02-13-79 BZA Minutes i=, r�i`�
, _
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
GOLDEN VALLEY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
February 13, 1979
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held Tuesday,
February 13, 197g at 7:30 P.M. at the Golden Valley Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley
Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota.
The following Board members were present:
Chairman Mahlon Swedberg
Glen Christiansen
Mike Sell
Wi 11 iam forster
Donald Hughes (alternate)
Larry Smith absent by previous arrangement (out of State) .
The first order of business was consideration of the minutes of the meeting held
November 14, 197$• (No meeting held in December 1�78 or Janua ry 1g79 as no
waiver requests were submitted.)
The Chairman reviewed the .minutes and asked for any comments, additions or corrections,
there being none, it was moved by Sell , seconded by Christiansen to approve the
minutes as written and presented. Upon vote the motion carried.
79-21-1 Map 17 Lot 2 Block 2 Institutional 7500 O1son Mem. Hwy.
Golden Va}ley Retirement Home, Pau1 Pink & Associates, Inc. and SkYline Builders
The petition is for a determination that the proposed building and its intended
use at this time is correct for the Institutional Zoning of the site, and for
waivers of the following sections of the Zoning Code:
Section 11 .03 (Height) for 1 1/Z stories allowed by the Zoning Code.
Section 11 .06 (Yard Requirements) for 5' off the required 30' setback along
the East lot line to a setback of 25' from
the East lot line to the proposed building
for a distance of 255.96 ft. beginning at
the South lot line,
for 13.5' off the required 30' setback to a
distance of 16.5' from the North lot line
at its closest point to the Northwest corner
of the proposed building,
for 3` off the required 5 p' setback along the
South lot line to a distance of 47 ft. to
the closest point of the buitding offset.
Section 13.01 (Off Street Parking) for 37 spaces off the required 93 spaces
to 56 spaces on the site and constructed
in accordance with the Zoning Code.
�-r--�;.�
� -W-�.. . Y"�
Fi.' �it'���
Board of Zoning Appeals
February 13, 1g79 page 2
Section 13.02 (Landscape Areas) for 5' off the required 15' of green area
along the West }ot line for a distance of
235•O ft. beginning at the South lot line,
for ll ' off the required 25' of green area
along the North lot line beginning at
Rhode Island Ave. and East for a distance
of 138.87 feet,
for zero to 30' reduction along part of the
78,54 feet of the North property line
beginning from the East lot line,
for approximately 2' off the required 15'
along the South lot line beginning at
Rhode Island Ave. arrd East for a distance
of 164.86 feet,
for 5' off the required 35' of green area at
the Southwest corner of the parking lot
where a parking space projects into the land-
scape area.
Present for the meeting was Mr. Paul Pink of Paul Pink and Assoc. , Jnc, and
Mr. Rollin Stinski of Skyline Builders. No abutting property owners were present.
Chairman Swedberg reviewed the petition and found it in order.
The Chairman noted that the first portion of the waiver request was for the Board
to determine if, at this time, the proposed building and its intended use is
correct for the Institutional (I-3) Zoning, which is the present zoning of the site.
The result of this determination would provide either for subsequent consideration
of the waivers for structure, parking and landscape or no further consideration
of those items due to the proposed use being deemed not to meet the intent of
Institutional Zoning.
The Board entered a lengthy and detailed discussian with Mr. Pink and Mr. Stinski .
This discussion included a review and clarification, step by step, of the services
provided and structural design and consideration as noted in the brochure.
The Board reviewed with the proponents the sequence of events beginning with the
original proposal where the buildings were all one entity and all services com-
bined. Each time the waivers for each proposal expired before final plans were
completed, financing arranged and building permit issued.
The proposals have changed from time to time and at this time there is no connection
with Trevilla as far as property and structures are concerned. The brochure as now
presented, outlines certain services that may be related ef which the proponent
deems as pr4viding the requirements for his use in Institutional Zoning.
Mr. Stinski described the board and care services provided, noting when asked,
that there is no relationship with Trevilla of Golden Valley.
� _ -_��-,
� �,�,�
Board of Zoning Appeals
February 13, 1979 page 3
Mr. Stinski described the rents as follows; These figures include all amenities
such as food, laundry, maid and care services as outlined in their brochure:
1 Bedroom $803 Monthly
2 Bedroom $1 ,272+ Monthly
Glen Christiansen asked what the age limit for admittance is. Mr. Stinski said
he believed it would be age 55 and up, noting the financing for this proposal is
by HUD and certain age requirements would have to be met and these may be more
restrictive to a higher age.
Two meals would be provided every day of the month, however all units have kitchens
with dishwashers, stoves and disposals.
Glen Christiansen expressed his concern that if this building has problems with
occupancy and it could become in default, the proposal could very well be proposed
for multiple dwelling occupancy and then an extreme parking and density problem
would exist.
Donald Hughes asked if the statement in the brochure is correct that no lease is
required and occupancy could be month to month. Stinski confirmed this as correct.
It was noted that this was an extremely flexible situation.
Mr. Pink noted that the proposal has 40i of the building as public and commons
area and 60i utilized for rental occupancy and proposed that this ratio made
the proposal different from a standard multiple dwelling.
Don Hughes stated these things are subject to change. Mike Seil asked, typically
how many occupants per unit. Mr. St:nski replied that possibly 10 out of the 93
units would have double oecupancy.
In the brochure under facilities available, the Board asked for clarification
of the following:
What contract or provisions actually are there for medical care?
Mr. Stinski described a nurse call system to adjacent Trevilla and also emergency
call 6ystem to North Memorial Hospital . A nurse is not in the building for a
scheduled 8 hours or cluring 24 hours each day.
The nurse is in the structure pert time, possibly 3 days a week. The nursing
service was described as of a sick call type.
In absence of a nurse in the building the call button would be used to summon
either a nurse from Trevilla or a North memorial Ambulance. The Board noted
that as previously stated, there is no connection anymore, and questioned what
contracts are available and whether these services could actually be provided
and what happens if the contract services are terminated?
Mr. Stinski noted there is an administrator in the building 8 hours a day.
Mike Sell said that rendering the services as described, it appeared to have more
of a context of a luxury apartment building with certain added serviees being
provided.
��-,�
Board of Zoning Appeals
February 13, Jg79 page 4
It was noted,. the dietitian is not physically in the building for a11 food
preparation and supervision but is on a consu}ting basis.
As a result of all this discussion it appeared that no contract services are
confirmed and more definitive services and use are required to substantiate the
Institutional use as described.
The Chairman noted the number of times this proposal has been considered and as
things are changed it may. be a vietim of time and those changes. Each time the
proposal was considered more and more questions have risen and the present one of
determination of use is a very valid and substantial question which must be
answered.
Swedberg said he could not see the present proposal as actually being in the con-
text of a nursing home. It has apartment type facilities and age, mobility and
l:ease situations tend heavily toward multiple usage.
The Ghair stated this may be more of a situation that should be considered under
Planned Unit Development.
Glen Christiansen stated he does not believe now that the question of use has
been raised, that this proposal now meets Institutional requirements. He des-
cribed previous cross agreements that now do not exist.
Donald Hughes moved to refer the question of use within lnstitutional be referred
to the City Council to review it for proper classification. Christiansen seconded
this motion, upon discussion, the Chairman said the question on the agenda is for
the Board to answer, Christiansen suggested changing the motion.
Swedberg said the question to be answered is yes, the proposed use is correct,
or no, it is not proper for Institutional Zoning.
Donald Hughes withdrew his motion.
William Forster moved that at this time the use as proposed does not comply with
Institutional Zoning requirements. Motion seconded by Mike Sell .
The Chairman restated the motion and vote was called.
Upon vote it was unanimous that the Board determines that the proposed use of
this property does not fit the intent of the Institutional (I-3) Zoning.
�
Donald Hughes moved that as a result of the determination by the Board, the
remaining waivers not be considered. Seconded by Sell and upon vote, motion
carried unanimousty.
Paul Pink asked to be sent the appropriate appeal forms.
Ti�e Chairman reviewed several administrat+ve items, including his meeting with
the City Council and was done with all Commissions and Board Chairrr±�n.
�. r-,�
. �
Board of Zoning Appeals
February 13, 1979 page 5
The Caro1 Ann Corres appeal was reviewed and discussed. The Chair proposed
a review of by-laws next month and possible further communications with the
City Council .
There being no further business to come before the Board, it was on motion,
duly seconded, and upon vote carried to adjourn at 11 :00 P.M.
Chairman Mahlon Swedberg R cord ng Secretary Lloy Becker