03-10-81 BZA Minutes �� �-��
� .�•�
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MfETJNG OF THE
GOLDEN VALLEY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
MARCH 10, 1981
The regular meeting of the GoTden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held
Tuesday, March iQ, 1g81 , at 7:30 P.M. at the Golden Va11ey Civic Center,
7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota.
The following Board members were present:
Mike Sell
Mahlon Swedberg
Williarn Forster
Donald Hughes (alternate)
Also presen.t Lioyd Becker, Secretary and Staff Liaison.
Absent by prior arrangement, Chairman Glen Christiansen and Art Flannagan.
The first order of business was approval of t-he minutes of a regular meeting
held on Tuesday, December 9, 1g80, copies of which had previously been dis-
tributed to the Board for review. (Note: No Board of Zoning Appeals Meetings
were held during the months of January and February, 1981 , as no petitions had
been filed to be heard by the Board,)
It was moved by Mike Selt to approve the minutes as written and presented of
the meeting of December 9, 1980. Seeond by William Forster, upon vote motion
carried.
81-3-1 (Map 16) P.U.D, 26A
7520 Golden Va11ey Road
Calvary Square Addition, Lot 2, Block 1
Calvary Community Services, Inc.
The Petition is for waiver of Section
4.03(c) parking requirements fQr 72 spaces off the required
152 indoor .spaces to a total of 80 indoor: parking spaces for
the 120 living units and for 74 spaces off the required 120
outdoor spaces to a tatal of 46 outdoor parking spaces for
the 120 living units.
The petition was in order, written natice had been sent to all properties within
500' . Publicatian was in the Goiden Va1ley Post February 26, 1�81 ,
Present for the meeting representing Calvary Community Services, tnc, were Mr.
C1yde McCarty, President, Mr. David Thatcher, Mr. Jay Johnson and Mrs, Jerry
Glaser.
Mr. McCarty made a detailed review of the total project, Phase l as now under
construction and Phase II as now proposed. The Phase ll was described as the .
cooperative apartments which are purchased by the individuals and the differences
between Phase I as subsidized units and Phase II as cooperative units was clarified,
�; �`y�
Board of Zoning Appeals
Page 2 March 10, 1981
Mr. McCarty introduced Mr. Jerry Glaser, Marketing Agent for the propo�al .
Mr. GTaser reviewed simitar facilities using Ebenezer Home and 7500 York
Projeet as comparisons.
Mr. GTaser described the age groups and the numbers who have applied for
occupancy in the proposed bui`lding 6y each age group. - He noted for eliq. ibility
the requirement is 56 yea.rs and above.
The following were as presented:
Age Group Applicants
40-45 3
46-50 5
51-55 22
56-60 37
61-65 52
66-70 47
71=75 46
76-80 41
Over 8Q 16
i'he composite was identified at this time as 96 couples and 6g si'ngle �pplicants.
Mahlon Swedberg expressed his concern and questioned Mr. Glaser for-his opinion of
how rnany: within those age groups would possibly be drivers of automobiles. For
exar�ple, what percentage would not own a car? Mr. Glaser extimated using compari-
sons of other existing facilities that possibly 20% wouJd nat drive.
Donald Hughes asked what is the cost of a unit for a couple to move fnto the proposed
structure. Mr. McCarty replied this cannot be determined at this time and he would
be reluctant to estimate as bids for the construction had not been received as yet.
Donald.Hughes noted a signif`rcan� differenee between Phase l as subsidized units and
Phase IP as cooperative units wherein in a11 probability, Phase tl tenants would
more likely be financially able to keep an automobile and the potentiaY for adequate
parking was much higher.
Mike Se11 questioned Mr. Glaser using the faci-lity at 7500 York as cor�parison,
how many have two automobites. Mr, Glaser replied possibly two, maybe three occu-
pants.
Shuttle bus service as used at other facilities and the prop;�sa1 and potential
for Phase l � II of this P.U.D. was discussed.
Mr. McGarty asked Mr. Jay Johnson, architect, for Mil }er, Hanson, I�desterbeck, Bell ,
Inc. , to review the proposed construction and to answer any questions anyone may
have.
���'
�r-,,-�
Board af Zoning Appeals
Page 3 Marcn T0, 1981
Mr. Johnson descri:bed the averatl strueture and in deta'il th:e parking facilities
as designed far 80 veh`icles witfiin the structure. He described the south portion
of the proposed structure as 6 levels, the center section as 11 levels and the
north portion now under construetion as 7 levels which has now been reached.
Approximately 20 were present in the audience for this meeting, - At this tirne
Mahlon Swedberg asked if anyone desired to be heard. Several spoke in favor
of this proposa1 , some sp�cifiically noting the need for this type of structure
in the community for the senior citizens.
Dover Hills was compared, with an individual stating he visits many times at Dover
Hill com�lex at the senior c'itizen structure and there is always ample parking.
William Forster stafi ed that with the number of`applicants at this time for this
structure, �t appears that whi1e parking facilities are � zoning problem, it
doesn' f appear to diminish the demand for the units because of a parking question.
Mr. Erv Franzen af 855 Pennsylvania Avenue North asked that it be noted in the
minutes that he was in attendance at this meeting and asked if he couTd receive
a copy of the rninutes. The secretary so noted and assured minutes will be sent.
Donald Hughes questioned the procedur� and sequence of events as now outlined
for Phase ll nating �t differed from Phase I �nd previous P.U.D. 's and ques-
tioned why this item>was before the Board of Zoning Appeals prior to being
presented for review and recomrnendations by the Planning Commission for General
Plan and to the City Counc'i1 for general plan approval .
The sequence of events for Phase I was discussed in detail . The secretary reviewed
the requirements of the P.U.D. Ordinance noting fhat with the parking waivers
required to be addressed by the Board o� Zoning Appeals and a} 1 other aspects such
as setbacks, height, green areas, etc. , addressed by the Planning Commission and
Council every effort was made to coordinate a schedule that would not prempt any
other decisions required within the P'.U.D. process in the presen�k ordinance, ft
was noted that this may not 6e totally possible depending on the interpretation
of those making the decisions.
L1oyd Becker reviewed the timetable and sequence for General P1an for Phase tl. as
outlined 6y City Planner, Mike Miller, in his letter to David Thatcher dated January
15, 1981 .
David Thompson �was present at this time and asked to speak on this proposal .
David identified himself as a pres�nt member of the Planning Commission and
also Chairman of the Valley Square Task Force. Mr. Tfiompson questioned the
procedure as this item had not as yet been before the Planning Commission for
General Plan approval . David expressed his concern for parking in the future
and noted some aspects of the Proposed Plan for Valley Square now being con-
sidered and also a traffic study within the area now being done that may have
an effect on this P.U.D.
�' �',. )
� � �'� �
Board of Zoning Appeals
Page 4 March 10, 1981
Mahlon Swedberg suggested the discussions should direct taward a concensus
of opinion at this time.
Mike Sell noted :this propos.ed cooperative apartment is different than a normal
rental apartment project whose tenants tend to be mcare transient, Sell noted a
need for this praject and looked favorably on this projeet but was concerned
for lack of General Plan approval at this time.
Sell stated that on the basis that this proposal is for an elder1y apartment
complex and that the needs are different tf�an a regular apartment complex and
the parking requirements in all probability less, he maved to approve the waivers
as requested. There was no second to the motion.
William Forster said he favored a proposal of thi.s type but was concerned by the
procedures and the waiver request withaut prior general plan approval .
Mahlon Swed6erg discussed the procedure for this proposal and other P.U.D. He
favored this proposal , coald identify tMe need, and under the present structure
of the P.U.D. Ordinance the Board -of Zoning Appeals on Phase I was the last to
be addressed for the' parking variance after a11 other approvals F�ad been m�de
and there is the potential for members to feel prempted or intimidated into
making a decision. This situation can also exist if the procedure is reversed.
with the Board of Zoning Appeals addressing �fie parking requirements first.
Donald Hughes expressed his thougfits and concerns on the present ordinance, the
pracedures for Phase II , the potential for every prop4sal to eome' in. the future
for Valley Square to 'be eaught up in a similar situation, and the functions and
relationship-of the Plann'ing Commission, City Council and HRA. Donald Nughes
emphasized several times he is not against this proposal 6ut the procedure and
lack of prior General Plan approval .
�Toyd Becker explained that the staff recognizes the inherent problerns possibly
within the present PLU.D. Ordinance, that the staff Mas reviewed it, made changes
and recommendations and it has now b�:en submitted for review.
Donald Hughes moved that the Board of Zoning Appeals deny the waiver request as
presented, as at this tirne the B4,ard of Zorring Appeals does not have Gen�ra1 Plan
approved for Phase II P.U.D. 26A in which to determine the :parking for a specific
number of units until determined by General Plan approval ,
Motion seconded by William Forster. The chairman catled for discussion on the
mot'ion,
Mr. Hughes emphasized he 'is not speeifically against the proposal and �gain
expressed his concern as previously noted,
Mike Sell noted his previous motion favorable to this proposal , however his
concern for the methods previously expressed,
�-�
�t _> >�
Board of Zoning Appeals
Page 5 March 10, 1981
The Chairman called for the vote on the motion and upon vote of three ayes and
one nay (Swedberg) motion to deny carried.
The proponents were made aware of the appeal process to the C'ity Council that
is available on a denial .
There being no further business to come before the Board, William Forster moved
to adjourn at 9:35 P.M. , second by Donald Hughes, upon vote carried.
l �
6
Mahlon Swedberg, Chairm Pro-Tem L oyd G, Becker, Recording Secretary