Loading...
09-23-97 BZA Minutes 1560 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 23, 1997 The regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held Tuesday, September 23, 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, Mahlon Swedberg; and Planning Commission Representative Richard Groger. Also present were Staff Liaison Mark Grimes and Recording Secretary Eve Lomaistro. I. Approval of Minutes - August 26, 1997 MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Polachek and motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the August 26, 1997 as submitted. II. The Petitions: 1115 Hampshire Avenue North (Map 16) (97-9-38) Kevin and Isabel O'Brien Request: Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1 )Side Yard Setback -- 5.1 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 9.9 feet for the proposed addition. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a kitchen addition onto the rear (southwest corner) of the house. Kevin O'Brien was in attendance. Staff Liaison Grimes said that this property was granted several variances in 1996 for the construction of a garage addition onto the north side of the existing garage. The O'Briens are now requesting one variance from the south property line which would allow them to construct a kitchen addition to the rear of the house. The addition would stay in line with the existing house. Swedberg noted that this is on the agenda only because an owner must return for additional variances for additional work to a previous variance, and is actually an administrative matter. MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Polachek and motion carried unanimously to approve the variances as noted above. , t ., , t It 1561 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 23, 1997 Page 2 1409 Hillsboro Avenue North (Map 20) (97-9-39) Rollie AnQier for Eleanore and Rollie AnQier {Parents} Request: Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(8) Rear Yard Setback -- 19.10 feet off the required 28.10 feet to a distance of 9.0 feet for the existing house; and Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Buildings -- to allow for an accessory building to be placed beside the main structure with at least 10 feet of separation instead of behind the main structure as required by code. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a two-stall detached garage at the southwest corner of the lot. Rollie Angier was in attendance. Staff Liaison Grimes explained that this is a corner lot and the house is placed near the rear of the lot. He said the applicant is requesting variances in order to add a garage in the location where there is now a shed. Grimes said the existing shed would be removed and questioned the applicant on who owned the smaller shed to the west. Grimes suggested that if the second shed is on the applicant's property it should be removed as a condition to building the garage. Rollie Angier stated that the other shed is his and both sheds will come down. He also stated that the neighbor's driveway is partly on his property. Swedberg asked if he is acting on behalf of his parents. Mr. Angier answered that he wants to buy the house from the estate of his parents. Sell asked why the house was built in that location. Angier answered that the house has been moved three times in the last 100 years. The family owned more of the adjacent property in the past, which was before setbacks were determined. Swedberg asked when the plat was approved and was told in the early 1900's. Angier said that the land in the area was intended for small houses. Grimes added that this area, near Medicine Lake, is some of the oldest platted property in the City. Swedberg asked if the proposal didn't bother the neighbors. Angier stated that it is better than the existing shed. Swedberg added that it doesn't infringe on the neighborhood and is an improvement. Shaffer agreed that it is better than what's there. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Groger, and motion carried unanimously to approve the variances as noted above. 1562 ~Ili"'utes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Seotember 23, 1997 P8qe 3 715~ M~disonAvenue West (Map 14)(91-9-40) (Farmer address of property - 1155 Madison Avenue West) Hennepin County Property Services Request: , Waiver of Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements -- 33 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 17 feet, from the south property line, for the proposed building; and Waiver of Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements -- 20 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 5 feet, from the south property line, for the lack of greenspace due to the proposed parking lot; and Waiver of Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements -- 1.13 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 48.87 feet, from the east property line, for the proposed building; and 'WaivE3r of Sectioh11.46,. Subd. 8 Yard Requirements -- 20 feet off the . requii"ed25 feet to a distance of 5 feet, from the east property line for the lack of greenspace due to the proposed parking lot~ and Waiver form Section 11.46, Subd. 9 Front Yard Setback -- 5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 30 feet, from the west property t line, for the proposed building facing Nevada Avenue. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new building on the site. Richard Strong, Hennepin County Project Manager and Richard Tieva, a neighbor, were in attendance. Staff Liaison Grimes explained that Hennepin County Property Services is requesting variances in order to construct a juvenile detention facility. The applicant appeared before the Board on May 17,1997, requesting variances for a similar but smaller building. These variances were approved. All other approvals (rezoning and Conditional Use Permit) were also approved by the City Council. Grimes continued to say that after further study of the proposed juvenile detention facility, the County changed the size of the building and the location of the building on the lot. The applicant has told staff that the walls of the detention center will now be 4" thicker. They also told staff that when the preliminary design plan was drawn up, it was believed that the required greenspace on the east side of the property would be 3 feet and that parking spaces were to be 18 feet in length. Hennepin County has now submitted a new plan which shows the building moved 5 feet closer to Nevada Avenue. Other variances are needed for the east and south sides. Grimes added that when the variances were granted ~ in May, staff missed the variance which would allow for the parking lot to extend into the south landscaping area. This variance is included at this time. The proposed building is . about 800 sq.ft. larger than the one approved in May, 1997. Grimes said that the increase in square footage is offset primarily by reducing the size of the outdoor activity area. . Last , It It 15&>3 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 23, 1997 Page 4 night the Planning Commission recommended approval of an amended Conditional Use Permit on a vote of 5-2. Two of the commissioners were concerned about the size of the building on this property. Shaffer asked if the Planning Commission had concerns about parking and Planning Commission Representative Groger answered that the main concerns were expansion of the building size and moving it closer to Nevada. Shaffer pointed out that the turn around area in the parking lot is now gone. Grimes stated that there will be a maximum of three visitor vehicles at a time. He said that visitors have to make appointments. Visitors are restricted to parents, guardians, and attorneys. Grimes said that he believes that parking would be adequate. Grimes noted that deliveries, such as food, would unload inside the building. He also commented that at the Planning Commission meeting of September 22, four or five neighbors attended the meeting. He said their concern was how this facility would affect safety in the neighborhood. Shaffer commented that this would be safer building than the former group home, which was not secured. Grimes said that the issue of safety is more a Planning Commission or City Council issue and that Dean Mooney, Golden Valley Public Safety Director, will be invited to attend the City Council meeting to address safety issues. The Planning Commission requested that only non-violent juveniles be detained at this facility. Grimes said that the Board needs only to address the setback issues and noted the differences in variances granted in May and those before the Board tonight. Groger asked what happens with the south parking variance, which was missed by staff at its meeting of May 27, 1997 if Hennepin County reverts to the variances approved in May, if tonight's variances are denied. Grimes said that even though staff overlooked this one variance, it was on the site plan. He said that if tonight's requests are not approved, the property would revert to the variances approved in May and the Board could approve the one variance missed by staff in May. Sell stated that the Board couldn't hold the County to the variances from May without the additional one missed by staff. It's the total package that counts and the intent was there last time. Sell added that this is proposal is better than the previous group home, which would have better security, and is only a seven day holding facility. He believes that continually changing the residents of the facility makes it less of a security problem. Shaffer invited Mr. Strong to speak. Strong was apologetic about coming back with another request but explained that they didn't realize it wouldn't work until they went through the entire design process. He showed a detailed color plan which indicated the increases and decreases of space and he gave the reasons for each change. Strong emphasized that the County has gone through three levels of approvals, with a number of regulations added at each level. He said that if these requests are not approved, Hennepin County would use the prior variances, but the facility would be crowded. Strong said that the County thought long and hard about coming back again but felt it was necessary. )5(04 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 23, 1997 Page 5 Sell asked if the residents would be utilized by cleaning and picking up trash. Strong said that the inmates would clean their own rooms and the activity room. He also said that the inmates do not go outside unless shackled. , Groger asked why the building is planned for 16 beds rather than 14 which would reduce the sleeping area and leave the building the same size as proposed before. Strong said that he dOE~sn't know why. Swedberg istated that the number of beds is a variance issue because that determines the size of the building and this building is too large for the site. Grimes explained that the group hOrnle was 16 beds. The County wanted to just remodel the building but this turned out to be more expensive than building a new facility. The neighbors also felt that a new building would be an improvement. The first idea was to tear down the group home and build a 16 bed facility. Then City and the County agreed to not exceed 16 beds. Groger said that the existing building was 16 beds and only 5100 sq.ft. where the new proposal is considerably larger and not comparable to the first plan. Shaffer asked about the size of the activity room and Strong replied that the size was required by the Department of Corrections (DOC) which is funding two-thirds of the cost. Strong continued that the wall was changed to brick at the request of businesses in the area, rathE~r than constructing a wire fence. Groger stated that the inside of the wall is barbed wire. Strong explained that it is not barbed wire but a small mesh wire, too small for fingers to get into it and is totally inside the brick wall and not visible from the street. 4 Shaffer said one of his concerns is that the front of the proposed building would not be in line as other buildings along Nevada and is 14 feet high and solid brick. He said the previous plan was broken up a bit, but this one is solid. He suggested that the outdoor area be cut back to retain the front setback. Strong stated that the continuous wall was designed that way to conceal the entrances. Swedberg stated his concern for such a high and long building. Strong said that the businesses asked for a continuous wall. Grimes said that the group home site was in this area by a provision in the zoning code from the 1970's that allowed almost anything to be built in an Industrial area with approval of the City Council. This provision in the code has now been eliminated. He indicated the challenge of where to put buildings of this type as few neighbors want them in their neighborhood. This property is in an industrial area. Sell agreed with Groger that this design is larger than an office building or small industrial building and can be squeezed on this lot only because less parking is needed. Shaffer stated that the building is too massive, almost 93 feet along the side, and suggested jogging it in to make it less of a mass. Grimes explained that setbacks for industrial zoning are smaller than for institutional loning: This property is loned institutional. If it were jndustriaithe setbacks W'ouJdbe 20 ... feet from the side and 10 feet of greenspace. For an institution the sideyard setback is 50 . feet for the building and 25 feet of greenspace. , t , 1.565 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 23, 1997 Page 6 Sell observed that this whole area is industrial and people driving through the neighborhood would not know what the zoning is. They would only see buildings. As long as the building is squared off the setbacks aren't noticeable to those driving by. Shaffer stated that this building intrudes beyond the line of the other buildings along Nevada. He suggested pulling back 5 feet so the building sits at the same setback as the others. Strong said he could ask the architect about that. Grimes suggested an option of doing 18 foot parking spaces instead of 20 foot and moving the building back 2 feet thereby reducing the setback variances on Nevada. Many other cities use 18 foot parking spaces. This could be accomplished by a variance and would gain 2 feet. Strong said that the parking would work at 18 feet. Shaffer agreed that if the parking is approved at 18 feet, it would help. Swedberg said he would like to maintain the 35 foot setback on Nevada. He added that the BZA has already given variances for this property and now the County is back for more. He added that since the building appears to be industrial, he could live with the industrial setbacks instead of the institutional setbacks. Shaffer agreed. Strong studied the plan and said they may be able to move the building back a bit and angle a wall. Swedberg said that if the front setback could be retained by changing the parking he would agree to it. However, the BZA has never agreed to vary parking. Shaffer stated that he has worked with many areas and Golden Valley is the only one with a 20 foot parking requirement. Most areas require 18 feet. One code he worked with was 20 feet but it could be approved at 18 feet with an overhang. Grimes stated that many parking lots in Golden Valley are 18 feet because the lots can be striped any way the owner wants but the parking requirement is figured at 20 feet. Grimes suggested that if the east setback was 4 feet rather than 5 feet it would gain an extra foot from Nevada. Swedberg stated that the Board should not design the building. The BZA could deny the request and allow the County to come back with another plan. The Board could suggest guidelines that are and are not acceptable. Grimes suggested another option - to grant a specific setback that the Board could live with, approve 18 foot parking spaces, and let the County design a building to fit. Swedberg stated that he would like to require a 35 foot setback on Nevada and would consider varying some of the other areas. He would be okay with the industrial setbacks. He is willing to work with the County. :1566 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 23, 1997 Page 7 Shaffer asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak and Richard Tieva, the business , owner from across the street, came forward. Mr. Tieva stated that he understands the difficulties of working with setbacks, especially on a corner lot. He said that in 1979, he . asked for similar variances for a reduction in the 35 foot front setback requirement and 18 foot parking stall length and was denied. He also feels that this is a "dumb" use of the proposed property as it will be expensive to staff. However, he understands that the building must go somewhere. He never had trouble with the group home although other neighbors did. He felt safe because the Golden Valley police patrolled there often. Swedberg asked him if this proposal is better than the existing building and Tieva replied that as a tax payer this is an expensive building to maintain. He suggested going to Plymouth where the County owns large properties and the applicant could then build a larger building. He added that Hennepin County will probably make the area safe for its neighbors and will disguise the building. But the proposed building is too large for this size lot. Strong responded that the County researched every piece of property they own and this was the only choice for the building. He added that Plymouth has increased their setbacks to the point that it is now difficult to put up a flag pole. Polachek stated that when he was a practicing architect there were many rules and requirements to meet. At some point good architects must put their foot down and negotiate the requirements. In this instance the activity room is much larger than it needs to be. Polachek added that the County has the right to appeal to each regulatory agency. t Compromises must be made. Strong emphasized that the DOC is funding two thirds of this project. Swedberg stated that the DOC has the authority to vary their requirements. There is room to maneuver here and he suggests that they redesign the building or get other compromises. Shaffer asked if the Board wanted to offer restrictions for the County to meet or to just deny the request. Swedberg suggested that with some pushing and pulling, it could be resolved tonight. The setback on Nevada is a big issue but it could be taken care of with some adjustment. Swedberg asked Strong if this sounds workable and Strong answered that he also needs to meet other requirements. Grimes pointed out that a 15 foot variance in the back was already approved. Strong said that they may be able to cut a foot here and there and make it work. Shaffer suggested to deny the front setback on Nevada and cut the required parking stall lengths from 20 feet to 18 feet. Groger stated that he is not prepared to grant the parking variance, especially if substantial setbacks are granted on the east side. He still feels that the building is too large for the property and he doesn't know why the number of beds ..- couldn't shrink. . Shaffer recapped that a 15 foot setback was approved before, and with some shifting the building could be downsized. He offered some ideas of how to shrink the building a bit. , t '" 1.567 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 23, 1997 Page 8 Strong stated that the building was too small when the setbacks were approved in May. They reworked the design and now they will need to redesign again. Grimes suggested options for the Board - the request could be denied and the variances changed and Mr. Strong could state what Hennepin County can live with. Grimes said that whatever the Board votes on will go to the Council. The County cannot revert to the previously approved plan, so Strong has to have a say in it. Strong could appeal to the City Council if needed. Swedberg suggested the Board take no action for a month with the option of the County coming back with a new plan. Shaffer asked Mr. Strong when Hennepin County wanted to begin construction. Strong answered this fall. Grimes suggested that due to the construction time frame, the Board could hold a special meeting prior to the next City Council meeting. The consensus was that a special meeting was a good solution. Shaffer reminded the County that the Board is trying to maintain certain standards. He emphasized that front setbacks have a high priority. Tieva asked if holding a special meeting would break the Board's own rules and Grimes stated that it would be a continuation of this meeting. Interested parties were invited to this meeting tonight and if they chose not to attend they do not need to be invited to a continuation of the meeting. Polachek suggested holding a special meeting to give the applicant time to revise the plan. MOVED by. Polachek, seconded by Swedberg, and motion carried unanimously to hold a special meeting on Monday, September 29, 1997, at 7pm to continue discussing this request. Grimes told Tieva that he can tell the other businesses in the area about the next meeting if he wishes. III. Other Business Shaffer pointed out that the December meeting is scheduled for December 23 and asked if the Board wished to discuss changing the date. After discussion the Board decided to reschedule the December meeting to December 16. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Polachek, and motion carried unanimously to reschedule the regular December 23 BZA meeting to December 16, 1997, at 7pm. 1568 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 23, 1997 Page 9 ' IV. Adjournment , Hearing no further business, chair Shaffer adjourned the meeting at 8:35. ~~ k~~ Mark Grimes, Staff Liaison Robert Shaffer, Chair t .,