Loading...
12-19-12 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 19, 2012 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Nelson called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members, Baudreau-Landis, Johnson, Maxwell, Nelson and Planning Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative A�sistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes — October 23, 2012 Regular Meeting MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by MeCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the October 23, 2012 minutes as submitted. II. The Petition(s) are: 1950 Douglas Drive North Golden Vallev Conqreqation of Jehovah's Witnesses (Michael Cave)zA�plicant 12-� 12-17) Request: Waivers from Section 11.46 Institutional Zoning District (I-1), Subd. 7 Side and Rear Yard Requirements • 34 ft. off the required 50 ft. to a distance of 16 ft. at the building's closest point to the side yard (north) property line. • 9 ft. off the required 25 ft. to a distance of 16 ft. at the parking IoYs clasest point to the side yard (north) property line. • 14 ft. off the required 25 ft. to a distance of 11 ft. at the parking lot's closest point to the rear yard (east) property line. Request: Waivers from Section 11.46 Institutional Zoning District (I-1), Subd. 8 Front Yard Requirements • 20 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 15 ft, at the parking lot's closest point to the front yard (west) property line. Request: Waivers from Sectian 11.46 Institutional Zoning District (I-1), Subd. 9 Accessory Structure Requirements • 36 ft. off the required 50 ft. to a distance of 14 ft. at the storage shed's closest point to the rear yard (east) property line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 19, 2012 Page 2 Hogeboom explained that City recently did a study of the Douglas Drive corridor and as a result the intersection of Dougtas Drive and Duluth Street, where the subject property is located, will be widened. He stated that the applicants have been considering changes to their building for several years and that this proposed project will coincide with the City/County Douglas Drive project and will allow them to stay in Golden Valley. Hogeboom referred to a site plan and noted that the site is currently constrained and ance the construGtion on Douglas Drive begins, it will be further canstrained. He explained the applicants' request to construct a new building located further toward the northeast corner of the property than the existing building sits. Nelson asked if the existing building is in conformance with zoning requirements. Hogeboom said the amount of parking is not in conformance, but the building is. He added that if the applicants wanted to build a new building in the same footprint as the existing building they could without the need for variances. McCarty questioned if this property was considered for a commercial use in the Douglas Drive Corridor study. Hogeboom stated that some other properties in the corridor were considered for commercial uses, but he didn't think this specific property was addressed because the applicants didn't indicate that they were planning to mave from this location. McCarty asked who suggested the proposed new driveway entrance on Douglas Drive. Hogeboom stated that the applicants have been working with the City's Public Works Department regarding driveway locations and that the proposed new driveway entrance on Douglas Drive will be a right in, right out driveway. Nelson asked how the requirements in the Institutional zoning district compare ta the requirements in the Cammercial zoning district. Hogeboom stated that the requirements in the Institutional zoning district are stricter because they are usually IQCated in residential areas. Johnson asked if the dimensions shown on the site plan are final. Hogeboom said he's not sure but he knows that Hennepin County does have the reconstruction of Douglas Drive in their 2015 Capital Improvement Plan so the constructions plans have been approved but he believes that City will review the County's plans again before construction begins. Johnson asked if the proposed new property lines are in sync with the County's reconstruction plans. Hogeboom said he thinks the boundary of the road is an estimate at this time. Johnson asked about the setback requirements along the south property line. Hogeboom stated that the south property line along Duluth Street is considered to be a front yard. He explained that the requested variances are from the existing property lines, not the proposed new property lines. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 19, 2012 Page 3 Nelson asked what the setback requirements would be along the west property if it weren't a front yard. Hogeboom said it would depend on what zoning district the property abuts. Boudreau-Landis asked if all the variances requested are based on the location of the existing property lines. Hogeboom said yes. McCarty asked if the existing amount of parking is adequate. Hogeboom said that the proposed new plan meets the parking requirements. Tom Fournier, representing the applicant, said he greatly appreciates the support they've received from City staff. He stated that they have been considering changes to this building for a long time and that the issue with the existing building is the inability to make it a usable space while following ADA requirements because the building is solid granite. Nelson asked Fournier why they can't build the proposed new building in the same footprint. Fournier said the location proposed for the new building warks best to accommodate the flow of traffic and parking. McCarty asked if the current amount of parking is inadequate. Fournier said no. He added that there are times when there is more activity on the site but the parking has been adequate. Hogeboom stated that they are proposing 59 parking spaces which is exactly the required amount of parking based on the Zoning Code requirement of 1 parking space per 3 seats in the main assembly area. Nelson asked Fournier how long they have owned the building. Fournier said they've owned it since 1957. McCarty asked Fournier what upgrades would be required to make the existing building usable. Fournier stated that the main auditorium is on the upper level, the bathrooms are on the lower lever and there is a library/meeting room on the main level. He stated that an elevator is needed and it would be difficult to install an elevator in the current building because the stairs are set diagonally. He stated that the heating system is inadequate and it would be difficult to insulate the walls because they are granite. Also, the existing windows are single pane glass. He also noted that the main auditorium space is too small so the upper level would need to be expanded. He said that after considering all the costs of the necessary improvements it doesn't add up to keep the existing building. Johnson referred to the site plan and asked what other designs were considered and what the plans would look like if the building were moved further to the south in order to meet the setback requirement alang the north property line. Fournier stated that parking was the main factor in moving the building further toward the north. He added that they also would lose all the parking along the south property line and there wouldn't be room for the driveway or to turn around if the building were moved further to the south. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 19, 2012 Page 4 Nelson questioned the impact on the homes to the north if the building is moved closer to the north property line. Maxwell asked why the proposed storage shed is external to the building. Fournier stated that the proposed shed cauld be moved to a conforming location if that is the Board's preference. Boudreau-Landis asked about the use of the propased shed. Fournier said they would store their lawn mower and miscellaneous items in it. McCarty asked if there were other designs that tried to keep the building within the proper setbacks. Fournier said yes, but they did not meet the parking requirements. Johnson said it seems that there is an opportunity to shift everything to the south and to have the parking to the north behind the building. Fournier stated that their focus has been to design the building to meet the proposed new road design. McCarty said he would feel more comfortable approving a variance from the parking requirements than for the proposed location of the building. He suggested requiring a fence or some sort of screening for the houses to the north. Nelson asked if the applicants need the number of parking spaces they are proposing. Hogeboom noted that there will be no on-street parking available so the City would like ta stress that this property needs to have enough parking spaces on their property. Nelson said she understands the reasons for locating the proposed building further ta the north and east but she is concerned because that is where the residential properties are located. Fournier stated that the proposed building will be a single story building and it won't be taller than a standard home. Fournier stated that stormwater is also an issue and another reason the green area along the south is necessary. He added that with the Stormwater issues, the needs of the congregation and the restrictions with the proposed road construction, the plans being proposed will meet their needs. Johnson said he would like to see other plans that show how shifting the building to the south would impact the parking, stormwater, etc. and he would also like to know more of the facts that are driving the applicants' decisions. Nelson asked about the time frame for construction of the new building. Fournier stated they would like to start construction within one year of variance approvals. Fournier called Phil Vlasko, the architect for the project to heip address the Board's questions and to discuss the alternate plans that were considered before this design. Vlasko stated that the best presentation of the building is the sauth. He stated that if the building were shifted toward the south property line than all of the activity of dropping people off and parking would happen closer to the residential neighbors to the north. Hogeboom noted that staff agreed that it would be good to keep the traffic circulation away from the residential areas. He added that staff has not received comments from any of the adjacent property owners. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 19, 2012 Page 5 Vlasko stated that if the building were shifted further to the south it would also affect the parking and the green space and the traffic flow and the functioning of the carport. McCarty suggested not having a carport. Vlasko said their traditional Kingdom Halls have carports and he would rather move the building somehow. Fournier added that they have elderly and handicapped congregants that will really use the carport and reiterated that they don't generally build their buildings without carports because they are heavily used. Maxwell noted that the praperty will be smaller once the design of Douglas Drive changes. McCarty stated that the site is being reduced but the building is being expanded. He said he is not comfortable with the building being sa close to the nor#h property line. Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Nelson said she is comfortable with a number of the requested variances and with striking the variance for the storage shed, but it sounds like the Board agrees that the proposed building might be too close to the north property line. McCarty suggested tabling the applicants' request to allow them to come up with a new design. Johnson agreed that it would be helpful to see other alternatives. Fournier agreed to table their request. Nelson asked the applicant to give additional consideration and elaborate on the questions asked on the variance application. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Johnson to table the applicants' request to the January 22, 2013 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. McCarty expressed concern about reviewing multiple plans. He suggested that the applicants come back with one revised plan for the Board to consider. Ma�cwell said he thought it might be easier to compare multiple plans. Johnson said he would like to know what other options the applicants have considered and justification for what they are asking. Fournier said he understands what the Board wants and will put together a couple of options to show the Board. The vote was unanimous to table the applicants' request to the January Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. II1. Other Business Hogeboom stated that there are two vacancies on the Planning Commission and if any BZA members are interested in applying they should contact the City Manager's office. IV. Adjournment Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 19, 2012 Page 6 The meeting was adjourned at 8:22 pm. .-, � , � � }� �.�l�l...�.. ` ...''.. Nancy Nels �hair J seph . Hogeboom, Staff Liaison