Loading...
07-28-09 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2009 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, July 28,2009 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 Representative McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes - June 23, 2009 MOVED by Sell, seconded by Kisch and motion carried unanimously to approve the June 23, 2009 minutes as submitted. II. The Petitions are: 1221 Pennsylvania Avenue North (09-07-09) David and Cindy Ber~/Sicora Inc., Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd.11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 4.8 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30.2 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to the home and a new two-stall garage. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(2) Rear Yard Setback Requirements . 3.3 ft. off the required 28.7 ft. to a distance of 25.4 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to the home and a new two-stall garage. Hogeboom stated that the applicants are proposing to construct an addition to their home and new two-stall garage. He stated that it is difficult for the applicants to meet the setback requirements because this property is a corner lot and the west property line is considered the rear property line rather than a side yard property line. He noted that the neighboring property to the west (1228 Quebec Ave. N.) is located closer to Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2009 Page 2 Plymouth Avenue than the applicants' home would be if they build the proposed new addition and garage. He said he believes the applicant's meet the hardship requirements and that staff is recommending approval of these variance requests. Cindy Berg, Applicant, stated that they moved into this home in 1975 and have always had dreams of expanding it. She stated that the house is too small and they have never been able to keep both cars in the garage along with lawn and snow equipment and other storage and they would rather not build an accessory structure. She said they want to "age in place" and stay in Golden Valley and all of the neighbors are excited about their proposal. David Berg, Applicant, referred to an aerial photo of the area and noted how close other nearby homes are to the property line along Plymouth Ave. He reiterated that their home will be further away from Plymouth Ave. than these neighboring homes even after their proposed addition is constructed. Tom Sicora, Contractor for the Project, referred to a survey of the property and explained that they have condensed everything as much as they could in order to stay within the setback requirements. He stated that this is an oversized lot and the rear yard setback requirement of 20% of the lot depth is causing the problem because this lot is 143 feet in depth. McCarty asked about the size of the existing garage. Sicora said the existing garage is 20 ft. x 20 ft. Segelbaum asked how much closer the proposed new garage would be to the west property line compared to the existing garage. Kisch noted that the new garage would be 7.7 ft. closer to the west property line compared to the existing garage. Nelson asked how much closer the proposed new garage would be to the north property line along Plymouth Ave. Sicora stated that the existing garage is parallel with the front of the home and the new garage will be 14.67 ft. closer to Plymouth Ave. He reiterated that even with the proposed addition, the home will be set back further from Plymouth Ave. than the neighboring properties. McCarty asked Sicora if he considered designs that would meet the setback requirements. Sicora stated that they thought the west side of the property would be considered a side yard so now the proposed design isn't working. He said he knows the neighboring property owners received a variance so they thought this design would be ok. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2009 Page 3 McCarty said he is having a difficult time seeing a hardship with this property. He noted that the applicants already have a two-stall garage and that the proposed new garage is noticeably bigger. Nelson said she sees a hardship in the fact that this is a corner lot and the property line along Plymouth Ave. is very long which is making the rear yard setback greater. She added that if this wasn't a corner lot the applicant wouldn't need a variance. Kisch agreed and added that the west side of this property acts and looks more like a side yard than a rear yard. He said he thinks the construction of a shed in this case would be more imposing on the neighboring properties. Sell said he thinks that when this home was originally built the west side of the lot would have been considered a side yard, not a rear yard for setback purposes. He agreed that the west side of this property looks and acts more like a side yard than a rear yard. He added that he supports this request because the neighboring homes are closer to Plymouth Ave. than this one would be after the construction is complete. Nelson asked if this lot were smaller if they'd be dealing with different numbers. Hogeboom said yes and explained that the rear yard setback is figured by taking 20% of the lot depth. McCarty said he thinks the applicants could meet the rear yard setback requirement and would only need a variance from the front yard setback requirement. Segelbaum stated that the Board has been strict about following code requirements in regard to front yard setbacks and making sure that houses line up with each other visually. He stated that he doesn't think the Board would be compromising its principles by granting the front yard variance in this case because the neighboring properties are closer to the front along Plymouth Ave. than this one would be. Kisch said he feels this proposal meets the intent of the zoning code and reiterated that the west side of the property feels more like a side yard than a rear yard. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the variance request for 3.3 ft. off the required 28.7 ft. to a distance of 25.4 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (west) property line to allow for the construction of an addition to the home and a new two-stall garage. McCarty voted no. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 4.8 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30.2 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of an addition to the home and a new two-stall garage. McCarty asked that the hardship be noted for the record. Sell stated that a similar variance for the neighboring property was granted. Nelson stated that she thinks a corner lot with two front yard setbacks is a hardship. Segelbaum stated that he sees Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2009 Page 4 this request as a balance between having a hardship, having no negative impact to surrounding properties and being a reasonable request. 1518 Valders Avenue North (09-07-10) Vernon Berglund, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 7.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to the home and a new two-stall garage. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(d) Articulation Requirements . The wall of the addition along the north property line will be 35 ft. in length without articulating Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to the home and a new two-stall garage. Hogeboom explained the applicant's request to construct a two-stall garage with living space behind it. He stated that when the applicant's paperwork was submitted it showed that the proposed garage/addition would be located a distance of 5 feet at its closest point to the north property line, however the applicant has since stated that the garage/addition will actually be located 5.7 feet away from the north property line. He noted that the applicants are also requesting a variance from the articulation requirements for the north side of the proposed garage/addition. He stated that the neighboring property to the north received a variance in the past to do an addition along the property line in question. He added that staff supports these variance requests. Segelbaum asked if there is a rule requiring a certain distance between homes. Hogeboom said there is not a rule regarding distance between homes but City staff likes there to be at least 10 feet of space between homes. Kisch asked if eaves and overhangs are considered when looking at articulation requirements. Hogeboom stated that staff considers the foundation when looking at articulation. Kisch suggested that the intent of the articulation requirements be clarified. McCarty said he thinks the intent is for the entire structure to articulate. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2009 Page 5 Beth Malmberg, Vujovich Design Build, explained that the two-stall garage and addition behind it logically fits on the north side of the home. She referred to a plan of the proposed addition and stated that the outside dimension of the proposed new garage is 21.5 feet. She said they are willing to make changes to their proposal but articulating the foundation of the north wall will bring the addition further into the setback area. She added that the concept is to cantilever the space, not the foundation which she feels meets the intent of the articulation requirements. Kisch referred to an exterior door shown on the side of the garage and asked if there will be stairs leading from it. Malmberg said there will be a 3 ft. x 3 ft. stoop in that location. Hogeboom stated that up to 25 square feet of stairs and landings can be located in a setback area. Kisch asked to see the interior plans for proposed addition. Malmberg showed the Board the interior plans and discussed the proposed addition. McCarty asked about the depth of the proposed new garage. Malmberg said the depth of the garage will be 24 feet. McCarty asked about the size of the proposed addition. Malmberg explained that part of the new addition is a mudroom and is approximately 9 ft. x 12 ft. in size. Sell discussed possible alternatives for the location of the service door in the garage. Kisch showed the applicants a sketch and noted that if the proposed addition was "stepped in" slightly they would meet the articulation requirements. Malmberg stated that they have worked hard to make sure the applicants will get the space they need to make proposed addition function properly. She noted that the back line of the house is not changing. Malmberg explained that the proposed garage addition would be 6'2" away from the property line in the front and 5'7" away from the property line in the back because the house isn't exactly parallel with property line. Sell suggested changing the variance request to 7 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 5.5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Segelbaum asked the applicants what they consider the hardship to be. Vernon (Chip) Berglund, Applicant, stated that the hardships are that there is currently a single-stall garage and that it is important to him not to infringe further on the neighbor to the north. He added that he doesn't want there to be a "tunnel" between the two houses. He added that they have really tried to expand the use of the house without expanding the footprint. Segelbaum asked the applicant if he intends to do any landscaping on the north side of the home after the addition is built. Berglund said yes. Segelbaum asked the applicant if he has any safety concerns about having only 5.7 feet of space on the north side of the house. Sell noted that there is 20 feet of space on the south side of the house which is more than enough room for emergency vehicles. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2009 Page 6 Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to speak, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. McCarty said he is in support of this proposal. He thinks the plans are nicely done and a one-stall garage is a hardship. Kisch said he is in favor of granting the variance request for the side yard, but he can see other ways of building the proposed addition that would not require a variance from the articulation requirements. Nelson agreed. Segelbaum said he agrees that having a single stall garage is a hardship and that the proposed addition behind the garage seems reasonable. He added that the articulation being proposed, even though the foundation isn't articulating seems to be meeting the intent of the code. MOVED by Sell, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 7 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 5.5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of an addition to the home and a new two-stall garage. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Sell and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the variance request to allow the wall of the addition along the north property line will be 35 ft. in length without articulating to allow for the construction of an addition to the home and a new two- stall garage. Kisch voted no. 7100 Madison Avenue West (09-07-11) Richard Storlien, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.70, Subd. 3 Minimum Number of Required Parking Spaces . 3 parking spaces off the required 36 parking spaces for a total of 33 parking spaces Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new parking lot. Request: Waiver from Section 11.36, Subd. 6(C)(4) Yard Requirements . 10ft. off the required 10ft. to a distance of 0 ft. of landscaping along the west side yard property line Purpose: To bring the existing driveway on the property into conformance with City Code requirements. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2009 Page 7 Hogeboom stated that this is an industrial property and the applicant is proposing to construct a parking lot to the rear of the existing building with 3 fewer spaces than required. He explained that the applicant is also requesting a variance from the landscaping requirements in order to bring the existing driveway into conformance with zoning code requirements. Hogeboom explained that 3 feet of the existing driveway is located on the neighboring property to the west. He stated that the City Attorney has recommended that there be a condition placed on the approval of the variance regarding the yard requirements that requires the applicant to prove to the City that an easement exists for the part of the existing driveway that is located on the neighboring property. He added that the Board cannot grant a variance allowing anything to be constructed on someone else's property and if the variance is approved, the Board would only be approving the driveway to be located 0 feet to the property line without any landscaping. He stated that staff is in support of the requested variances because the fire code requires the driveway to be 20 feet in width which would be difficult on this lot. Kisch asked if there are setback requirements for driveways in the Industrial zoning district. Hogeboom said no. Kisch asked if there are impervious surface requirements in the Industrial zoning district and noted that currently approximately 70% of the property is impervious surface. Hogeboom stated there are no impervious surface requirements in the Industrial zoning district but there are lot coverage requirements. He added that those issues will be dealt with when the applicant applies for a grading, drainage and erosion control permit. Segelbaum asked why the Board doesn't have to address the same driveway issue with the neighboring property owner. Hogeboom explained that if the neighboring property owner wants to do any improvements to his property the City would address the driveway issue with him at that point. Sell asked how this property is being utilized. Rick Storlien, RDS Architects, stated that this building was constructed in the early 1970s and is currently being used as office space. He stated that the area behind the building has a parking area that has never been maintained and is the area they now want to pave. He stated that the hardship for this variance request is the location of the building on the lot. It was placed directly in the center of the property. He referred to the survey of the property and noted that it states there is an easement for the driveway and he has his surveyor researching to find out if that easement was ever filed with Hennepin County. Sell asked if the driveway in question is a shared driveway. Storlien said no. Nelson asked what will happen if there is not an easement agreement filed at the County for the driveway. Storlien said the easement issue will be taken care of properly. Segelbaum asked Storlien why he needs to have three fewer parking spaces than required. Storlien stated that if the lot were 20 feet wider he wouldn't need a variance. He Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2009 Page 8 stated that he designed the parking so as to maintain all of the other setbacks which leaves him three spaces short. Sell asked how many people use the parking lot. Storlien said there are about 30 people who park on the property. Segelbaum asked if there will be cars parked along the side of the building. Storlien said no. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Rod Ogrezovich, 7140 Madison Avenue West, stated that when he bought his property he knew part of the neighboring driveway was on his lot, but he is not aware of any easements on the property. He said he is supportive of the applicant's plans but he would like the driveway issue to be resolved and would like the driveway to be located completely on the applicant's property. Hogeboom explained that granting the variance requested for the driveway would only be allowing the driveway to go right to the property line, not over the property line onto the neighboring property. He added that if an easement does exist it is between the two property owners and not the City. Nelson asked if the driveway would be wide enough if the applicant removed the three feet from the neighboring property. Storlien said they would be willing to remove the three feet of driveway on the neighboring property but that would leave them with a 15-foot wide driveway and the Fire Department is requesting a 20-foot wide driveway. McCarty asked Ogrezovich if he is open to obtaining an easement if one doesn't already exist. Ogrezovich said he hasn't pursued it yet and he does not know the ramifications of an easement on his property at this point. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Sell questioned if the fire requirements or setback requirements have changed since this building was constructed because when this building was constructed it received a building permit so the City allowed the building to be built the way it was. Segelbaum questioned if the Board has the authority to add a condition regarding the easement paperwork since it is an issue between the property owners and not the City. Hogeboom added that if the applicant ever wants to re-pave or maintain the driveway the City would need both property owners approval. Kisch said he would support granting the variance with the condition that the applicant must show the City proof of the easement. McCarty said he is also in favor of granting the variance requests but he doesn't think the City needs proof of the easement agreement because it is an issue between the two property owners, not the City. Sell questioned if the City would require proof of the easement agreement at the time when the grading permit is issued. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 28, 2009 Page 9 McCarty referred to the request for three fewer parking spaces and said he thinks cities require too much parking so he is in favor of granting the variance especially since there is on street parking available. Kisch said he is also in favor of less parking and less pavement. Ogrezovich said the on street parking in this area is bad because they often have 53-foot long trailers that need to turn. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests: . 3 parking spaces off the required 36 parking spaces for a total of 33 parking spaces to allow for the construction of a new parking lot. . 10ft. off the required 10ft. to a distance of 0 ft. of landscaping along the west side yard property line to bring the existing driveway into conformance. This only applies for the distance of the existing driveway and 10ft. beyond the rear wall of the building as shown on the plans submitted. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 pm. ;'1 J t b~ i ,\,[:> ~h Chuck Segelb~um, Chair ---......,~~-.. ~