Loading...
08-28-18 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 28, 2018 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, August 28, 2018, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Vice Chair Orenstein called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Orenstein, Perich and Planning Commission Representatives Baker, Blum (arrived at 7:10) and Johnson. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner, and Administrative Assistant Lisa �ttman. I. Approval of Minutes—July 24, 2018, Regular Meeting MOVED by Perich, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried unanimously to approve the July 24, 2018, minutes as submitted. II. The Petition(s) are: 2145 Brunswick Avenue North Grant Tsuchiva, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 5.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 7 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the reconstruction of a deck. Goellner referred to a site plan of the property and explained the applicant's request to reconstruct an existing deck in the same location. The deck will be located 7 ft. from the north property line rather than the required 12.5 ft. Goellner explained that the existing deck was built by a previous homeowner in a nonconforming location, the current footprint of the deck is not expanding, and that a doorway to the deck already exists. Goellner stated that staff is recommending approval of the requested variance because replacing the deck in the same location would not alter the character of the neighborhood and the size of the variance cannot be reduced in a practical way. Perich asked if there have been different side yard setback requirements in the past. Goellner said she didn't know the history of the side yard setback requirements for this property, but that staff was unable to locate an original building permit for the existing deck. Randal Thole, representing the property owner, said the existing deck is in disrepair. He stated that they are planning on moving the deck forward slightly, but no closer to the side yard (north) property line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 28, 2018 Page 2 Orenstein opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Orenstein closed the public hearing. Johnson said the request is reasonable and the deck at this point is part of the locality. MOVED by Perich, seconded by Johnson, and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 5.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 7 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line to allow for the reconstruction of a deck. Blum abstained from voting. 1250 Zane Avenue North Acoustics Associafies, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.35, Light Industrial Zoning District, Subd. 6(C)(4) Rear and Side Yard Landscape Setback Requirements • 10 ft. off of the required 10 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at the parking lot's closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the repaving of the existing parking lot Goellner referred to a location map and a site plan of the property and explained the applicant's proposal to repave their existing parking lot. She noted that the parking Iot is in poor condition and that the existing pavement goes right up to the south property line without the 10 ft. of required landscaped area. Goellner stated that staff is recommending approval of the requested variance because resurFacing the parking Iot in the same footprint would not alter the essential character of the area, the parking lot to the south was recently reconstructed and includes the proper landscaped buffer, and the requested variance allows the building's loading docks to be utilized for activities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. Perich asked where on the site the 10 ft. buffer area would be located. Goellner showed the approximate location on the site plan. Baker asked why the parking lot is shaped the way it is and why the paved area isn't along the entire southern property line. Johnson said that the amount of pavement is probably the area they need for their semi-trucks to maneuver. Blum asked about the distance from the building to the south property line. Sean Grefsheim, Project Manager, Acoustics Associates, stated that there is 76 ft. between the building and the edge of the parking lot. Blum asked Goellner how current the photos she referred to in her presentation were. Goellner said she took the photos two weeks ago. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 28, 2018 Page 3 Johnson asked if there is supposed to be a curb around the parking lot. Goellner said it depends if the parking lot is being repaved or reconstructed. If the applicant reconstructs the parking lot curb and gutter would be required. Blum asked if the variance request is to allow pavement along the entire length of the side yard. Goellner explained that the request is to allow for the same footprint as is there today. Grefsheim stated that if they don't receive the variance they just won't repave the parking lot because they won't be able to use it if they meet the setback requirement. He added that they would like the pavement to be at zero feet for the entire length of the south property line and that staff has told him that they will have to install curb and gutter. Blum noted that the photos show cars parking along the southern property line and asked if that is normal. Grefsheim said yes and added that a semi-truck clipped one of the pick-up trucks parked in that area. Blum stated that cars parking in that area is a factor as to why semi-trucks can't maneuver. Blum asked if there are three loading docks. Grefsheim said there are two loading docks that are approximately 10 feet wide. Blum asked if the dumpster shown in the photos is blocking one of the loading docks. Grefsheim said yes. Blum asked Grefsheim if they store pallets on the property. Grefsheim said yes, they store some pallets on the property. Blum questioned if they need the entire parking lot area to maneuver trucks if they are only using one loading dock. Grefsheim said yes and explained how the semis have to curve around and back into the loading docks. Johnson stated that in logistics it is typical to plan for 125 ft. to maneuver so what the applicant is saying seems right. Orenstein opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Orenstein closed the public hearing. Baker said the request seems reasonable and it appears that the applicant needs this much space to maneuver their trucks. ` Johnson agreed and added that there needs to be some alignment with staff regarding the need for curb and gutter. Goellner reiterated that requiring curb and gutter depends on whether a parking lot is being repaved or reconstructed. Baker asked Grefsheim if they are planning on reconstructing the parking lot. Grefsheim said yes, they are planning on reconstructing the parking lot and adding curb and gutter. Perich said the variance request seems reasonable. He added that if they don't repave the parking lot it will just look worse, the current landowner didn't construct the parking lot, and a new parking lot will improve the character of the area. Blum said he doesn't feel comfortable justifying a variance by using the idea that the current landowner didn't cause the non-conformity because he thinks that is a good way for the current landowner to wash away the fact that there was a nonconforming parking lot when Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals Rugust 28, 2018 Page 4 they purchased the property. Baker asked Blum what a better way for this to unfold would have been. Blum said it might include requiring a Conditional Use Permit or a Planned Unit Development which requires a thorough review when requests are made. He added that asking for carte blanche variances because the nonconformity was just there already makes him uncomfortable. Johnson stated that if that is the case then the City should be policing what is nonconforming and requiring that they be made conforming because the person taking the initiative should not bear the sins of the former property owner. Blum questioned if there isn't a better vehicle to use than the variance process. Goellner explained that a Conditional Use Permit is used in regard to the use of the property and that requesting a variance is the proper and only process to use for waiving from the setback requirements of the Zoning Code. Blum said he doesn't agree and he doesn't think the Board is restricted from asking for certain things. He said they are being asked to give the whole thing away just because the property is currently nonconforming. Perich stated that the nonconforming status of the property is just one of the justifications, not the only reason, used in determining a variance request. He added that he would be in favor of granting the requested variance. Blum stated that it is a justification as long as the other elements are fulfilled and questioned if the property was nonconforming, but the request was totally unreasonable if the Board would grant a variance. Perich said no, and reiterated that the nonconforming status is one of the elements they consider. MOVED by Baker, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 10 ft. ofF of the required 10 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at the parking lot's closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the repaving/reconstruction of the existing parking lot. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:36 pm. ��.�..f�` �`_ � � � �,�' �_.�_. ,��:, � � ^ ..�`�� ,. ���.. � �-� '� B Richard�Orenstein, Vice Chair Lis ittman, Administrative Assistant