Loading...
06-23-09 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2009 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Kisch, Nelson, Segelbaum, Sell and Planning Commission Representatives McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes - May 26, 2009 MOVED by Sell, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the May 26, 2009 minutes as submitted. II. The Petitions are: 6480 Wayzata Blvd. (09-06-07) Vladimir Sivriver, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.47, Subd. 6(B) Front, Side and Rear Yard Setbacks, Surface Parking Requirements . 15 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. to the side yard (west) property line. Purpose: To bring the existing parking lot into conformance with Zoning Code requirements. Request: Waiver from Section 11.47, Subd. 6(C)(2) Side and Rear Yard Setbacks, Buildings Requirements . 10ft. off the required 10ft. to a distance of 0 ft. to the side yard (east) property line. Purpose: To bring the existing structure into conformance with Zoning Code requirements. Request: Waiver from Section 11.47, Subd. 8(H) Parking Screening Requirements . 5 ft. off the required 5 ft. landscaped frontage strip to a distance of 0 ft. to the side yard (west) property line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2009 Page 2 Purpose: To bring the existing parking lot into conformance with Zoning Code Requirements. Request: Waiver from Section 11.47, Subd. 6(G) Maximum Impervious Surface Requirements . Waive provision to allow greater than 65% total impervious land coverage. Purpose: To bring the existing property into conformance with Zoning Code Requirements. Hogeboom noted that this is the first variance request for a property located in the 1-394 Mixed Use zoning district. He explained the applicant's request to add 6 parking spaces on the west side of the building and build an entryway on the north end of the existing building. He stated that both of the applicant's proposed requests conform to zoning code requirements however the existing parking lot and structure are non-conforming so in order for the applicant to expand the footprint of his existing building by adding an entryway the entire property needs to be brought into conformance with zoning code requirements. He added that the applicant has been working with the Public Works Department on grading and drainage issues and that staff is supporting these variance requests. Kisch referred to the survey submitted by the applicant and noted that this property requires 25 parking spaces. However it currently has 32 parking spaces so he is concerned about increasing the impervious surface of this lot even more by allowing the 6 additional spaces the applicant is requesting. Hogeboom agreed that that the applicant is requesting more parking spaces than what the code requires, however he has demonstrated the need for the additional parking spaces. McCarty referred to the survey and stated that it appears the applicant is proposing to have less impervious surface than he currently has. Hogeboom agreed that the applicant is making an effort to reduce the amount of impervious surface on his property. Segelbaum referred to the variance request regarding screening of the parking lot and asked if that requirement is for aesthetic or safety purposes. Hogeboom said he believes it is for aesthetic purposes. Sell said he believes the screening requirements are to provide a buffer for residential areas. Vladimir Sivriver, Applicant, stated that he needs the additional 6 parking spaces he is requesting because he is searching for new retail tenant which will require more spaces. Also his existing engineering firm and school currently located in this building need more parking spaces. He stated that this has been a very challenging site and since he bought it he has put a lot of money into fixing it up. He showed the Board a PowerPoint presentation that provided a background of his business including his education, Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 23,2009 Page 3 professional experience, accomplishments and projects he has done in Golden Valley. He discussed his future plans for this site including the reduction of impervious surface, drainage improvements and landscaping. Kisch referred to the survey of the property and stated that the reduction of impervious surface that has been mentioned has taken place outside of the applicant's property lines. He asked the applicant how much impervious surface is located within the property lines. Sivriver reiterated that this is a very difficult lot and that MnDot probably should have taken it when they reconstructed the frontage road. He explained that he did remove some impervious surface from the boulevard area along Wayzata Blvd. because if he didn't, no improvements would have been made. He stated that he is also planning on doing some landscaping along Florida Ave. McCarty referred to the 3% reduction in impervious surface area and asked how much of it was located outside of the property lines. Sivriver said approximately 50% of the reduction was located outside of the property lines. Kisch noted that the addition of 6 parking spaces would increase the impervious surface total within the property lines. Sivriver stated that he proposed using water infiltration but the City wouldn't allow it because the water table is so high in this area. Kisch asked the applicant if has considered using permeable pavers for the proposed 6 additional parking spaces. Hogeboom noted that the City would still consider permeable pavers to be impervious surface area. Kisch asked about the City's opinion of the parking lot. Hogeboom explained that the City Manager gave the applicant approval to re-stripe his parking lot because it already exists. He reiterated that the applicant has been working with the Engineering Department regarding catch basin and retention pond issues. Kisch said he is hesitant to grant approval for the 6 additional parking spaces because they will be adding additional impervious surface to the site. Sivriver stated that the area is very dense in use with the skate park, the collision center, Majors and JJ's and that sometimes there aren't enough parking spaces plus he still has 2,000 sq. ft. of space to rent. Segelbaum asked the applicant if there have been any accidents in his parking lot. Sivriver said no. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. McCarty asked Hogeboom if there are any requirements stating that a person can't install more than the minimum amount of required parking space. Hogeboom stated that there are only minimum parking stall requirements, not maximum. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2009 Page 4 Kisch said he realizes the limitations on this property but he is concerned about increasing the amount of impervious surface. McCarty said he would more concerned if the applicant was adding more impervious surface but the applicant is just proposing to re-stripe what is already there. Kisch stated that the applicant is proposing to add more impervious surface because he has been calculating the amount of impervious surface using space that is outside of his property lines. Segelbaum suggested that it may be appropriate to approve the variance requests for the existing non-conformities however in regard to the variance request involving impervious surface maybe the Board could allow the applicant to keep the amount of impervious surface the same, but not let him increase the amount of hard cover. Sell said he agrees that this is an unusual piece of property and suggested that the City Code be revisited to consider adding permeable pavers and other similar techniques to be considered pervious surface. He suggested to the applicant that he work with Taco Bell to use some of their parking spaces. Kisch said he can see a hardship for allowing the entryway because of the heating and cooling issues in the building but the only hardship for the additional parking spaces is because the applicant says he needs more parking. Segelbaum added that the Board has to balance the potential impact with the hardships on this lot. Nelson suggested allowing the applicant to keep the net existing impervious surface amount the same. If he wants to add the 6 additional parking stalls he'll have to make up for the difference in another location on his lot. Sell agreed and added that the Engineering Department should determine how they want the water to drain on this site. Segelbaum said he agrees that the Engineering Department should determine how the water drains on this site but there are also the aesthetics of the property to consider. Nelson agreed that the area is very congested. She said she feels allowing the applicant to add something orderly like the proposed 6 parking spaces would be better than having cars parked all over the place. Kisch stated that he doesn't think there is a hardship to allow the 6 additional parking spaces but if there is a stipulation that the total impervious surface area does not increase from the existing hard surface coverage amount currently located within the property lines to allow no net gain in impervious surface he would feel better about the proposal. MOVED by Sell seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests: . 15 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. to the side yard (west) property line to bring the existing parking lot into conformance with Zoning Code requirements. . 10ft. off the required 10ft. to a distance of 0 ft. to the side yard (east) property line to bring the existing structure into conformance with Zoning Code requirements. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2009 Page 5 . 5 ft. off the required 5 ft. landscaped frontage strip to a distance of 0 ft. to the side yard (west) property line to bring the existing parking lot into conformance with Zoning Code Requirements. MOVED by Kisch seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance request: . Waive provision to allow greater than 65% total impervious land coverage with the condition that there be no net gain of impervious surface area within the property lines of the site. The applicant is not to exceed the amount of impervious surface currently on the property. 309 Turnpike Road. (09-06-08) Natasha Solorieff, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 12.8 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 2.2 ft. to the side yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to the home and attached garage. Hogeboom stated that the applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the existing home and a new 2-stall garage with living space above that would be 2.2 feet away from the north, side yard property line. He explained that staff believes a single car garage is a hardship and is therefore is recommending that the proposed garage addition be located at least 5 feet away from the north property line. However staff does not feel that the addition being proposed behind the new garage has a hardship and it should be able to meet setback requirements. Hogeboom referred to the neighboring property to the north at 301 Turnpike Road. He explained that the homeowner there built a similar addition to what is being proposed however that addition is located 5.5 feet away from the side yard property line compared to the 2.2 feet being requested. Nelson stated that precedents were set but that doesn't mean the variance should have been granted and each property needs to be looked at individually. Segelbaum asked if the required side yard setback for this property is 15 feet. Hogeboom stated that the side yard setback for this property would be 12.5 feet however due the height of the proposed addition the north side yard setback requirement is 15 feet rather than 12.5 feet. He added that the existing house does conform to the setback requirements. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2009 Page 6 Patrick Buckner, contractor representing the applicant, Natasha Solorieff, stated that they are trying to upgrade the home to make it usable to today's standards. He said they need a two stall garage with a minimum interior width of 22 feet. He explained that the existing garage has no footings underneath so they are proposing to tear it down and build a new garage with living space above plus additional living space behind the proposed new garage. He added that garages with living space above them are very common in Golden Valley and will fit in with the character of the area. He said he considered building in the back yard but he would then have to remove trees and he doesn't want to do that. He stated that the plans he submitted are conceptual and can be changed but they need to have some compromise from the City. Segelbaum asked if the eaves shown in the elevation plans are taken into consideration when figuring out setback requirements. Hogeboom explained that 30" of eaves and overhangs are allowed to go into the setback area however they cannot cross over the property line. Segelbaum asked how close the proposed eave would be to the property line in this case. Buckner, said he wouldn't have to build an eave on the north side, he could install a gutter instead. Segelbaum asked if the proposal for the 22-foot wide garage is what makes the addition be 2.2 feet away from the property line. Buckner said yes and added that they would need 11.5 feet of space in order to get a 22-foot wide garage. Nelson explained to the applicant that the Board does consider a single stall garage to be a hardship but they typically like garage additions to be at least 5 feet away from side yard property lines. Buckner said they can't build a two stall garage 5 feet away from the side yard property line without significantly changing the plans and the budget. He added that he would not do the project at all if the minimum width of a new garage is not at least 22 feet. Segelbaum asked Buckner if he is representing the owner of the property, William Adolfson. Buckner said no, he plans to live in the house. Segelbaum asked if he has a purchase agreement with the owner. Buckner said yes. Segelbaum asked if the purchase of the property is contingent on the approval of this variance request. Bucker said no and added that if they don't receive approval for the variance they will have to cut down trees. Kisch referred to the survey and noted that the topography is fairly flat on this lot. He referred to the plans of the building section and noted that it is showing a walk-out style of house. Buckner said the house will have an egress and will not be a walk-out it will be a four-level split style. Kisch asked about the difference between the level of the garage and first floor. Buckner said the difference is about 4 feet. Kisch said he is concerned about having an almost a 60-foot long wall along the north side property line. Segelbaum referred to the proposed addition behind the proposed garage and questioned if that part of the proposal could be built elsewhere on the lot. Solorieff I' Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2009 Page 7 reiterated that they are trying to keep the existing trees. Kisch explained that the Board considers ecological issues but that isn't the only criteria considered. Buckner stated that he is trying to get the square footage he needs to match today's living standards. The existing house is only about 1,200 square feet which is very small so they need to expand the dimensions of the rooms and bring the house up to date. Solorieff stated that many houses in the neighborhood have been enlarged and modernized. Segelbaum said he is concerned about the impact to surrounding properties and asked the applicants what would prevent them from adding onto the rear of the house in a different and conforming location. Buckner said if he builds into the back yard he may create drainage issues. He said he is trying to be responsible and respectful and not affect anybody else's property. Segelbaum stated he would really like to see at least a 5 foot setback from the proposed new garage to the north side yard property line. Buckner said there is no way to get a 22- foot wide garage 5 feet away from the property line. He added that he would also like to install a fence along the north property line. Kisch said if a fence was installed there the applicant couldn't fit a ladder in the space in order to maintain the fence. Segelbaum asked if the existing garage were removed how much space there would be between the house and the property line. Buckner said there would be 25.4 feet which is not enough room to build a minimal 2-stall garage. Kisch noted that in the past the Board has considered a 20-foot wide garage to be a minimally sized 2-stall garage. He referred to the applicant's plans and noted that he is proposing 22.3 feet for the overall dimension of the garage which would be located 3.6 feet away from the property, not 2.2 as stated. He asked the applicant if there are any other alternatives. Buckner said there are other alternatives but putting a garage in the back yard will make for a really long driveway and he doesn't want to have to drive his cars by the next door neighbor's windows in order to get the garage. Solorieff agreed that she wouldn't want cars going up and down the driveway next the neighbor's bedroom windows. McCarty said he doesn't want to increase the costs for the applicant or require them to tear down trees but in this case there are other alternatives. Buckner reiterated that he is concerned if he puts a garage in the back it may cause drainage issues on the neighboring properties. McCarty asked about the drainage issues if he builds the garage where he is proposing. Buckner said he is planning on installing drain tile. Hogeboom stated that he has talked to the City Engineer about this proposal and was told that the drainage issues could be addressed and dealt with in the drainage and erosion control process. Sell referred to the survey and said he re-did some of the math. He said it seems to him that the applicant could build a 21-foot wide garage and still maintain a 4-foot setback area. The Board agreed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2009 Page 8 Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Kisch said his concern is the proposed addition off of the back of the proposed garage. He said he feels the impact of a 50-foot long wall that close to the property line would be worse than losing a tree and building additional living space elsewhere on the property. He said he agrees that a one-stall garage is a hardship and that building the garage in the back yard and having cars drive past the neighbors bedroom windows is worse than granting the side yard variance request. He said he would be ok with granting a variance to allow a garage 28 feet in depth to be built 4 feet from the side yard property. Nelson agreed that there is a hardship regarding the one-stall garage. She added that she feels it would devalue the neighborhood and this property to build a garage in the back yard and it would not make sense to build a detached garage in this area. McCarty said he could see razing the entire house and starting over. He added that this property has plenty of potential without having to grant variances. Sell said he would be ok with allowing a variance to allow the garage to be 28 feet in depth, 4 feet away from the property line. Segelbaum stated that allowing living space above the garage will make the garage addition more opposing. McCarty said he would support a variance to allow the garage to be 5 feet away from the side yard property. He added that the hardship in this case is the single stall garage not the applicant wanting more living space. Buckner reiterated that the house is not up to today's standards and that the house next door was granted a variance in 2003 to build a garage with living space above. Kisch said the term "today's standards" is subjective and reminded the applicant that the neighboring property was granted a variance for a garage, not for living space behind the garage, to be 5.5 feet away from his side yard property line. Buckner stated that green consciousness is a passion of his and he wants to incorporate any green measure he can including not removing any trees. Kisch stated that saving one tree is not as environmentally sound as some other building practices the applicant could use. Segelbaum said he would be in favor of granting a variance to allow the garage, without living space above it to be 4 feet away from the north side yard property line. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance request for 11 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 4 ft. to the side yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of an attached garage. The garage can be 28 feet in depth with no living space above. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 23, 2009 Page 9 III. Other Business Kisch reported on the June 16 City Council meeting where they discussed the appeal of the Board's decision for the property at 1525 Sumter Ave. N. He stated that the City Council reversed the Board's decision because of the ambiguity of the definition of a porch, landing, deck and stoop. The language in the Code regarding front porches, decks, landings and stoops and what constitutes a "covered front porch" will be reviewed by the Planning Commission in the future. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 pm. ~~~ C~