Loading...
06-24-97 BZA Minutes r t tI 1.53:1 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 24, 1997 The regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals washeld Tuesday, June 24, 1997, in the Golden Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Rd., Golden Valley, MN. Chair Robert Shaffer called the meeting to order at 7pm. Those present were: Chair Robert Shaffer; Members Herb Polachek, Mike Sell, and Mahlon Swedberg; and Planning Commission Representative Rick Groger. Also present were Staff Liaison Mark Grimes and Recording Secretary Eve Lomaistro. I. Approval of Minutes - May 27, 1997 The minutes of the May 27, 1997, meeting were corrected as follows: Page 18, third paragraph, the address '5120 Park Avenue' should be 510 Park Avenue. MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Sell, and motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the May 27, 1997 as corrected. II. The Petitions: (1) 2441 Kyle Avenue North (Map 5) (97-6-23) Allen and Andra Barnard Request: Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 5.5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 29.5 feet for the proposed garage at the northeast corner; and Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback -- 9.57 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 5.43 feet for the proposed garage on the north side; and -- .2 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.8 feet for the existing house at the southwest corner. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage on the north side of the lot and to make the existing house legally non-conforming. Allen Barnard was in attendance. Staff Liaison Mark Grimes stated that the BZA considered this request of variances at the May 27, 1997, BZA meeting. The BZA did not approve the variance requests but voted to delay action on the item to give the applicant time to reconsider the request. The BZA asked Mr. Barnard to see if a design professional could look at the proposed building j 1532 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals June 24, 1997 Page 2 addition in order to see if there are other alternatives which may minimize the variance ,. requests. Mr. Barnard had the plan reviewed by Phil Carlson who is a design planner at the consulting firm of Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban. Mr. Carlson submitted additional information including a statement titled, "Reasons to Consider Variance" dated June 3, 1997. Also provided were tW9 colored renderings of the with the planned addition, a site plan, eight colored photos, and a revised survey. The proposed size of the addition has been reduced. The front of the proposed garage has been reduced to 25 feet in width from 27.53 feet in width. Due to this reduction, the front yard setback variance request has been reduced from 6.9 feet to 5.5 feet (29.5 feet from the street rather than 28.1 feet). The garage addition, at the northeast corner, is now 12.4 feet from the property line versus the original 10 feet. The other side yard setback variance for the garage, at its closest point to the property line, has remained the same (9.57 feet from the required 15 feet to a distance of 5.43). Allan Barnard came forward to answer questions. Shaffer asked aboutthe add~on to the living room that is not on the survey. Barnard answered that it extends under the roof which runs the length of the house and creates a t larger entry with no variance needed. He continued that the other significant change is ... that the third stall of the garage is smaller and more green space is retained. Mr. Barnard showed pictures and pointed out that if one is coming south on the street, the view is only of the second floor. He added that vegetation will remain. Shaffer asked if a retaining wall will be built and Barnard stated that it is no steeper than the other side where there is no retaining wall but he will build one if required. He stated that the existing driveway is steep. Swedberg asked what effects the changes bring. Barnard answered that the biggest change is the reduction in the size of the garage by pulling the northeast corner toward the house which reduces the needed variance. This also permits keeping some trees and vegetation. The back end of the garage stays as presented last time. It is still tough to get two cars into the front part of the garage as it measures about 21 feet on the inside. Barnard and the designer looked at other garage location options on his lot. Swedberg suggested that the easiest thing would be to replicate the garage on the other side of the house. Barnard stated that in that case three cars would not fit and the building would still require a variance. Shaffer asked if the north end of the house is a formal living room and Barnard answered yes, that the living room goes from the front to the back of the house. He wants to pull the window out 6 feet and put in French doors to add an entry way. Groger asked if there is any way to get to the back yard from the garage and Barnard said that a smaller garage door could be put on the rear garage addition. It ~ r I tI Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals June 24, 1997 Page 3 :1533 Swedberg asked about the 25 foot width of the garage from a construction point of view. Sell pointed out that even numbers are less expensive to deal with and that garage doors must be special ordered if not in even footage dimensions. Shaffer stated that it probably won't matter due to the angled roof. Barnard stressed that they really need a three car garage and this design offers the opportunity to expand the garage space. Swedberg stated that he had given this matter a lot of thought and could go along with it if the width came down to 24 feet in the front of the garage which is generous for two cars. The curvature of the street could justify the rest of it and the 24 feet helps preserve the neighborhood. Barnard stated he has no problem with 24 feet. Shaffer indicated that he appreciates the effort to come up with a better design but he sees the three car garage as a problem. In the past the BZA has not approved a three car garage that close to the property line and that is a stumbling block for him. Swedberg stated that he has strong feelings about three car garages and usually votes against them. Shaffer stated that the front is okay but the back is too close to the line. Groger added that there is not enough of a hardship to get within 5.4 feet of the line. Although the neighbors do not object now, that could change in the future and create problems later on. Sell stated that he takes the opposite tack since the third stall is in the back. A variance would be needed even for a smaller garage. The vegetation and the space precludes parking a boat or a recreational vehicle next to the garage. Since the street curves, one cannot park on the street. The driveway allows stacking for cars rather than on the street. Sell stressed that this is an improved plan and he agrees with it. Swedberg stated that he could go along with the 24 feet but is still negative on a three car garage. He could go either way. Polachek indicated he would go along with 24 feet. Sell pointed out that from the street it looks like a two car garage. Groger asked if there is a need to have the garage as wide as it is planned in the back. The 5.4 feet distance bothers him. Barnard answered that he plans to use some space for storage in addition to the third car. He added that he will agree to a smaller space if it still works. Shaffer asked if there is a window on the second floor of the house and if so, would it be lost in this construction. Barnard answered yes, there is a window in the master bedroom that he would like to eliminate due to its lack of energy efficiency. It is hard to heat that room in the winter. Shaffer then asked about the garage depth, if it could be pulled in about 5 feet which would be large enough for a single car and allow 9 to 10 feet on the side. The. 5.4 feet is almost to the lowest limit. Shaffer suggested squaring off the back part of the space. It would then match the upper roof line. By stepping it in it is a cleaner line and pulls the 1534 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals June 24, 1997 Page 4 structure farther away from the property line. Shaffer continued that if it was a two car , garage it would be more of a necessity. Barnard showed concern that the storage inside would be reduced and so would the flexibility to back out the car. However, it would still work. Shaffer pointed out that the one car space is 18 feet wide and the two car space is 24 feet. The garage could be extended to the west for additional storage. Grimes suggested that the BZA consider giving Barnard some flexibility such as a definite footage from the property line and let Barnard figure out what he wants to do with it. Car lengths are 20 feet. Sell pointed out that 24 feet would be needed to get around the front and the back of the car. Shaffer and Groger both stated their discomfort with the back corner. Swedberg restated his long history of not granting a variance for a third car garage. If he senses that others are against the third car then he could go either way. Shaffer stated that he is on the other side of that line. Grimes asked if 7 or 8 feet is more acceptable. Shaffer suggested splitting the difference to 7.5 feet and let the owner make the decision. Sell recapped that the 12.4 in the front becomes 13.4, the back goes to 16 feet and the side to 7.5 feet from the property line. MOVED by Sell to grant the waivers as follows: waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 5.5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 29.5 feet for the proposed I garage at the northeast corner; and waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback of 7.5 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 7.5 feet for the proposed garage on the north side; and waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback .2 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.8 feet for the existing house at the southwest corner to allow for the construction of a garage on the north side of the lot and to make the existing house legally non-conforming. Shaffer asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak to this issue and no one came forward. The motion passed unanimously. (2) 1430 Orkla Drive (Map 20) (97-6-24) Van Thuv Tran Request: Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 1.0 foot off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34 feet for the existing house on Orkla Drive; and Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback -- 12.99 feet off the required 27.67 feet to a distance of 14.68 feet for the house at L the southeast corner. . Purpose: To allow for the construction of a conforming three-season porch on the east side of the house. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals June 24, 1997 Page 5 , Don Powell represeflted Van Thuy Tran who was out of.town. Staff Liaison Grimes explained that Ms. Tran approached the Insp~ction Department in mid-June requesting a permit to construct a conforming three-season porch onto the east side of her house. The storage area under the three-season porch will be accessed from inside the garage area. She had told staff that she had lined up someone.to do excavating and the company could only perform the work in June or she would have tawait until.fall. Staff reviewed the City's file and found that the previous owner attached a pOl1Gh onto the southeast side of the house and did not acquire a permit to do so. Also, when the first survey was done on this lot, it may have been determined that there was no rear yard, making the southern property line a side setback. The only other variance needed for this lot is at the northwest corner for one foot. Ms. Tran asked if there was anything staff could do to provide assistance so the excavator could dig the hole for placement of footings. The City Inspections and. Planning Departments agreed to allow .Ms. Tran JO proceed only after she presented staff with a "hold harmless" letter which notes that she was allowed to do cement work with the understanding that if the Board decided not to grant the variance requests, that she would need to remove the foundation work. Staff accepted this hold harmless letter under the circumstance that the rear yard setback was caused by an addition put on by a previous owner without a permit and that the proposed three-season porch would be conforming on all sides. Grimes concluded by stating that the side yard could have been in compliance at the time the house was built. 153€> I MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Sell, and passed. unanimously, to grant the waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback --1.0 foot off the required 35 feet toa distance of 34 feet for the existing house on Orkla Drive; and the waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback -- 12.99 feet off the required 27.67 feet to a distance of 14.68 feet for the house at the southeast corner to allow for the construction of a conforming three-season porch on the east side of the house. (3) 4501 Merribee Drive (Map 5) (97-6-25) Jacqueline Dav Bemis Request: Waivers of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 21 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 14 feet for the existing house, at its closest point to Lee Avenue; and --21 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of14 feet for the proposed deck, at its closest point to Lee Avenue; and .I Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback -- one (1) foot off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14 feet for the existing house on the west side. Purpose: To make the. existing house legally nonconforming and to allow for the construction of a two-level deck onto the southeast side of the house. 1538 There is also a screen porch located on the south side. At a 1987 BZA meeting the applicant told the Board that this screen porch is a temporary seasonal screen frame that has a removable roof and only two sides. Staff has determined that the lattice roof, which holds the upper screens in place is connected to the house and fencing to the south and is considered a structure; the floor is made of concrete. Planning has talked with the Inspections Department to verify whether this structure would require a variance and both agreed that it would need a variance because of its connection to the house and the fencing. The Inspections Department requests that a condition be placed on this variance that this screened in structure cannot have a permanent roof or sides placed on it without appearing before the Board for approval. Charlene Plitman stated that she was told that if the screens could come off, 'the porch was not considered a solid structure and did not require a variance. The neighbors signed off at the time. Swedberg asked how high the deck will be. Mr. Storey answered that it rests on the . ground on one end and is about 24 inches off the ground on the other end. Swedberg . _u asked about excavating and building it flat on the ground which would not need a variance. Mrs. Plitman stated that the back yard slopes and drops off considerably. She added that there is a large fence all around the lot and it is hard to see in. Swedberg stated that another owner could take down the fence and the variance would be permanent. Storey stated that excavating would be quite expensive and there would be a drainage problem. Excavating might also mean losing a tree. Also, plants wouldn't grow with the lack of sun. Swedberg asked about the screen porch and Storey stated that the platform isn't visible by the neighbors. Grimes suggested that it could be stated that this be used only as a deck that could not become a porch. Mrs..Plitman stressed that they want to watch their six grandchildren play in the back yard. Shaffer stated that it is an odd solution but it could be just a patio. Groger agreed that it is unusual but a corner lot has little space for a back yard. Groger is not bothered by it. MOVED by Groger, seconded by Polachek, and motion carried unanimously, to approve the waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 23 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 12 feet for the proposed deck with the condition that it is limited to a flat deck with a 3 foot railing. Shaffer asked if the Board is clear on the porch. He stressed that it cannot have permanent walls. Everyone agreed on that point. . , I 41 1539 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals June 24, 1997 Page 9 Swedberg stated that the screen porch structure is within 1.25 feet of the lot line and that the owners cannot walk on their own property to maintain it. The owners stated that they can walk behind the fence which is still their property. Mr. Plitman added that the ground slopes in the back and they put in a fence 31 years ago. They use the porch for summer eating, etc. Swedberg stressed that the structure cannot be maintained from the owners property and Mr. Plitman stated that the neighbor has agreed to let them on his property. Swedberg stated that the other owner could sell and the variances would be permanent. Mr. Plitman added that the porch has been there for 10 years. Grimes stated that when the board addressed a 1987 concern about the porch, the owner said it was a temporary structure. At that time the board said that because it is temporary it is okay. Grimes sees it differently - this year the owners did not remove the screens. The owners stated that they will remove the screens in the future, that the snow was a problem. Swedberg stated that he finds it difficult to agree to the structure but also doesn't want to disapprove it either. He suggested that the Board could ignore it by taking no action, leaving it nonconforming. Shaffer explained that if it is not voted on and left nonconforming, the owners may not be able to sell the house but could tear down the structure easily. Also, if it burned down, it could not be rebuilt. Grimes stated that if a variance is given then it could be rebuilt in the future. Or, the Board could acknowledge that it is there and take no action which is what they did last time. Mr. Plitman asked why the Board would not grant a variance and Swedberg stated that the Board will not grant that a variance that close to the lot line. Sell agreed. Sell also stated his agreement with leaving it as is and taking no action. It has worked for 10 years. The owners also agreed. MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Sell, and motion carried unanimously, to acknowledge the existence of the structure but not grant a variance and not demand that it be torn down. (6) 1504 Flag Avenue (Map 20) (97-6-28) Michael Kniselv Request: Waivers of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 3.5 feet off the required 20 feet to a distance of 16.5 feet for the proposed wooden deck/walkway; and --3.5 feet off the required 20 feet to a distance of 16.5 feet for the oversized overhang facing Flag Avenue. Purpose: To make the existing house legally nonconforming and to allow for the construction of the wood deck/walkway on the front of the house. Michael Knisely was in attendance. Grimes stated that due to the steep slope, the Village Council in October of 1965 granted a waiver for this lot, and others along Flag Avenue, for 15 feet off the required 35 foot front yard setback to a distance of 20 feet. The applicant is proposing to construct a wood deck 1540 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals June 24, 1997 Page 10 from the front entrance of the house to the south. New steps, which are not part of the , variance, will make it possible to get from the front yard to the garage area on the south side. The applicant is putting in posts which will help support the large overhang. The posts are located 3.5 feet into the required setback of 20 feet. The deck will also be 3.5 feet into the side setback. The posts on the north side of the front entrance will have footings into the ground; the deck will not be continued to this side of the house. Knisely stated that he hired an arborist to assist in regrading in reference to,the oak trees in the front. The grade was raised in the 70's due to the construction of the street and Mr. Knisely wants to stop the choking of the trees. Since the existing steps were in bad repair and had pulled several inches away from the house, Knisely removed them and relieved the grade around the trees. He wants to replace a porch and take care of the sagging overhang which is causing the siding to buckle. The posts become a structural element requiring a variance. The porch is a raised structure requiring a variance. The neighbor to the north has a similar situation; the neighbor to the south does not. Swedberg asked the owner if his wooden porch will look like the neighbor's and Knisely answered yes, but it will be smaller. Shaffer stated that since it looks like the neighbor's porch, and will be in keeping with the neighborhood, he sees no problem. Swedberg also stated that the porch would be compatible with the neighborhood. MOVED by Polachek, seconded by Swedberg and motion carried unanimously to grant the , Waivers of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 3.5 feet off the required 20 feet to a distance of 16.5 feet for the proposed wooden deck/walkway; and --3.5 feet off the required 20 feet to a distance of 16.5 feet for the oversized overhang facing Flag Avenue to make the existing house legally non-conforming and to allow for the construction of the wood deck/walkway on the front of the house. (7) Property located at the Northeast Corner of Zane and Olson Memorial Highway Frontage Road (Map 12) (97-6-29) GBC Partners. LLP - Gary and Connie Larson Request: Waiver of Section 11.36, Subd. 6(A) Front Yard Setback -- 20 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 15 feet for the lack of green space on Zane Avenue North for both the building and parking areas; and Waiver of Section 11.36, Subd. 6(C)(1) Side Yard Setback -- 72 feet off the required 100 feet to a distance of 28 feet for the proposed building on the east side; and Waiver of Section 11.36, Subd. 6(C)(4) Side Yard Setback -- 35 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 15 feet for the proposed t parking at its closest point on the east side of the lot; and Waiver of Section 11.36, Subd. 7 Loading and Parking Requirements - -12 spaces off the required 38 spaces for 26 parking spaces. , t It Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals June 24, 1997 Page 11 1541 Purpose: To allow for the construction of an office/warehouse in the Industrial Zoning District. Gary and Connie Larson, of GBC Partners, LLP; Brad Moen of Moen Lever Construction; Dan Swartz, realtor; and neighbors Florine Larson, Vickie Trettel, and Georgia Goodwin were in attendance. Grimes first recounted the history of this property. In December, 1996, the BZA denied several variances that would have permitted FluiDyne from constructing a smaller, 10,075 sq. ft. building on the same property. FluiDyne appealed this decision to the City Council and the Council decided to grant the variances. Since that time, FluiDyne has decided not to build on the site. They have tried to market the site to others to construct a building using the variances granted by the Council. FluiDyne now has entered into a purchase agreement with GBC Partners to purchase the site in order to allow for the construction of a 16,575 sq. ft. building. This building would become the headquarters for Golden Valley Supply, a distributor of ceiling tiles. They have been located in Golden Valley for 22 years. They are currently a renter in a building to the north at Golden Valley Road and Zane Avenue. Their desire now is to own their own building in Golden Valley. They have stated that sites are difficult to find. In order to make the site large enough to accommodate a building that size, GBC has entered into a purchase agreement on the small, 11,800 sq. ft. Parcel 2 to the north of the FluiDyne site which is now owned by R.L. Johnson. (The preliminary plat submitted to the Planning Commission shows the two lots as Parcel 1 [FluiDyne propertYland Parcel 2 [R.L. Johnson property].) Last night the Planning Commission reviewed two items relating to this property. First, the rezoning of Parcel 2 from Open Development to Industrial which the Planning Commission recommended. Second, the preliminary plat of the "GBC Addition" which combines the two lots into one which they also recommended. The BZA may take those recommendations into consideration when they make their decision. The proposed GBC structure is significantly larger than the FluiDyne proposal. However, the lot is 11,800 sq. ft. larger. Before the necessary variances are listed, there is one other issue that will effect this proposal and the extent of the variances. Because the property must be subdivided, the City requires that all streets in the Industrial Zone have a 70 foot right-of-way. Zane Avenue is only 50 feet wide in this area. As shown on the survey, the curb is only three feet from the right-of-way line. The staff is recommending that an additional 1 0 feet of right-of-way be dedicated for Zane Avenue from the GBC parcels. This essentially makes the lot 10 feet narrower. Because of the traffic in this area, the staff believes that it is necessary to take this additional property. This means that the proposed GBC building will be even closer to the Zane Avenue right-of-way. The staff also believes that landscaping of any site is important, especially in this case because of its adjacency to residential properties. There may als.o be concerns about the design of the building and placement of equipment on the roof. 1542 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals June 24, 1997 Page 12 Golden Valley Supply has been in Golden Valley for 22 years and plans to stay but if they try to sell this property it may be difficult due to the lack of parking. Although parking is allowed on street at this time, that could change in the future. , Groger asked how trucks would access and turn around and Grimes asked the Larson's to talk to that issue. Groger stated that either cars wouldn't be able to park next to the loading docks or trucks would not be able to reach the dock. One option would be to have proof of parking meaning that the space would be available but not striped. If requested by the City the space must be turned into parking. Groger was concerned about adequate maneuvering space. Also, substantial grading is needed as the residential owners are about a 20 foot drop from there. Grimes pointed out that when Zane first went in it took space from the lot which resulted in this narrow property. Swedberg stated that the two parcels will be combined when the City Council agrees to it. On the assumption that it will be approved with the 10 foot right-of-way for widening Zane, the property can be dealt wi~h whether or not the proponents continue with this plan. Grimes stated that the rezoning made sense but variances are other issues. Depending on what the Board does tonight, it still goes to the City Council as a whole package which gives the Council the entire picture. Shaffer invited the proponents to come forward. Connie Larson stated that Golden Valley t Supply is a 22 year old acoustic ceiling tile distributor. They bring in product and resell it. There is no manufacturing. It is a family owned business and their children have shown interest in continuing in the business. Their trucks are smaller and are kept inside at night. The trucks and the building are well cared for inside and out. She showed pictures of the 4 docks now and the interior showing how well everything is cared for. Inventory is racked. There are nine employees including the two owners. They deliver to most customers using five trucks of different small sizes. All their traffic passes in front now so there will be no increase in traffic. They are interested in owning their own building and want to stay in Golden Valley. Mark Grimes provided them with a list of available properties and they looked at several. They put in an offer on Boone and 10th but lost the property. They looked at other buildings and properties and none fit their needs. Then they became aware of Parcel 2 adjacent to the FluiDyne property and together the lots are big enough for their proposed building. They understand that it is a difficult piece of land due to the needed variances. No building could be built without variances. They worked hard trying to make the building more agreeable with the neighbors. They jogged out the loading dock to screen the trucks from the residences to the east. Customers come one or two at a time and they drive inside of the building to load. They are there for only 5 to 7 minutes. Larger trucks use the pull-in dock but only once or twice a week. Sell asked what type of trucks come into the dock and Ms. Larson said over the road I trailers come from Chicago once or twice a week directly to their dock. Sell stated that the site plan shows that a 60 foot trailer could access the site. They used the largest truck dimensions to make sure it would work. Ms. Larson stated that they planned the building , t , 1.543 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals June 24, 1997 Page 13 this size to keep it for another 10 to 20 years or more since their children are interested in the business. Ms. Larson then talked about the office area which is at the south end of the building. The vestibule is handicapped accessible and there is one more office than needed at this time. There is also a break room for employees. After the plans were drawn Ms. Larson went to visit four neighbors. One neighbor did not want to talk to Ms. Larson possibly due to FluiDyne getting the variances and then selling the lot. Ms. Larson stressed that GBC had nothing to do with the first plan. Ms. Larson talked to the other neighbors including the Epsons who are not here tonight. Golden Valley Supply operates form 7:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday, no weekends and no nights. There is no manufacturing so there is no smell and no noise. They take care of their property and their people. They intend to keep as many trees as possible. The neighbors with whom Ms. Larson spoke seemed happy with the plan. Swedberg asked about parking. Ms. Larson said that there are 26 parking places and only 9 employees. There will be one or two will call customers at the max but they will drive into the building. Employees stay with the company a long time due to the family feeling of the business. Swedberg pointed out that the swing of the trucks will take some of the parking spaces. Ms. Larson said the plan is for 70 foot trucks but typically the trucks are only 50 feet. She indicated that Sell recognizes that it will work. Polachek asked about the height of the interior of the building and Ms. Larson stated that it is planned at 24 feet. Polachek asked about the elevation of the houses and the building being about 10 feet higher. Grimes stated that the homes range from an elevation of 291 feet to 303 feet (as indicated on the preliminary plat). The street elevation is 283 feet and the site will be graded down to 277 feet or 273 feet and the goal will be to lower the building as much as possible. They will try to balance the building and estimates that the height of the floor will be 277 ft. Polachek indicated that the roof will be higher than the floor of the houses. Brad Moen, of Moen Lever Construction, indicated that the outside wall will be decorative and attractive and that there will be no noise. The building will be 25.6 feet high. Grimes pointed out that the homes will be about 70 to 90 feet from the building (60 to 70 feet from the property line plus the 28 foot setback). Ms. Larson stated that the windows will be in the front and the decorative block walls will face the homes. Moen added that there will be plantings, too. Shaffer asked where the heating and air conditioning equipment will go and Moen stated that it can be screened on top of the building or placed on the ground. The air conditioning will be a small unit, approximately five ton. The warehouse area will not be air conditioned. The other ventilation equipment can be put inside. Groger commented that the size of the building is approximately 2,500 sq. ft. larger than the FluiDyne plan and Moen responded that although the company doesn't need that much space now, they are building for the future. He also pointed out that when Parcel 2 was 1.544 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals June 24, 1997 Page 14 added the building coverage is less than with the FluiDyne site. Golden Valley Supply will , use 26% of the site for building. Groger asked about lowering the height at the north end where the homes are and Ms. Larson answered that the space is needed for storage. Sell asked how inventory is handled and Ms. Larson answered that it is racked using fork lifts. Swedberg stated that the parking bothers him the most. Ms. Larson indicated that she knows it is a difficult question but they have only 9 employees and are not likely to have more. Swedberg stated that they may not be the owners in the future. Moen stated that the parking requirements are very high in Golden Valley. He believes that the building has plenty of parking long term. Ms. Larson added that new buildings have larger warehouses and smaller offices due to downsizing and that the parking needs have dropped accordingly. Grimes said that if the owners wanted to sell the building, a small manufacturer could use the it but parking could be a problem. Sell gave the example of a larger building that needs only 4 people to run it by using computers and robots. Shaffer invited the neighbors to speak. Georgia Goodwin stated that she believes that the City Council will override the vote if it is not approved tonight. She stated that this is a better proposal than the last one because no one will be parking behind her house but she is worried about the loss of trees and about the hill collapsing. When she moved into the house she expected the lot to stay as a parking lot. Now it is hazardous having parking on t the street due to the curves. Swedberg asked when she moved in and she answered 7 years ago. Sell commented that a parking lot could be poorly maintained and worse than a nice building that is well taken care of. Besides that, parking lots are plowed at night where this building would be shut down at night. Sell continued that this property could be sold to an absentee owner. It is an advantage having the owners actually working in the building and living in the area. Grimes added that the Building Board of Review will require a landscape plan. Swedberg clarified that in the last 25 years the City Council has overruled the Board no more than 5 or 10 times, it is a rarity. Goodwin said that the Council didn't even compromise. Swedberg pointed out that the Council cannot compromise. It must either accept or reject. Swedberg stated that he voted in favor last time because he thought it was a good compromise. This one is also a good deal and if Goodwin thinks it is a better deal then it makes him even more in agreement. He wants to make the best deal for the neighbors. The next neighbor, Florine Larson, has lived there since 1952. She stated that she has nothing against the plan but wants a green strip. She was concerned about losing trees. ~ She also asked what will keep the hill from washing down. Shaffer responded that a grading plan will be required. Moen added that they will keep as many trees as possible. Florine Larson restated her concern about the hill. Swedberg asked her if she thinks this is a better plan and she answered yes. Sell stated that she remembers how it used to be , t , 1545 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals June 24, 1997 Page 15 but it will not stay wild. Swedberg added that it will only stay green if someone owns it and keeps it green. The Board is wrestling with the issues. Florine Larson stated that the street parking is dangerous. Sell stated that the City could no park the street. Florine Larson's last question was why her house number is 5808 when the house across the street is 5800. Swedberg said she would need to talk to whomever made that decision. The other neighbor in attendance, Vickie Trettel, spoke next. She has lived at 5802 Olson Hwy for 20 years and her husband has been there for 22 years. They are not happy about the building because it will be 9 to 12 feet high behind them. They want the BZA to know that they are not happy. They have already called the police several times because of after hours noise, motorcycles, and beer and pop cans in their yard from another industrial neighbor. Swedberg said that this parking lot is pretty small for motorcycles to roar. Trettel responded that if it is big enough for semis, it is big enough for motorcycles. She added that if anyone wants to come to their house with a checkbook, they will listen. Since no one else from the audience wished to speak, Shaffer closed the public discussion. Groger stated that he is bothered by the parking issue and asked Grimes if Golden Valley parking is adequate. Grimes stated that for warehouses it is more than adequate. Existing warehouses don't have parking problems, they tend to have empty parking lots. But they could sell the building and the new owner could have more employees. He gave an example of an existing building that won't sell due to lack of parking spaces. Groger said he would like the setbacks maintained and asked Grimes what the setback would be if the property is Industrial and Grimes answered 20 feet. This plan conforms. Grimes stated that in some situations with Industrial next to Residential, the City has required a buffer zone that can only be used as a parking lot. In other situations buildings are next to each other and there is generally no problem. Companies have been cooperative resolving problems with neighbors. He added that in Golden Valley there are 28,000 full time jobs and 20,000 residents, a bigger percentage than the entire area except one small town to the south. In the long run, things tend to get worked out. Swedberg stated his concern about the parking but added that there is a risk in every decision. In this case, the business is quiet, there is minimal traffic, the company has a reputation of being a good neighbor. The owners will review the trees and landscaping. He stated that this is the best they can do and that it is a good risk. He stated that he is in favor. MOVED by Swedberg and seconded by Groger to approve the variances as requested with the condition that no equipment go on the roof. The motion was amended to include that the Building Board of Review give consideration to the greenery to make the building as suitable as possible in reference to the neighbors. Polachek stated his concern about a 280 foot long building. 1546 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals June 24, 1997 Page 16 Shaffer stated that this is probably the best building for the site and that the proponents have done a good job with the plan. It will be a quiet building, and a good neighbor, but that is as far as he can go. He stated that in his opinion, the Residential predates Industrial use. The property was originally zoned as Open Development. It was pushed into being a parking lot expansion for FluiDyne. This may be the most nondisruptive but future uses could be anything. The proposed parking is enough for this company but the future is unknown and it could end up an empty building due to the lack of parking. The space may be adequate for semis now but in the future that could change and trucks would be backing off the street. The variances requested are the biggest the Board has seen and a normal property would be declined. BZA variances shouldn't be used to push residents of the homes into selling their property. , The question was called. The vote was Swedberg, Sell, and Groger voting yea and Shaffer and Polachek voting nay. The motion passed 3 to 2. III. Other Business The Board had a discussion about the standards and conditions related to the issuance of variances. Shaffer was concerned about the number of variance requests that the City has received related to three car garages. he stated that he believes that it is the BZA t responsibility to maintain distance between homes as stipulated in the Zoning Code. There was discussion on whether community standards regarding building setbacks has changed due to the desire for more cars and the need to store those cars. There was also a discussion of on-grade decks such as the one approved on Olympia during this meeting. Grimes stated that the proposed deck is considered a structure because it is off the ground. he will discussion this matter with the Building Department to see if a change in definition may be appropriate. IV. Adjournment Chair Shaffer adjourned the meeting at 10: 15 PM. ROr!:::: c~ ~