of Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal, in his memo to Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, dated January 22, 2004 shall become a part of this approval. 5. Any signage for the building and site shall meet the requirements of the current City sign code. 6. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be designed and used in such a manner as to minimize unnecessary light spillover from the site. All lighting plans shall be approved by the Building Official. 7. The variances requested by Applebee's must be acted on by the Board of Zoning Appeals before this recommendation is sent to the City Council for action. 8. The park and ride lot be relocated prior to the opening of Applebee's. 9. No additional restaurant space can be added to the Spring Gate Shopping Center without a variance or amended CUP. Trash removal shall not occur at Spring Gate Shopping Center until after 7 AM. 11. All other state, local and federal requirements shall be met. 12. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the CUP. Attachments: Location Map (1 page) Photos (15 pages) Memo to Mark Grimes from Jeff Oliver, with a letter from Glen Van Wormer attached (7 pages) Memo to Mark Grimes from Ed Anderson, dated January 22, 2004 Letter to Mark Grimes from Glen Van Wormer, dated March 16,2004 (4 pages) Traffic and Parking Study dated January 28, 2004 (11 pages) Preliminary Elevations (1 page) Preliminary Floor Plan (1 page) Existing Conditions Plan (1 oversized sheet) Preliminary Site Plan (1 oversized sheet) 5 / \ \ .>/ I ~ \- ~\ rt~- -_J _1 \\~/)GR(\~ --1--' DULUTHST ---.- ttL TH~---a~-------_.___ ~ g ~ DULUTk~ EC:'1 ~~ 1) \ [":-rr~- :I: ~ / / \ ,~. tsubJect Property I /' ~~-~;:i~( l' 1((1 \ Q (/ L e \ \ 8 .\ '. \ ~ \ >- ._---'\'\ ~ :r lXl 2 . ; __..1 i I .. . ----j I ~~I / t ~=-~) ___ II" ~,.' -,- --, --r--'l ' ))iJt<: ~ -J _ UTH ST',-- \ ') / --l-- '- \ I ,-------1 / 1/ T---J (, 1--) i~i i.--, )-1 '\\ J r--' I \ I I I ; L I 'i (+----j g \__1 - \ !I 'r g it J r- - c = , ] ~ ,~LL_<, ~ I i~-L;'l ~ ~:==-:-w,' ~\ \ I I~I ~~/f=r \ \ I ~ A: '~x . 0\ o ~I m iz / I I _/ _/ \ , '--------- / .~bZ'_ =IlfPl I {/~-~T-SI.A'~r~rX AVr~--:~ t I I' , I I , I i -~...J_-.L-r--I' --~.;'-".-.'-'.'.'. 2 .. I ~~---- . II Cl d . ./ ~r"'- . -/-::ci'~~~" .....~/;:\~ ~/ :~-f / /'C." / . '., /:;/60,\-0.-// I .' --I ..... ..........--.../ .... ./. I />-_/_./ '1/ I -'~ ," .- . . . . . . . . . . Memorandum Public Works 763.593.8030 I 763.593.3988 (fax) alley Date: February 27, 2004 To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning a Development From: Jeff Oliver, PE, City Engineer Subject: Review of Conditional Use P rmit or Applebee's Public Works staff has reviewed the proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an Applebee's Restaurant in the Spring Gate Shopping Center, located in the southwest quadrant of Trunk Highway 100 and Duluth Street. The west frontage road for Trunk Highway 100, also know as Lilac Drive, is adjacent to the two shopping centers on the northeast corner and the eastern boundary of the site. The proposed Applebee's will be located in the space formerly occupied by the Blockbuster Video store. Byerly's, which occupies the adjacent, separately owned shopping center, shares the parking lot with the Spring Gate Shopping Center. The parking lot shared by Spring Gate and Byerly's is also used by Metropolitan Council Transit Organization (MCTO) for a park and ride facility. The facility is used by approximately 25 to 30 vehicles per day. The portion of Lilac Drive on the east boundary of the Spring Gate Center was improved by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) as part of the upgrading of TH 100. This upgrade included installation of a sidewalk that extends from St. Croix Avenue, which is just south of the shopping center. The new sidewalk ends at the northeast corner of the site. The portion of Lilac Drive adjacent to the northeast corner of the shopping center does nothave a sidewalk within the boulevard. Therefore, there is no off-street pedestrian connection between the residential areas south of the shopping centers to Duluth Street, which has sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. This lack of sidewalk results in pedestrians who wish to access the shopping centers on Duluth Street walking in the roadway or within the parking lots. There are also several driveways from the two shopping centers that access directly onto Lilac Drive within several hundred feet of Duluth Street. These driveway accesses, along with a lack of concrete curb and gutter and a defined edge of the roadway, create an environment where delineation between the frontage road and parking lot is difficult. This situation results in a significant number of turning conflicts and unsafe driving situations. G:\Developmenls-Private\Applebee's\CUPReview022504.doc . . . Based upon the above information, and an apparent shortage of parking spaces in the combined parking lots, the City had its consulting traffic engineer from SEH perform a Traffic and Parking Study for the proposed Applebee's CUP. This study, dated January 28, 2004, outlines a shared parking agreement between the two shopping centers based upon the expected uses of the leased spaces. The study also makes recommendations for consolidation of the driveway access from Lilac Drive into a single driveway, and also recommends installation of a sidewalk on the south side of Lilac Drive between the existing sidewalk and Duluth Street. The results of this study have been discussed with Applebee's, the owners of the shopping centers and Byerly's. All parties have agreed to the recommended changes in concept, and are currently working on agreements for sharing the cost of the improvements. As part of these discussions, Byerly's requested that different parking arrangements than those shown in the January 28 study be investigated. These alternative layouts are outlined in a February 19, 2004 letter from SEH that is attached to this memorandum for reference. Utilities A new water service will need to be extended into the prpposed restaurant to provide the domestic flow required. The developer will need to prepare a plan indicating how this service is to be provided when an application for a water permit is made. In addition, a right-of-way permit will be required for this water main extension. Recommendation Public Works staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Applebee's in the Spring Gate Shopping Center subject to the following conditions: 1. An agreement is reached between the interested parties, including the City, to install concrete curb and gutter and sidewalk on Lilac Drive, and make modifications to the parking lot layout as outlined in the January 28, 2004, Traffic and Parking Study, and February 19 2004 letter, both prepared by Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. 2. Subject to the comments of other City staff. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. C: Glen Van Wormer, SEH Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Ron Nims, Public Works Project Coordinator Eric Eckman, Engineering Technician G:\Developmenls-Private\Applebee's\CUPRevieW022504.doc ~ · SEH . . February 19, 2004 RE: Golden Valley, Minnesota Applebee's Restaurant Proposal Spring Gate Shopping Center SEH No. A-GOLDV9801.00 14.00 Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE City Engineer City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588 Dear Jeff: Attached are three layouts for the Spring Gate Shopping Center parking lot. The first is the parking lot based 9n an older aerial photo. The entrance to the frontage road on the east side of the parking lot has been modified to line up with the driveway to the service station. The parking lot layout, with the exception with a few spaces near this new entrance, remains the same. The parking lot modifications shown in Attachment 2 consist primary of relocating the frontage road entrance and rearranging some of the parking spaces and aisles in the center of the parking lot. The northerly three double parking aisles in front of Byerly's have been modified to relocate the north-south access road. Parking has been established facing the frontage road, and some of the spaces along these double parking aisles have been eliminated. In addition, the two spaces in the comer at the intersection of the frontage road and Duluth Street have been eliminated because they are actually on Mn/DOT right-of- way. There have been six spaces eliminated on the end of each of the three aisles, which, along with the two on Mn/DOT right-of-way, reduces the total parking by 20 spaces. The number of spaces added along the frontage road are 20. Thus, there is no change in the total number of parking spaces, and the circulation in the area should be significantly improved since the aisles are now wide enough to accommodate two-way traffic and turning traffic from the parking aisles. There is a light pole that will have to be moved to accommodate this change. In Attachment 2, showing the original concept for the modifications, the southerly three double parking aisles in front of Byerly's and Walgreens have also been modified by adding ~ north-south row. Twenty-eight parking spaces have been removed from the east-west parking aisles. However, 37 spaces have been added to the north-south aisle for an increase of 9 spaces. This rearrangement was done primarily to refocus some of the relationship of parking and parking demand to north-south pedestrian travel to Applebee's and the shopping retail area. The east-west aisles primarily favored the westerly portion ofthe retail, such as Walgreens or to some degree, Byerly's or Byerly's Liquor. Attachment 3 shows the same modifications to the north parking aisles in front of Byerly's. However, it does not change .the orientation of the parking aisles on the south portion. of the Byerly's lot. Instead, it increases the number of parking spaces by adding to the east-west aisles. By repainting the spaces, 14 additional spaces can be added. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center D,-ive, St. Paul. MN 55110-5196 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com I 651.490.2000 I 800.325.2055 I 651.490.2150 fax . . . Mr. Jeff Oliver, PE February 19, 2004 Page 2 This arrangement does reinforce the east-west pedestrian movement and makes it slightly more difficult to approach a few of the retail stores. In addition, circulation in the parking lot is a little more difficult. Attachments 2 and 3 both provide for pedestrian access if the sidewalk is extended along the frontage road from Duluth Street south into the parking lot and utilizes the raised concrete island at the west end of the northerly end of the parking aisle next to the frontage road. This would direct pedestrians into a north- south parking aisle to reach the Applebee's area under Attachment 2. Their conflicts would be primarily with motorists moving in and out of the parking spaces. In Attachment 3, the same pedestrian movement into the parking lot will exist, but pedestrians will walk between the north-south and east-west aisles facing traffic entering and exiting parking spaces to the east and using the parking aisles to the west. Thus, there is a little more pedestrian exposure to traffic in Attachment 3. Attachment 3 shows two parking spaces removed directly infront of Applebee's to accommodate truck traffic coming from the south side of all of the retail buildings around the east side and north side to reach the aisle to get back to the frontage road. This should also be shown on Attachment 2 so there is a reduction of two parking spaces in each attachment. We did not show in either attachment the potential modifications to adjust the parking aisles on the east side of the proposed Applebee's building further east and add three or four parallel parking spaces for the "Applebee's to go" pickup area. We have also not shown any additional parking spaces on the south side of the buildings, although a quick field review showed there is opportunity to add some spaces, primarily in the central and westerly portions of the facility. From a traffic point of view, Attachment 2 has some slight advantages over Attachment 3, but either would be satisfactory and both would be a significant improvement over the existing situation. We have sent copies of the existing (Attachment 1) and the new modifications (Attachment3) bye-mail to yourself and several others. We are now sending hard copies to both the City staff, United Properties, and Byerly's. If you need additional information or additional copies, please contact either myself or Kristine Wagner. Sincerely, SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. ~t/an~ Glen Van Wormer, PE Senior Transportation Engineer tlo Attachments c: Jeannine Clancy, City of Golden VaIJey Mark Grimes, City of Golden Valley Ronn Thomas, United Properties Tony w. Ro~ell, United Properties x:lfjlgoklv\980 I OO'<:orrespondelj<.'i:\oliver021904.doc Tom Magnuson, Byerly's John Pazahanick, Lund Food Holdings, Inc. Kristine Wagner, SEH Sue Mason, SEH .. "t~_"', .I' .. " ,. . . . Memorandum Fire Department 763-593-8055 I 763-512-2497 (fax) To: Mark Grimes, Director of Planning & Zoning From: Ed Anderson, Deputy Fire Marshal Subject: Conditional Use Permit - 106 Applebee's Restaurant, 5621 Duluth Street Date: January 22, 2004 cc: Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire & Inspections The Fire Department's plan review comments for the proposed Applebee's Restaurant located at 5621 Duluth Street are listed below: 1. The current no parking fire lane signs and stationary posts located on the site shall remain in place and will be enforced at all times. 2. The fire department access roadway shall be maintained during construction. Dumpsters and other construction equipment shall not be placed in the fire lane/fire department access roadway. 3. The interior remodeling will be reviewed and re-evaluated upon the application of the building permit. If you have any questions on this memo please contact me at 763-593-8065. fi" . . . March 16,2004 RE: Golden Valley, Minnesota Applebee's Restaurant Spring Gate Shopping Center SEH No. A-GOLDV9801.00 14.00 Mr. Mark Grimes Director of Planning and Development City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN55427 Dear Mark: Attached is a copy ofa revised layout showing both the Byerly's parking lot and the Applebee's area parking lot modifications. The drawing is similar to the revised parking lot submitted earlier that showed changes to entrances and to the circulation system. This is an update to try to maximize the number of parking spaces in other locations throughout the lot. To summarize all. of the proposed changes within the parking lot, the following is a detailed explanation of the modifications proposed and as shown on the attached drawing. 1. Close the existing access on the west side of the frontage road just south of Duluth Street.. Also, relocate the entrance to the shopping center from the south side of the frontage road in line with the street connecting to Duluth Street to a new driveway further to the east. Also close the easterly driveway on the south side of the frontage road directly opposite the access to the service station. These changes are shown on the layout in blue line. 2. In the north portion of the Byerly's parking lot, remove three spaces on each side of the three double stall parking aisles for a total of 18 removed spaces. Remove the two spaces in the far northeast comer of the parking lot since they are on the MnlDOT right-of-way. Install 20 spaces facing east along the east side of the parking aisle. Net result of these changes is zero parking spaces lost. These changes do result in a two-way aisle with much better circulation within the Byerly's parking lot and better circulation to the relocated entrances. (0) 3. Add additional parking on the east end of the three double stall parking aisles in front of the shopping center. This adds four spaces to the southerly aisle or Aisle 1, four spaces to Aisle 2, and six spaces to Aisle 3. This is a net gain of 14 parking spaces. (+14) 4. Modify the painted islands on the west end of Aisles 1 and 2 at the shopping center. In the south parking line of Aisle 2, relocate the two handicap spaces. Place the handicap hatching on the west side of the west handicap space. Convert the hatching on the east of that handicap space and the previous handicap space to regular parking. On the south side of Aisle 1, convert a portion of the painted island to a hatched handicap area for the westerly space on the south side. This space can then become a second handicap space. On the north side of the second parking aisle at the west end, add Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive. St. Paul, MN 55110-5196 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com I 651.490.2000 I 800.325.2055 I 651.490.2150 fax J" .. . . . Mr. Mark Grimes March 16,2004 Page 2 .' two additional parking spaces in the triangular marked out area. These changes will result in additional three parking spaces. (+3) 5. To provide for trucks circulating from the back of the building to the new entrance, it will be necessary to remove two parking spaces directly in front of Applebee's as shown on the layout. This will decrease parking by two. (-2) 6. Modifications to parking on the north end ofthe Applebee's lot as a result of the access changes will result in 20 spaces instead of 15, for a net gain of 5. (+5) 7. One additional space can be added at the far north end on the east side of the Applebee's parking lot. +(1) 8. The parking spaces in the center island on the east side of the Applebee's building can be relocated. If the parking spaces are adjusted further to the east to reflect a 20-foot parking space facing the east side of the lot, a 24-foot aisle, and a 36-foot double stall parking aisle, the shift will result in additional room for an aisle next to the building. Three parking stalls can be added, with the fire marshal's approval, for pickup at the Applebee's restaurant. This would result in a gain of three parking spaces. (+3) 9. Remove two southerly parking spaces from the center double stall parking aisle from the east side, and remove two spaces on the south end of the parking spaces facing east along the east side. Add seven spaces along the south side facing south, for a gain of three spaces. After these are located in the field, it may be possible to add one additional parking space on the west end for a net gain of four. (+3) 10. Structure the painting for parking at the south side directly south of the east end of the shopping center. There is a "notch" in the parking area that will allow eight southbound parking spaces. It appears there is now only five or six. This would result in a gain of two. (+2) These changes will result in 29 to 30 additional parking spaces. We have also worked with the engineer for Applebee's to determine the potential for adding parallel parking directly south of the Applebee's building. Based on truck turning templates and aerial photographs, it appears that any parking, even parallel, would require removal of the curb line extension of the parking lot pavement further south. We anticipate this would require a 6 to expansion to the south with a retaining wall to protect the trees and provide for the slope. This would also be subject to snow removal problems, and passengers would open their doors directly retaining wall. We have not considered this a viable option, but the Applebee's engineer will confer with Applebee's to see if any further investigation should be.made. . . . Mr. Mark Grimes March 16, 2004 Page 3 Would you kindly review the changes we are proposing, and let us know if any additional work is needed. Sincerely, SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INe. ~~111~ Glen Van Wormer, PE Senior Transportation Engineer tIo Attachment c: Jeannine Clancy, Golden Valley Public Works Director (w/attachment) John Pazahanick, Vice President, Lund Food Holdings, Inc. (w/attachment) Sue Mason, SEH (w/o attachment) Kristine Wagner, SEH (w/o attachment) x:\fjlgoldv\980 lOO\correspondencelgrimes031604.doc ~. ~ . rrraffic and Parking Stud~ Applebee's Spring Gate Center Proposal Golden Valley, Minnesota SEH No. A-GOLDV9801.00 . January 28, 2004 . . . . Table of Contents Page 1.0 Background .............. ......... ........... ....... ............... .............. ............ ............... ............ 1 2.0 Parking ........ ......... ...... ......... ...... ...... ................. ... .................. .............................. .... 1 3.0 Parking Circulation and Access ............................................................................ 4 4.0 Pedestrian Circulation. ....... .............. .............. .... .................. ........ .............. ............ 5 5.0 Su mmary ..... ......... ...... ............... .... ....... ... ... ....... ..... ............... ... ...... .............. ..... ...... 5 IList of Appendicesl Appendix A Table 1 - Parking Requirements Table 2 - Parking Requirements with Applebee's Table 3 - Shared Parking Developer's Drawing Appendix B Parking Inventory (Aerial Photos) Driveway, Aisle, and Parking Modifications SEH is a registered trademark of Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Traffic and Parking Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9801.00 Pagei . . . January 28, 2004 Traffic and Parking Study Applebee's Spring Gate Center Proposal Prepared for Golden Valley, Minnesota 1.0 Background Applebee's Restaurant is proposing to convert the existing Blockbuster Video store in the Spring Gate Shopping Center to a 5,300 square foot Applebee's restaurant. The shopping center currently has fewer parking spaces than is required by code, and the addition of an Applebee's restaurant will increase the difference. There are also some concerns relative to vehicle access to the Applebee's portion of the center and with pedestrian and traffic circulation within the site. To review the traffic and parking concerns, SEH provided a work plan to the City. We have counted parked vehicles, reviewed the needs of the center and Applebee's, and reviewed the circulation patterns for both vehicles and pedestrians in the parking lot. 2.0 Parking The City of Golden Valley calculates parking demand based on specific land uses within the shopping center. The City considers certain uses in the shopping center as office and also has separate classifications for restaurants, such as Byerly's and the proposed Applebee's. The total parking required, based on information received on the application and from zoning codes, is 639 spaces. The calculations show the retail component requires 426 spaces, office requires 46, and Byerly's requires 135. With retail in the Blockbuster site, 32 spaces would be required. These are shown in Table I in Appendix A. With Applebee's, 106 spaces would be required. With Applebee's, the total requirement for parking increases to7f3. This is shown in Table 2 in Appendix A. Using aerial photographs, it appears there are currently 466 parking spaces in the complex. This includes 219 spaces in the easterly half that would serve the Applebee's restaurant area and 210 in the westerly half of the parking lot in front of both Walgreens and Byerly's. There are an additional 37 spaces in the back of the store, some of which are not plainly marked. There are also a few spaces where individuals park, but should not be included since they are for deliveries or should be utilized for aisle space. A-GOLDV9801.00 Page 1 . . . The calculations from the developer indicate the total existing stalls are 527. This apparently is based upon an October 8, 2002 drawing that shows a number of additional parking spaces in front of the shopping center building and in the loading areas. A number of these spaces cannot be utilized because of the minimum widths needed for aisles and the need. for trucks to pass through the area. A copy of the drawing showing these proposed parking spaces and labeled as "Spring Gate Shopping Center, Revised 8 October 2002" is in Appendix A. Copies of the two aerial photos containing the numbered spaces and inventory are also in Appendix B. Observations at the shopping center show a significant number of open spaces at the current time. Counting only spaces in the easterly half, it appears there more than 100 parking spaces open. There also appears to be open parking spaces in the center of the shopping center. These observations are a reflection upon the lack of parking demand from the current uses of the retail space. Currently, a park and ride stop is utilizing the northerly portion of the easterly parking lot. This is possible because of the low current demand for parking from the shopper center businesses. Based on the City's code, 106 parking spaces will be required for the Applebee's restaurant. A previous calculation for a potential 6,500 square foot Applebee's restaurant indicated between 110 and 146 spaces would be required. Thus, the code appears to be reasonable for an Applebee's restaurant. As part of the study, a number of observations were made at various Applebee's restaurants, primarily in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Frequently, the weekend evening counts showed that the Applebee's parking was completely used and parking on streets or in adjacent lots were being used by customers of Applebee's. Observations made at other times also showed full lot conditions on some weeknights and even during noon hours at some locations. The difference between actual use and the City's requirement for 639 parking spaces can also be attributed to the tenant mix within the center and the relatively high calculation based on the City's methods. If the shopping center was considered as a 93,509 square foot center, the normally applied 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet would result in 468 required spaces. With over 40 percent of the shopping center size devoted to the Byerly's grocery store at the northwest corner of the site, much of the demand is focused in the westerly parking lot. Subtracting the Byerly's grocery, restaurant and liquor stores, and the proposed Applebee's and the Walgreens drug store, less than 22,000 square feet of retail space remains. None of the businesses currently in this area generate a significant demand for parking contributing to the low volume overall. In addition, the City's calculation for a Walgreens would require 100 spaces for the store. This number of spaces is higher than customer counts at Walgreens. The dimensions of the parking lot layout vary by location. If the parking lot is to be reconfigured or overlaid and the parking spaces remarked, it may be good to redesign some of the aisles to maximize the number of spaces. As an Traffic and Parking Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9801.00 Page 2 . . . example, the east parking lot east curb line could be defined and all parking space and aisle dimensions measured from this curb. This may permit the shifting of parking spaces to the east resulting in some additional parking stalls. Similarly, adjusting parking stalls in the southeast comer, east of the proposed Applebee's restaurant, may result in some additional parking spaces and pennit parallel parking next to the building for the take-out orders. Although the number of parking spaces required for an Applebee's restaurant (106 by code, 120 by our calculations) is less than those generally unused in the center, the method of matching supply and demand must be approached carefully. Several of the retail uses currently in the center require much less parking than required by code or even available in the center. The uses could change, and a retail business with parking demand closer to code requirements could move to the center. One option would consider the shopping center as a whole using a single parking rate for the 93,509 square feet of space. With smaller centers, one or two high parking demand tenants can quickly use up all parking, such as Champps on 66th Street in Richfield. A second option is to consider shared parking by specific tenants in the center. An easy to understand example is shared parking between a church and a business. The business can use the church parking weekdays, and the church can use the business parking nights and weekends. Separating parking use in a retail center is more difficult. Applebee's peaks occur Friday and Saturday evenings with secondary peaks weeknights after 5:00 p.m. Applebee's also has a parking demand at noon. Byerly's grocery peaks weekdays and Saturdays with lower demand in the evenings. The other tenants have low general demands and little evening and weekend demand. Shared parking in a center also considers multiple purpose trips, such as a single customer stopping at Byerly's restaurant, Walgreens, and Byerly's grocery . A concept shared parking calculation is shown in Table 3 in Appendix A. If shared parking is used, the shared parking calculations should be refined. The shared parking concept eliminates the use of the lot for a park and ride site, since Applebee's noon hour demand and the 5:00 p.m. overlap of demands from Applebee's and the park and ride preclude sharing of parking. The City zoning code method of splitting out specific uses in a shopping center and of considering standalone and shopping center retail parking requirements the same does not acknowledge multi-purpose trips. With the specific business mix in the Spring Gate Shopping Center, multi-purpose trips exist, and some reduction in supply could be justified. One concern that will exist with full use of the lot is snow storage and removal. Current practice seems to push snow to the far east side, and that could remove 20 to 40 spaces. This should be addressed by the developer as it relates to usable parking. Traffic and Parking Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9801.00 Page 3 . . . 3.0 Parking Circulation and Access Several driveways currently serve the shopping center parking lot. The main driveway is directly in front of Byerly's at an unsignalized intersection on Golden Valley Road. A driveway access west of the Byerly's building provides access to the parking lot in the southwest comer of the site, as well as for shipping and delivery vehicles. This entrance does not have a median opemng. The frontage road for Highway 100 also provides access to the shopping center at three different locations. A newly constructed curbed driveway exists near the east comer of the parking lot between the curves on the frontage road and directly across from the filling station driveway. A second driveway is merely an opening in a curb along the west side of the frontage road and provides direct access from one of the parking aisles to the frontage road close to the curve. The third driveway is merely an open area that enters into a parking lot. Circulation is fairly uncontrolled at this point with a significant number of conflicts. A frontage road concept developed by MnlDOT, but not implemented, showed no access except for the single driveway on the northeast comer across from the filling station. Parking aisles determine the circulation pattern. The major circulation route is directly in front of the stores, as is the case in many smaller shopping centers. The aisle runs from the driveway in front of Byerly's at Golden Valley Road, past all of the stores and the proposed Applebee's site. Traffic also travels in aisles making turns as needed to reach any of the driveways to the frontage road. The east end of the aisles in front of Byerly's is relatively close to the property line. There is a minimal amount of space between the last marked parking stall and the curb that serves as a buffer between the frontage road and the parking lot. The curb appears to be on MnlDOT right-of-way and some of the parking spaces actually encroach into the right-of-way. The very close distance between the parking aisle at the end of the parking spaces and the frontage road makes u-turns from aisle to the frontage road and vice versa impossible. Thus, there is a considerable amount of maneuvering or misdirection in the travel patterns. To provide better turning opportunities and to increase the ability of traffic to travel in both directions, one or two parking stalls on the end of the parking aisles should be removed. This will cut into an already short parking supply. To better provide for circulation on-site and to eliminate many of the conflicts that occur at the frontage road accesses, the three "entrances" should be exchanged for a single driveway better located. for sight distance and for access to the facilities. A drawing in Appendix B shows this concept. The driveway across from the filling station is relocated further to the west to line up with the third parking aisle from the east. This would provide access to the Applebee's and east shopping center area. The west shopping area is adequately accessed via the existing driveway at Golden Valley Road. Traffic and Parking Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9801.00 Page 4 . . . 5.0 Parking would be placed along the east edge ofthe Byerly's area parking lot. With the removal of some of the spaces on Mn/DOT right-of-way and with the provision for a wider aisle, the number of spaces remains almost the same. Extending the north-south parking aisles further to the south will reduce some of the parking spaces on the east-west aisles, but result in a net gain of approximately nine spaces. Relocating parking spaces along the north side of the east parking area can add one or two spaces. A concept drawing based on an aerial photograph, showing revised driveways, aisles, and parking, is in Appendix B. 4.0 Pedestrian Circulation Pedestrian circulation on-site is limited to a sidewalk in the front of all of the retail space. Pedestrians walking to their vehicles generally cross the main traffic circulation aisle and walk in parking aisles or between parked cars to reach the vehicles. The adjustment of parking as suggested earlier would provide less walking between parked cars and more walking in the parking aisles. A crosswalk on Golden Valley Road is provided at the frontage road intersection as are "Walk" and "Don't Walk" lights as part of the traffic signals. The only sidewalk is in the east-west direction along the south side of Golden Valley Road. Individuals who wish to reach the Applebee's restaurant or any of the retail space must either walk in the frontage road, cross into the parking lot and walk the aisles or walk to the west to reach the sidewalk, which is unlikely. Pedestrians who wish to connect to the sidewalk east of the shopping center along the frontage road have a missing segment. Adding a segment of sidewalk along the west side of the frontage road from Golden Valley Road and into the parking lot would provide for better pedestrian walkway. It would be logical to make the' final connection between the existing sidewalk along the frontage. road east of the shopping center and this proposed sidewalk. Summary · The Spring Gate Shopping Center generally has more than 100 parking spaces open in the east area. · The Golden Valley zoning (parking) code requires 639 parking spaces. · Adding an Applebee's restaurant in place of the Blockbuster Video store increases the code requirement to 713. . The current parking supply at the center is approximately 466. . A park and ride site currently exists in the east area. · Many of the existing businesses require less parking than code requires. · While the Applebee's demand may fit into the existing open spaces and those from the park and ride, changes in other business use may increase actual demand. Traffic and Parking Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9801.00 Page 5 . . . . A shared parking concept may provide an opportunity to balance current demand and the Applebee's increase with current supply and some additions. . Current circulation patterns create many conflicts. . Changing driveway locations at the frontage road. and some parking aisles can reduce conflicts significantly. x:lfjlgoldvl980 J OOlreports&specslr\traffic&parkingstudy _ applebees.doc Traffic and Parking Study Golden Valley, Minnesota A-GOLDV9801.00 Page 6 . . . Appendix A Table 1 - Parking Requirements Table 2 - Parking Requirements with Applebee's Table 3 - Shared Parking Developer's Drawing . . . , Table 1 Parking Requirements Retail 76,302 1 parking space for each 150 sq. ft. of retail floor 458 space (0.9 times gross floor space) Office 11,447 1 parking space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor 46 space devoted to office use Byerly's 6,760 1 parking space shall also be required for every 40 135 sq. ft. of public area including eating area and 1 parking space for every 80 sq. ft. of non-public area Total Park Required . 639 Retail Table 2 Parking Requirements with Applebee's 71,002 1 parking space for each 150 sq. ft. of retail floor space (0.9 times oss floor space) 11,447 1 parking space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor s ace devoted to office use 5,300 1 parking space for every 25 sq. ft. of g.f.a. of bar + 1 parking space for every 40 sq. ft. of public area + 1 arkin s ace for eve 80 s . ft. of non- ublic area 6,760 1 parking space shall also be required for every40 sq. ft. of public area including eating area and 1 parking s ace for eve 80 sq. ft. of non-public area 135 426 Office 46 Applebee's (class IIn 106 Byerly's Total Park Re uired 713 .. . Table 3 Shared Parking Concept Spaces With Multiple Needed Spaces at (%) (#) Use per Code Trip Reduction 10:00 a.m. Noon 3:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. Applebee's 106 106 20% 21 75% 80 30% 32 100% 106 Byerly's Restaurant 135 122 40% 49 100% 122 40% 49 70% 97 Bverlv's Grocery 233 233 60% 140 60% 140 80% 186 70% 163 Office 46 46 100% 46 90% 41 100% - 46 30% 14 Retail 193 155 80% 123 80% 123 100% 155 50% 78 Total 713 662 379 506 468 458 . . . . . Appendix 8 Parking Inventory (Aerial Photos) Driveway, Aisle, and Parking Modifications rt . 11.'- "' ;0.. .' I' ":. '. ..~>:'L"':'.:~':""""",,,::,':':':';I~X\:.... _.__ . .'P.~. ". _. ."m_,,".. ". ',' ,... ".. ,.... '.. '" I. ( .... ~ . . .'. .... " ,'.' ... . .' 'j,:' " ,. '. , ":: .~: "':'>'1'; >'.;.~. .~'.:'; ::. :'.' .... lie \':~ :.::";': :'.~::':~.< :::,.:'.~ -:',:". ':':':'.:: <'~~:'.:..~';: ..>:: .., '~'" $ M ... ~... ............ ". .' .' ;\;,::' ;::' ;<.::.~~:. .:..~.;..~ ..'~~ ~ .,'..:.: ... ': ,,, !''''. ...~:..~~:.!. ~:/. >:',:"~~ ';l::: :<.j .~;:.~ ::'~..<:'~~.:.~ ::.~:~:':,:::: i'~.~~ . PRELIMINARY FRONT ELEVATION - GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 11/19/03 ::,- .~l":~' -:: :~ ~: . .....: ~ ';:: ~<~:: ~ ' >:::::,:';;;: ::::>..: ;:',; <> L :'; :~' :.:: ~:~<::>:: :<. '::: >. .> ::i :~ < :. :':~:/":' ,.:., (t .'.,::;."!: , ..' '. . ,.' . .. . -, ... ...... .. " "I ,.... "'1 ,0 .',.., 'I ........ ,. '0' ", ... ....~I:!od.. 1.- ---.....-u- ...~. ,', .....--.. " .... .... ,.:.'..;.:;;: ''';.,'''':''.,::::',.:': ..':,:":'~',"':':,: :-.~'.> ;.... :""":" ..":.: .,:.:.~.~...:t:..:..:.~:: >:.: .,:,.;'::.;....:.:.:.~.... :.....:....... i." .:.:~.:..:... i:: .:.: \,,;' ~.\.:':':''''...' .. . .. 0", ". ,.. "0... ....;.. .:' .... 'I' '.. ..~. ...- ',' .~." ... I' it...... t. ,. \. .. \ ..' ..,..... " ..: "- ,.......... .. A ". .... .'., .. ......:.;....:':..........:....:..~.~'......::...~..:..:.....,' ...; ..,...:,......,...... .... . '_~' :::- .... .... '0,0 .:.:"., "'-.._.........~ '.. .... ..... ..... . . .. . PRELIMINARY SIDE ELEVATION · GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 11/19/03 ~ ~'i!IW GOlDER YAW:\'. IIIIOO:SOIA . I . . 'I . . ,. I II TIII_tjO · ~\ L:n ~ ~ D \:::: MEN Ie BAR p 0 () MECHO ~I'-n 4 '\ ~~~ ~ 000 Ann. "} ~ LIU ...., /' Q, ""'..... , ~ ~ J:JI I If II 'LJUUV 0 () T L ..l ) 'UU .. ~ r I ......ll /1 ... G.U. r- r---- r ELECT. I r If III I 'if [gI a " a~() ()--C) 0...__0 '- . / ....EN!f I.IOlJOR I'J r _7 0 0 ) _l I J 1 '-' ~ I"r-..~ ________ tJ ub 0 0 0 () 0 O'--tJ J ~ ~.I~ ---'j r- J W - _....."" ~ MVfl(-11il ~EE~E~ '- ~ I C r--. ~ = ----- "1lJ~ V ~ ~ - · IllNING ~. 1"'-. V ~ ~= ~ ~ 0 If I n II [] ~ L-- ll.. ~ Wrii Gi ~!k ::o~'- ~ f 0 011- ~ ~ tJ "'" ~" 0 HI M 0 >-- I snB\JU ~ ""nil I 41E~ ;}; 0 IF M 0 >-- " ~ II I BEDl"""~~".IllEMl rl un w~ ~ [ 0 "" II pq If D -............ ~ I~ ~/ ]p;; r ~ ~ "I bd II 5} L ---,N~ ~ _ /' V Ila~ ] WAITING L RECEI~NG '----J ~ TO GO - .:a: ~~i:rAfr.,-' '" ....--...J~ , .II~I[~ .1 I 'lrf oL/ \J TOPS TABLES SEATS 2 1 2 4 33 132 5 1 5 6 1 6 36 145 BAR SEAn;; 12 TO GO ENTRANCE TOTAL SEATS: 157 . PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLAN - GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 11/19/03 ~ NIIaI~'" GOUlIlN VAUIY. IIINNESO'U "",,- ~ , . . 5020 Colonial. Drive . Ken Stone, Applicant 04-03-08 . See Large Size Plans and/or Survey in Planning Department . l . . . Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: March 15, 2004 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals. Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development From: Subject: 5020 Colonial Dr. 55422 (04-03-08) Ken Stone, Kodet Architecture (for homeowner), Applicant On behalf of Ann Higgins and Randall Last who own the house at 5020 Colonial Dr., Ken Stone, AlA, of Kodet Architecture has applied for variances from three requirements of the Residential zoning code (Section 11.21). These variances would allow for the construction of additions on to both the front and rear of their house. Because it was known that the addition to the front of the house would extend into the front setback area, a survey was required for the building permit and variance process. The survey has been used to calculate the extent of the proposed variances. The survey also indicates that the existing deck attached to the south side of the house encroaches into the required side yard setback. The survey also indicates that the wood stairs that are along the south side of the house that lead to the deck are. partially on the neighbor's property. This encroachment should be addressed with the neighbor. (The stairs are a permitted encroachment into the side yard setback.) Mr. Stone has prepared a letter, site plan, floor plans and elevations of the proposed additions. As indicated in the letter, the shed that is located partially on MnDOT right-of-way will have to be removed or relocated as part of the variance and building permit process. The proposed additions require variances from the following sections of City Code: · Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback. City Code requires that all structures be set back at least 35 ft. from a front property line or street right-of-way. The variance request is for 12 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 23 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line along Colonial Dr. · Section 11.21, Subd. 7(8) Rear Yard Setback. City Code requires that the rear yard setback shall be 20% of the lot depth. The variance request if for 5 ft. off the required 26.24 ft. to a distance of 21.24 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard property line · Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C) Side Yard Setback. City Code requires that the side yard setback shall be 15% ofthe lot width for lots 70 ft.- 100 ft. wide. In this case, the side yard setback is 13.3 ft. The variance request is for 9.8 ft. off the required 13.3 ft. to a distance of 3.5 ft. from the south side property line forthe existing deck. The City's file on this address indicates that the house was built in 1947. The deck and steps that are built along the south side of the house were constructed without a building permit. .. Arch itectural Croup, Ltd. . 15 Groveland Terrace. Minneapolis, MN ,55403-11 54 E-Mail arch@kodet.com . Website. www.koaet..com Telephone 612.377.2737 . Facsimile 612.377.1331 March 2, 2004 Mark Grimes Director of Planning and Development City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Re: Higgins / Last Residence 5020 Colonial Drive, Golden Valley, MN. 55416 Dear Mr. Grimes, On behalf of Ms. HigginsandMr. Last, Iwould like to request a variance to expand their home into the front and rear yard srtbclCks.iTheyhaveenjoyed living in Golden Valley for many years, and wish to update their smaIll94 7 home to make itTore livable.. With a growing family, they wish to remain in Golden Valley and expandtheir home to better accommodate their current lifestyle. The following are the reasons they face undue hardships, and request a variance for their front and rear yard setbacks: 1. The greatest hards~ip of this property is the. extreme traffic noise from the adjacent highway. The east property line abuts Highwayl 00, with a sound barrier which does little to block the intense traffic noise. The lot is between two major intersections of Highway 100, at . Glenwood and 394. The traffic noise is loud from both the north and east. The owners wish to expand the living areas of the house on the more quiet, southwest portion of the property, and buffer the highway noise with an addition of bedrooms to the north and east. . 2. Expanding the house to a second floor is not a viable option. The sound from the highway would be even more extreme on an upper floor. 3.The shape of the lotis a hardship. The two side property lines and the rear property line create an irregular wedge shape, constricting expansions to the rear and side yards. The rear yard is extremely limited due to the angled rear and south property lines. We are asking for a variance into the rear yard for only one comer of the addition, since the rear yard setback is not parallel with the house. The expansion into the front yard provides a new entrance, a new dining room, expansion ofthe kitchen, and an expanded garage. The owners wish to make a more welcoming entrance to their home, with a stronger presence on the street and to their neighbors. The dining room elevation facing the street has full-glass doors with a continuous guardrail. . The doors open to the front of the house as a "front porch" to the street. The garage is expanded below the dining room to provide more storage space, and will remain a 2-car garage of the same width. The rear addition contains the more private functions of bedrooms, master bath, and a family room. The existing wood shed at the rear of their property will be moved to a conforming location. Ms. Higgins and Mr. Last have discussed this proposal with their neighbors, shown them drawings, and have received favorable comments (see attached list of signatures). Based on the above reasons, we request a variance for the front and rear yard setbacks. Please call if you have any questions. . Sincerely, Kodet Architectural Jt~ Ken Stone, AlA KS GC 04.025 Faxed Mailed Yes No .~ Architecture. Interiors. Planning . . J3 ep(Z-o()"'" 8Gpt2..0fJM Be r?l2.0'of""\ o 0 00 . . 6 l'"" . - ..... V {',,", f _r' "" ' MA(,.J l Ii , if Ve ~""'I'." <.::>' ;'::'1 ~"J f1...,c> 0(1- '-I 1/ I N b / 17 I I'I1;.Tr., I II (-+1 {.? 6{J~ 1L.~"$r (2-r3is " . . .. o o t ->TVA, oetJ I ~------J- f-~ I $T, 13 A :$ e..M f;.# ,- Ii' , I I /5 -:. (.. 0 6/>(2.4&;;' {.t-16 6.1 #$ / (...1.:\-$',- p..15 <5, " City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application For Office Use Only: Application No. Date Received . s.Z-t::>-4 BZA Meeting Date .s. 'Z4 .fA Amount Received 5:1. c>U 1. Street address of property involved in this application: 0"2,0 COl..VNIAL.-o l? j2.. I V E.. Go L-/7ErJ V,A L-L-I~ 1/l tJ 5' 4-1 lo 2. Applicant: ~8-rJ <;; TD('JE:.. Name 1< 00 E- r. M-CA-h TE.. <:::[V'~ b(2..OV r~. L-Tl' _ j I ~ (;.(LovEt.-MJO Add ress T6(2- (4::. ce.. VlfL.5 ~N 5'~q.-o3 City/State/Zip h{7. -70'6 - fc,07fc Cell Phone {p(Z~~77""27;1 Business Phone ~ (2. - ~ 2. '2 - lJ?.fo6 Home Phone 1<.5 ToV\e...- e I<..od~t. GoVh Email Address .~'i 4. Detailed description of building(s),addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site plans and drawings submitted with this petition will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. Tth ~ f{2.. 0...] ~ c:..r IN c..L. v V r;.. S B 011-+ A,::::, {Z ON "\ A-t-I p p. ~ A{.Z.. !rOv' 7'1 o,J TO AIJ (;:.)q5j1,.J b ~Mf:. TIn:: Ffl-owT I1-1?i?171 <>tJ I rJ l.. L.v vIS S A- fV E:.IN f:. rJ'T(lA.rJ GE... / t? I N /Iv (> f2-0 (:> M I f:~r A-tJ Oe (/ r--/TUf-E-rJ ArND e,...}~6~v b4f2-Abf: . ~ IZ.';M- AI?P,JJeuJ It.u...\-V()F-.-5 / TWo J5f:vf2.00f-'tS' A- MA-,> rC-/Z. BM7-+ I .A-JJO e rJ 1./A-12- ~I'/ ~fv11 L.. '-1' f2.t;/ ~ i"1 , To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that unless construction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. ~~ Sf nature of Applicant 5. If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the owner of this property: . A ~.~~ ~L.q~s ~~~~:~~U Gst Variance Application Submittal: The following information must be submitted by the application deadline to make a complete E!Pplication. If.an application is incomplete, it will not be accepted: / Completed application form, including signatures of surrounding property owners. L A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on survey req u i rements. ~ A brief statement of the reasons, necessity, or hardship which provide grounds for the granting of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. j You may submit detailed description of building(s). addition{s), and alteration{s) inVolved in this project. The site plans and drawings submitted with this application wilr be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit / is issued. .~ Variance apPIi'cation fee, as follows: $50 - single family residential; $150 - other Signatures of Surrounding Property Owners Note to the variance applicant: As part of the variance application process, you will need to attempt to obtain the signatures of all ~rrounding p~operty owners. Th. is includes all properties a butt. ing the applicant's property and directly .ross the street. If on a corner, this mean~ across both streets. To obtain these signatures, you will need to personally visit each of these property owners, tell them about your project (we encourage you to bring along a copy of your building plans) and have them sign the area, below. The signature is meant only to verify that you have told them about your project and gives them opportunity to comment. If you have attempted to contact a property owner on two separate occasions and not found them at home, you may simply write something to the effect "made two attempts, owner not home" and then write their address. City staff will also send a written notice informing these property owners of the time and place of the BZA meeting. Note to surrounding property owners: This is an application by your neighbor for a variance from the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of any possible effect the granting of this variance could have on your property. You will also be receiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting. By signing this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about the project, not that you necessarily agree or object to the project. If you wish, you may comment on the project. Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other statements regarding the project.; Print Name .&), Jj, A"- ~ .R 0 , :TM"''' ]? ~w I/J. L/( f. .mment Signature )~/ltf~ Address .>_/tJ Cc. "6 7f/a L PJe.. ~~~~ , . , ~'r~' Print Name omment- Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name .omment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature .nt Name Comment Signature Fe' i;;(:)0 I..(/lt!/ 5 1201,S (; vtf ~ e tu~1 L Address S-D36 (ot;oAl),,-4 L Pi<.. 5TtV~ t P..i.TA Ni)....~JJtJ.s LM>\JJ LH~ A ~(}lt pl.Ai) ~, Address 93/ ~Ia/UI/h; Lh, Address fb ~ I Ct>LO.u Vi /...~ la..lLJf Address Address Address Address . ....:. .:.u . :~,.::. :-:-. -".- '" . . . I I I \ \ \ \ be, IjJ ..55 \ ",'" " '" (; ",,'0'49'02 / 0 \. 98.90 <':..... 0 ~""S23,BS -----s-- \ fit:" \ ~<>--- .2', o?J \/ CS'o' !O /' '..> \ ~ ~ \ BITU"'.~OUS \ 0 o~~ \ ,,'" ,..~ "''1", \ '0,<> L ~ . ~<:>. ~ 60 \ o~ ~ro \ .. . . . ,/" \ HSJ BENCHMARK TOP OF NAIL ELEV.= 861.84 70 .~ . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , ~ ~ ~6' ~-x FINISHED FLOORlZY . ELEV.=863.08 J ~ CS'<' . . 1 1 'X. I.... , ~6' I~ ,1.s ,'y S' 79028'\8/1 c: q, ,-z.2" c (\~' S 29054..J c.. -772.7,(rn) 73,9(1') I I , I "- 'v IjJ XJ ~ ~ o. q,ro 60 ~6' ~o I.t A(:)?J r- SOUND BARRIER cO/ ~ o . I I I I I 1jJ"-~ \\/ XJ / // // / // 1jJ.....' XJ c: /' o o , , , , , , , , , , \ \ \ ,\A.~'~O ~..> / '/ \ \ \ \ \ l' .'~ t T C; . P j.,A-.Nd N--'" . I II . A ' I ' p t ' ..-:. "" 1:) -- (:;1 'H' I '(ji>/ - ' '-.;r .. '/' . I. lS..tI:. "" 1'2.. ~ tf ' . '" ~ II-" '" . '" ., I ,- ~ . I "f:'~';i ~'H fTe.'r~r2~ L. (r(2.0""~ I,..Tt?, ~. "'?l'I1,.~.t jy'f.... ,":' ..:.... w \''''- -,-,-,-" -- '\ -Jfrorv. \ \- -- ,-- ~() O~ "./ . O ......-- 380_--.--- ----- -- \ e' ~' e ~"' '~ .... - '" -- ~ . tiS. '-1 " " tt Ht::t 1'!, ,~ !I'~J, ii ~ i ! I ' .- \ \ U.: '^ ~ ~ ~ c!. \ , \ \ \ \~ ~ :t tt!; ~ (.) rt'\ "^ .-..... \ ..- - -..-... - -.... ..'''''" - .--- .- .--- ..- - - ~-- .- - ~~r I I I I I I , \ \ ,. .) .. \ , 1: { u. \ \ ~ 1 1 ...1 --,_,-i, l,;~",,:::r,i r "r till 1:...:' :----+-~,',," "", ",'"", , ' I I. ! , , \ , \ ,- \ \ it -'''j'' 't _.._~- ':, ' , (, ' ~ I ~==---l. ~-"~"""'~,~~~-,~""'~"'""~,-"' \ \ IJ - '.2. ! t : 4 l ~ ..;' ~ ..~ "", I'; \\\ . \J\ \,1\ ~ , ! +-----..."", ' ' " , clr';1 ,t::li i q' ~~ I , 1. __ " IT-Xl _ I ~ "'."...." '~"".........- -"'"'\ "t. . 0 "0 ~ ~ i I;' - - I :; c , "'6:> tc'" I ,~ .0 - ~ ~ ....-- -..-~--- - - -...... . -. .. e - -- .. - ...- ;rr - ! , : r f ; I I I ~ -,' ti ~ I ! ; : f t If .' I I ' I! /"-' 1 I Ii ~. bl 8 ~I ~ I ! i --- - i i. i I: I j 1 i li I ~ i' f' J < I: tU ~' ~. t ~ ~ 1$1 ~ \ }' ! 1: ~ i!f 14) ~ I I i I . 'I.. \) <t ~V\ , 1.0 t-~ c,U.j '" -- .~ - --- .- ...- -- - .- I II f+ --- ........ I I: -...... -, ..........- - ........... III Ij 1 i! 1 ~I f [ 11 ~ , I! t( II II tJ \U ~ . I i 1 ~ , I I I m q. I b J ~ ~ t i' -. .~ --.. -........, ,.....-'- - ---- - ----- - - - ,< i j.. I i! -~ ....... - .-------- . .- \11 ~ 4i ~ <1, \D - - -,~ .~. - -'--~.A . ",' -.. - ~ -.... .\ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ . f/ ~'! T '1 J (---+- ~\ ~\ ~, \ . 'I ~ ! T i! T 0/ 1 Il,r ! I i I ! I ! "~-- .1 , !I j II I III II I !I illl Ilill \ I II i I I f ! I I J -. - .. .,------ llll j I I I -------,,11 III ~ III I' II I I [ I I j I . . ~ f ~. 1 . ,. 1 * I j I I ! ~ i i ) ~ i i i I II Ii ! 1 I II i \ ~ ~ :1 I I ~ Ii I) , I .! ! i. It iJ.. \fj ~i . ! {l ~ { 1. 1; i ~ i I t 1\ ~; ! If.: /- < 141 " : fr ? tI; !- .L,..,j , ; ; ! ill' ; ; ( ! i' ~'lllci, t!i i J ,I 11; > I. I j~! hi_',' i i,., l ~,i tJ ~.ir ;;:i~ Mi! Ilu I , ' I i - II l'1!,: I ioJ.,',: :,1 ! &i"Ji, w Iii! ... , \lr!I,W ~,',l" ',:.! tt,', fr 1>! I! ki ~ ~,',,_\''- II, U:,.i'i',' ~~i H. '10N.: ~ i i 1 ( (, ii, It! " i i 11+! ~ 11 :;, -f ~ f4i0t~_i ~;l\i ~ It ~~S~ ~B~~ . . . ,J i/ - - ~ ~- ------ - ,.......,..._~ ...-----.--- ---..--..--- :r;;: - I, ."..~ " -- _. ..... '-' - ~ -,,~~ .~.'~~"" - - ---- 'i .....:.-~ # 1. '. .'-. c' A--'--~- -.- ----..> . 'l " -~._-- ,-_. ----- \ .;- , " , , fo---- " . . . II ! I ~ t , i , I . ! 11 I 11 I. I! l f II ! r . . t-.' . ~. "" ;~, ;;~'. .'i~. ;, ... ~'f ~ " :; '/ . i ~ " , t-r- \. t - jl, U " r; C i ';, 1,.",. . . !LL .:.3 ~i 'l'x ~ ~ ;, : ';' 'i :: ): ii ,~:'l. , 1 :'." ~" , \ i i ,; C) ; f ~h-- . : \ll jJi ; ! ~ I!Y ii,~ ;, { .~.~ H; ; j H-]ll It )!'U \l~~ !I H 1(1 j i f t I ~ ;I~i 1 ~~'! ~ ; ,I . 1 It. ~,...,.. H :~ ~'I . bl to) f' l~ ~i ~ ~ r il ~ I! I. I l- ! -t t t . .' . 7155 Medicine Lake Road . Michael Pierce, Applicant 04-03-09 . See Large Size Plans and/or Survey in Planning Department . . . Hey Planning 763-593-8095/ 763-593.;.8109 (fax) Date: March 15, 2004 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: 7155 Medicine Lake Rd. 55427 (04-03-09) Michael Pierce, Applicant Michael Pierce has a purchase agreement to buy the property at 7155 Medicine Lake Rd. (southeast corner of Medicine Lake Rd. and Nevada Ave). This property was formally occupied by Egan Companies. Mr. Pierce is the owner of Co-Rect Products that is located just to the east of 7155 Medicine Lake Road. He would like to purchase this building to expand his business. His plans include the construction of a 2-story, 4,441 sq. fl. addition on to the northwest corner of the building. This addition would replace the existing gas station building. The applicant is requesting a variance from one requirement of the Industrial zoning district (Section 11.30) in order to allow fewer parking spaces. In 1992, the BZA granted variances to allow for the construction of the existing warehouse that is attached to the east side of the old gas station building. This variance permitted less landscape setback along both Medicine Lake Rd. and Nevada Ave. Since the parking lot will not encroach any further into these setback areas due to Pierce proposal, these variances remain valid. A second variance for parking was also granted to allow 30 parking spaces rather than the required 36. Egan's plan was to use the building primarily for warehouse purposes and did not have many employees in the building. During Egan's tenure in the building, parking has never been a problem. Co-Rect Products plans to add the 4,441 sq. ft. office building and use the remainder for warehouse space. In the letter from Will Jensen of Cunningham Group Architecture, Mr. Jensen states that they will have a total of 16 employees on site--4 in the warehouse and 12 in the office. Therefore, they believe that the proposed 26 parking spaces are more than adequate for their business. The City staff is in the process of amending the parking requirements in the zoning code. For warehouse space, the staff will be recommending one parking space for each 1,500 sq. ft. of warehouse space rather than the current one space for each 500 sq. ft. Using the new recommended requirement, the parking requirement forthe new Co-Rect facility would be 29 spaces or only three spaces more than proposed by Co- Reel. . The following variance is requested: · Section 11.30, Subd. 6 Parking Requirements. City Code requires that the proposed building have a total of 52 parking spaces-,.34 spaces for the 16,936 sq. ft. warehouse (one space for each 500 sq. ft.) and 18 spaces for the 4,441 sq. ft. office (one space for each 250 sq. ft.). The variance request is for 26 spaces off the required 52 spaces to a total of 26 spaces. A review of the City's file indicates that the warehouse portion of the building was built in 1992 when the variance was granted for parking and setback. The gas station portion of the building was constructed in 1964. . . . . . Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 February 11, 1992 their property but they did have concerns for snow removal. Mr. Wilkins assured the Board ~ndMr. Trickett they would cooperate and basically their plan for snow removal includes trucking from the site. Mr. Trickett said they are excited about the possibility of another Dealership ~nd the substantial improvement a new building would make. Larry Smith said overall he felt the proposal is a good use for the site as this is a unique pocketed area and other uses such as restaurant, medical or office is limited because of access and visibility. Noting the previous hardships relative to the site as described by Mr. Wilkins, Larry Smith moved to approve the waivers as requested on the agenda subject to the proponent identifying on new site plans the specific areas of parking for new car receipt or storage, display areas, customer service and employee parking before this goes to the City Council for consideration of the Conditional Use Permit. Second by Herb Polachek and upon vote carried unanimously. A site plan was designated exhibit "A" and signed and dated by Chairman Swedberg and Mr. Mark Wilkins and will become a permanent record of this approval. 92-2-4 (Map 4) Industrial 7155 Medicine Lake Road Gerald L. Egan The petition is for waiver of Section: 11.36Subd. 6 (A) front setback, for 19 feet off the required 35 feet of landscape along Medicine Lake Road. to a proposed landscape depth of 16 feet beginning at the west lot 1 i ne and east for 145 feet; and for. 15 feet off the required 35 feet of landscape along Nevada Avenue North to a landscape depth of 20 feet, and for Section 11.36 Subd. 7 parking, for 6 spaces off the required 36 spaces to a total of 30 provided. The petition was in order and consent obtained from adjacent properties. Present for the meeting was James Rivard, Egan & McKay, Ken Benson, Benson Orth Construction and John Nisson of Bernard Herman Architects. No others were in attendance. Mr. Nisson made the presentation and described the proposal as construction of a new office and warehouse building which would incorporate the existing former servi~e station. The service station would have matching exterior and the appearance would be as one new building. Mr. Nisson had renderings of the building and a landscape site plan. John Rivard described their use of the building as primarily warehousing for their electrical products and equipment. . Board of Zoning Appeals Page 4 February 11, 1992 The service station portion would continue to be used for service and main~ tenance of their related equipment. While they have attempted to provide all the required parking, in actuality they would have only four or five employees at most on this site. Mahlon Swedberg questioned the maneuvering area for semi IS getting to the two loading docks. Mr. Rivard said while parking spaces are shown along Nevada Avenue there wouldnltbe any parking in that area because of the limited amount of employees. Semi~trailer deliveries approximate one every two weeks. Other deliveries or shipments from the site are by smaller vehicles. Mahlon Swedberg said he observed 17 pieces of equi~ment and vehicles . on site several days ago and questioned if this type of condition would occur with the new building. Mr. Rivard said emphatically no, that that equipment was brought in because of a very large MNDOT contract and was serviced and going.out shortly. Mr. Ken Benson noted that substantial property was taken on two occasions for widening of Medicine Lake Road and also with a 351 foot landscape requirement on that side as well as Nevada Avenue they have tried to strike a balance of adequate landscape while meeting parking requirements. During further discussion of landscape the offset in the south lot line was noted and the Board suggested for continuity and, as Mr. Rivard said they have limited parking requirements, would he be amenable to landscaping those two spaces along the south lot line? Mr. Rivard said they could and would. Chairman Swedberg said with the present site pl an it would provide proof of parking in that area and if at a subsequent time as needed or upon change of occupancy would Mr. Rivard agree to establish the spaces? Mr. Rivard agreed and the additional landscape \'Jould enhance the site. . At the close of discussion Mike Sell moved to approve the waivers as requested on the agenda with the two parking spaces landscaped as agreed. Sell noted the requirement of 351 feet of landscape on two sides, the several takings for right~of.way which further limited the site and the surrounding topography. Second by Larry Smith and upon vote carried unanimously. The Board acknowledged receipt of Linda McCracken~Huntls resignation as Vice Chair .of the Planning Commission. Linda noted her extremely busy workload at this time made it impossible to continue as Vice Chair and also as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals. During further discussion Larry Smith asked if it would be possible for her to continue as an alternate as replacement for Herb Polachek. After some thought Linda agreed and said she would inform the Mayor and Council of that possibility. Chairman Swedberg said it was the time of the year to poll the members on their availability for reappointment in April. After discussion on individual commitments the Board members all agreed theywou 1 d cons i der reappoi ntment for another year. Chairman Swedberg said he would inform the City Manager, Mayor and Council. There being no further business to come before the Board, it was upon motion, second, and vote to adjourn at 9:25 P.M. Mahlon Swedberg . . . . . . . Memorandum To: Mark Grimes City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 From: Project Subject: Date: Copy To: Will Jensen Co-Rect Products Office Addition Variance for Office Adition February 27,2004 Michael B. Pierce, Alan Engler, Dear Mark, The intent of this memorandum is to explain and clarify the need for an updated variance for the property located at 7155 Medicine Lake Road in Golden Valley. Minnesota. The existing 1992 variance stipulates amended setbacks and parking considerations. Co-Rect products wishes to purchase this property, demolish the existing gas station and build a 4441 square foot, 2 story, office building to support the existing 16,936 square foot warehouse facility. The new structure will abide by the existing variance setbacks but will need to update the parking component. The new addition will accommodate 12 employees and the warehouse will staff 2-4 employees for a total need of 16 parking spaces for staff. This will leave the site with 10 extra existing spaces. The existing building and garage are currently parked at 26 spaces with an additional two spaces located within the existing garage. The 1992 plan shows the site parking calculations as follows: Warehouse 16,436 sf 1 500 per space + Garage 405 sf 1500 sf. per space + Office 500 sf 1250 sf per space = 36 spaces required. eight less than the required total parking. The current zoning multipliers suggest that this updated facility would need to be parked at 52 spaces based on 16936 sf 1500 sf per space (warehouse) = 33.87 spaces plus 4441 sf 1250 sf per space (office) totaling 52 spaces. However, Mark Grimes has mentioned that the City of Golden Valleyis thinking of amending its warehouse multiplier to 1500 sf per space. Under these circumstances the office would need to accommodate 29 spaces (16,936/1500 + 4441/250). Michael Pierce. CEO of Co-Rect Products Inc., is asking the City to amendl or replace the 1992 variance and allow'him to park the site at the existing 26 spaces which will be three (3) spaces less than the amended zoning calculation for warehouse facilities. Please let us know if there is any additional information needed. Thanks You. ~ . Will Jensen Cuningham Group Architecture P .A. Form Letters1 3/1/2004 Page 1 of 1 Cuningham Group@ Minneapolis Los Angeles Madrid Cuningham Group Architecture, P.A. 20t Main Street SE Suite 325 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Telephone: (612) 379-3400 Facsimile: (612) 379-4400 www.cunlngham.com John Cuningham, FAIA John HamiRon, AlA John Culter, AlA Thomas Hoskens, AlA Douglas lowe, AlA Timothy DufauR, AlA Roger W. Kipp, AlA James Scheidel,. AlA David Solner, AlA Mark Sopko, AlA Jonathan V. Watts, AlA ... . City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application For Office Use Only: Application No. Date Received BZA Meeting Date Amount Received 1. Street address of property involved in this apPlication~ -, \ S-~ MeQ,c-\-<- LlL L<- kQ 2. Applicant: t'\., L "'^-- _'2-\. \\ V \ (' , ( ~ NameC,o \ J2. fl....... '-../ c.... \ , 't!' ~ ~ \ 0 ~ l~ e Q~ L '- ""~ Lc... '(~ \2 k' \'-'\. '-"' S-S- ~ 1 Address q ~ at - C; .s-~ - ~ \ \ "1 City/State/Zip 'I ~.~ - S L\ ~ - '1 LCJO Business Phone Home Phone Cell Phone Email Address / . Detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site plans and drawings submitted with this petition will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. ~O",.,..,qN ot=. tnc:l677N4 ',2'1-e. SF 51A1""c...~ ~a:1 Bu'c...~/~. t!oAJs~c.r NE'N 4; 4+1 6F .~ 67'Or-a-y or-;,:r~ 6cJI c.,.OU.Jt4 IN ptz.o,..n- 0 F exlf:.T7NGr WAlI2..O+fov~cs- UN $.Af"ofe- l.oc::A7"70Al Of"'" faCl~17l..Jq. srll..JJc..TtJ~ ) . - 4. To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this a plication are true and correct. I also understand that unless construction of the action applica Ie to .s variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. \fVV\. G '-'- Signature of Applicant . lMlt::.&+A~ B. P/~ Print Name of owner 5. If the applicant is not tl1e owner of all property involved ithis applic tion, please name the owner of this property: Variance Application Submittal: he following information must be submitted by the application deadline to make a complete plication. If an application is incomplete, it will not be accepted: ~ Completed application form, including signatures of surrounding property owners. y:. A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on survey requirements. '-A. A brief statement of the reasons, necessity, or hardship which provide grounds for the granting of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. --r-- You may submit detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this project. The site plans and drawings submitted with this application will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. IX' Variance application fee, as follows: $50 - single family residential; ~ - ot0 Signatures of Surrounding Property Owners Note to the variance applicant: As part of the variance application process, you will need to attempt to obtain the signatures of all .rrounding property owners. This includes all properties abutting the applicant's property and directly across the street. If on a corner, this means across both streets. To obtain these signatures, you will need to personally visit each of these property owners, tell them about your project (we encourage you to bring along a copy of your building plans) and have them sign the area, below. The signature is meant only to verify that you have told them about your project and gives them opportunity to comment. If you have attempted to contact a property owner on two separate occasions and not found them at home, you may simply write something to the effect "made two attempts, owner not home" and then write their address. City staff will also send a written notice informing these property owners of the time and place of the BZA meeting. Note to surrounding property owners: This is an application by your neighbor for a variance from the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of any possible effect the granting of this variance could have on your property. You will also be receiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting. By signing this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about the project, not that you necessarily agree or object to the project. If you wish, you may comment on the project. Comments can contain language of agreeing with the:project, objecting to the project or other statements regarding the project. .int Name . ~ \ c... Comment Signature \=J,< -~ c!2e-~ Address t l CJ ~ \~ -€- 2 '- L ~ --""- L_\(<- "R~ G.U' " . . . FEB-19-2004 16:42 ~. Print N~mo Colt'lment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Nome Comment EGAN MECHANICAL P.04 g~ l~ . /7/0 r J, I ,,'e' ~ & 7A J[J1Y~6 ..t."'}..,- I ~. Y $ tpV€ L,p'~_~ kl' -';;,.J,,:...& l(u1'1fO~ 5T/..f a..s:.> C /lie 11.'.1.. R.. 4/~ Address hCl/"o..... UI>>J/t"l RlNt;"(','7 e~f,I(~, fl1(/fL(~l' ltJf.- Addrass...2..')..o1 Nlvr;dfl 1I"':'f IV ~ .(/ ~;.- ~.~.'... r; 2.n./ 0 'B.It ~ 1\ I . SIgnature ik, ~ Print Namo Commqnt Sisn::trure Print Name Comment Signature Print Nome Comment Sigrlah,re Print NQm~ Commont Signature ,--. O~~--1;-tJi\ Addre$S J()() M~~ x .::r #Wr~ ..T /Y~~_ h J\ -;- ~~. ?'#~L ';-" " E" I'.;....,...s '" <:.. '..w. .~,e. Add(C33 u.r.:r "..... ~""""4- ~ _ J- Address Addret;:s A.ddre3s TOTAL P.04 , . 1529 FairlawnWay . Rita and Martin Newman, 04-03-10 . . . . Hey Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Date: March 15, 2003 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: 1529 Fairlawn Way 55416 (04-03-10) Rita and MartinNewman, Applicant Rita and .Martin Newman own the house and property at 1529 Fairlawn Way in the South Tyrol neighborhood. They are requesting one variance from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C}of the Zoning Code in order to allow for the construction of a second stall addition to theirone.-car garage. Because of the location of the current one-stall garage, it was known that asurvey would be required in order to obtain a building permit and variance. The survey indicates that the existing garage is located 14 ft. from the south side property line. The second stall addition is proposed to be 9 ft. wide and come to within 5 ft. of the side property line.The required side yard setback is 12 ft. There is information attached from the property owner and a letter from their neighbors to the south (Gary Cohen and Margaret Macneale). The project requires a variance from the following section of City Code: · Section 11.21, Subd.7(C) Side Yard Setback. City Code requires that ther~ be a 12 ft. s.ide yard setback in the case of a lot having 80 ft. in width. The variance request is 7 ft. off the. required 12 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. to its closest point to the south side yard property line. A review of the City file indicates that the house was built in 1956 and that no other additions have. been made to the house since that time. . . . . Gary W. Cohen Margaret Macneale 4530 Douglas Avenue Golden Valley, MN 55416-3527 March 9, 2004 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Re: Martin and Rita Newman 1529 FairlawnWay This letter is in support ofthe. variance being requested by our neighbors, Rita and Martin Newman, 1529 Fairlawn Way, Golden Valley, MN. They wish to widen their garage from a I-stall to a 2-stall garage. In order to do this, the resulting garage would be within 5' of our shared lot line. Our home is on the comer ofF'airlawn Way and Douglas Avenue. Our 'back Yard' is shallow, and abuts the Newman's side yard. This is where the garage would be widened. We far prefer their widening the garage, coming close to the shared lot line, rather than putting the. second garage stall behind the first one, sticking out in to their backyard. While the wider garage would be close to the lot line, it would not impinge on us at alL We have two rooms and windows that look out on that part of the lot. One window is from the master bathroom, and is always covered. The other window is in a seldom-used extra room. The alternative, putting the new garage stall behind the existing, would significantly restrict our view from our family room. The family room is the most-used room in our home. We have a sliding door and deck on the north side of the room, and from that we look in to the Newman' sexpansive back yard. If the garage stall were added here, we would lose almost the entire view. If you have stopped by to look at our lots, you can understand why we far prefer an option that would widen the Newman's existing garage. We hope you will approve their requested variance. ~.lncerelY, . ~lLW CV ~ Garyw.\cohen I -j' ~. // ~,. ;;%~ad~ Margaret Macneale . . . . . e"" e . _, ('.l C+-; o . p.. . . v o o ..... - M c.J e:: d ~I """ r- M o I M o ..... -- '" 1:1 Q) E ;:j Q o Cl ~ u ::::::: Qj tE . . . rage 1 ot 1 1l1~.II'-': \ VVli'lUV VV,:)\1 CIVir\1 V-'-V-' /0 liVIU.JrU -'10/V<f N c..-. o . p. . . "" o -- o ..... -- M o ~ d ~ I If') ['-. M o I M o ..... -r;; 15 (J) S ::l o o o ~ u -- -- Qj tE t'age 1 or 1 . . . llltUI\..-: \ VV ll'llUUVV "\lCIVl.t"\l v-,-v-, 1 ~ llVlU.JrU -'/01 V'+ . . . rage 1 ot 1 martin newman From: To: Sent: Subject: Rita Newman <rita@e-realestatetitie.com> martin newman <martini@skypoint.com> Wednesday, March 10, 2004 12:09 PM Variance To Whom It May Concern: We are requesting a variance for a second stall to our existing garage. We consider not having a double garage a hardship as we are a two car family and one car is always parked on the street or in the driveway. Our neighbors on the south side of the lot prefer that we construct 2nd stall to the side, otherwise thetandem style would block the view from their family room and patio. We appreciate your consideration of this matter. ;:2 ~~~<4., Ji?-!/w~ Rita and Martin Newman ~11 VIVLt 3. . . City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Zoning Code Variance Application 1. Street address of property involved in this application: 15;?1fJl;RJ~~ I CnU><-MlyH1JJ ~sWj, Applicant: Mt.4 cUtJ IflQl2rtJ Mut'i4-tV Name 2. For Office Use Only: Application No. Date Received BZAMeeting Date 3" z:~ Amount Received So IfJ 9 fi/llIt6W/L bJ/J-tf Address qr;!J~ 1~3()'77 Business Phone tcltt'4tl ~ /IlN5Slflb City/State/Zip.. ....... 163-3'7*7-9;;'';)D 163~tf'39- q'J.~{) Home Phone Cell Phone Email Address Detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site plans and drawings submitted with this petition will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. UtM. ~JSu4 -r;7~'t1~~. SaAit~~ 4. To the best of my knowledge the statements found inthis application are true and correct. I also understand that unless construction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. y ~;/&i;U~, Y 'l1;;~ NlM.-rw< av. . Signature of Applicant 5. If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the owner of this property: . Print Name of owner Signature of owner Variance Application Submittal: The foHmving information must be submitted by the application deadline to make a complete pplication. If an application is incomplete, it will not be accepted: ~ Completed application form, including signatures of surrounding property owners. /" A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on surve-y requirements. .; A brief statement of the reasons, necessity, or hardship which provide grounds for the. granting of this variance (see Frequently ASked. Questions for an. ex.. pla~~ of a ;)h:?S. hig")~. ~ . :lta.~ h letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. ... $e<-->\-lt(,~J J&..t44'2..-l) plu-{55 _ You may submit detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this project. The site plans and drawings submitted with this application wilI be the basis of any variance thaFmay be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. d j Variance application fee, as folIows: $50 - single family residential; $150 - other '\ Signatures of Surrounding Property Owners Note to the variance applicant: As part of the variance application process, you will need to attempt to obtain the signatures of all rrounding property owners. This includes all properties abutting the applicant's property and directly ross the street. If on a corner, this means across both streets. To obtain these signatures, you will need to personally visit each of these property owners, tell them about your project (we encourage you to bring along a copy of your building plans) and have them sign the area, below. The signature is meant only to verify that you have told them about your project and gives them opportunity to comment. If you have attempted to contact a property owner on two separate occasions and not found them at home, you may simply write something to the effect "made two attempts, owner not home" and then write their address. City staffwill also send a written notice informing these property owners of the time and place of the 8ZA meeting. Note to surrounding property owners: This is an application by your neighbor for a variance from the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of any possible effect the granting of this variance could have on your property. You wilI also be receiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting. By signing this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about the project, not that you necessarily agree or object to the project. If you wish, you may comment on the project. Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other stat~ments regarding the projefr .&l-l~ .. , annt Name ~~. 't1~1 ('o6~ '!omment lue Ct..\.l s m...-\- ~ \JCU..'tCL\N:.Q Signature ~ , ~\.AQA.\-. .~ \e~~. Address fJ5C> ~tJ/~./Pt-/ Print Name KU"n P~c---e- S:::::~ ~~~~ ~ Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Address t~S-- J;d~ Ma..h ii, . e~ Address '6)0 iJlJl!j~. .~. - ,uf/e IJeo/e. lfI1itfitaYM~ 371-<I:1r1 Address! ~ ~() f%/ePfJ&,;j!Aj print Name ~~e~t .omment Signature P;;~6~~-Of Address I)~ ..~l.\~~ Print Name Comment Signature . Print Name Comment Signature .ntName Comment Signature Address Address Address