Loading...
06-28-11 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 28, 2011 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Vice Chair Nelson called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Maxvvell and Nelson, and Planning Commission Representatives Kisch and Segelbaum. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom, Planning Intern Michael Simmons and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Planning Commissioner McCarty was absent. I. Approval of Minutes --August 24, 2010 Special Meeting and September 28, 2010 Regular Meeting MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Kisch and motion carried unanimously to approve the August 24, 2010 and September 28, 2010 minutes as submitted. Hogeboom discussed the variance legislation recently passed by the State. He stated that there are two notable changes from the way the Board considered variances in the past. One, staff does not make recommendations and two; the Board is asked to make findings regarding their decisions. II. The Petitions are: 924 Adeline Lane (11-06-01) Jane McDonald Black and Archie Black, Auplicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.65 Shoreland Management, Subd. 5(A) Zoning Provisions • 7 ft. off the required 75 ft. to a distance of 68 ft. at its closest point to Ordinary High Water Mark. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new garage addition. Hogeboom explained the applicants' request to remove their existing 2-stall garage and replace it with a 3-stall garage because, according to the applicants, their existing garage is no longer structurally sound. He referred to a survey of the property and noted the that the proposed garage would be located 68 feet at its closest point to the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of Sweeney Lake rather than 75 feet as required by the Zoning Code. Hogeboom also noted that the front of the existing garage is located 20.5 feet from the front property line and explained that the City Council allowed the front yard setback for properties on this street to be 20 feet when the property was platted. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 28, 2011 Page 2 Hogeboom added that the proposal was sent to the DNR for review, but they had no comments. Nelson noted that the proposed addition won't be any closer to the OHWM than the existing house and it will, in fact, follow the same plane as the house. Segelbaum asked about the front of the house along the cul-de-sac being only 10 feet from the property line. Hogeboom stated that a variance was granted from the front yard property line. Segelbaum noted that the DNR in reviewing past variance requests for this property stated that a 50-foot setback from the creek would be adequate. Hogeboom said that is correct. Jane McDonald-Black, Applicant, stated that has an engineer's report showing that their garage is not structurally sound. She stated that the neighbor's house to the north is only 30 feet from the OHWM. She showed the Board renderings of what the proposed addition would look like and stated that the third garage stall will be set back slightly and the addition will match the rest of the existing house. Kisch noted that there was a discrepancy between the dimensions of the garage shown on the plans versus the dimensions shown on the survey. Mark Peterson, Builder for the project, explained the dimensions of the proposed garage and stated that the back of the addition will be in alignment with the back of the existing home and will not be any closer to the OHWM than the requested 68 feet. Maxwell noted the application stated that the neighbors to the north were out of town until mid-June. He asked the applicant if she has since talked with them about the proposal. McDonald-Black said she has reviewed her plans with her neighbor and they fully support them. Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Kisch said he doesn't think the proposal is unreasonable because the configuration of the lot leaves little buildable area, the applicant isn't requesting any additional variances and this house would still one of the furthest away from the lake. Nelson agreed and added that it will improve the look of the neighborhood. Segelbaum agreed and added that the need for the variance was not caused by the landowner and the proposed project won't negatively impact the neighborhood. Maxwell agreed. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 7 ft. off the required 75 ft. to a distance of 68 ft. at its closest point to Ordinary High Water Mark to allow for the construction of a new garage addition finding that the property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner, the configuration of the lot is unique and the proposed addition won't alter the character of the locality. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 28, 2011 Page 3 1507 Kaltern Lane (11-06-02) Larry Shapiro/Provident Real Estate, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 4.6 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 7.9 ft. at its closest point to side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new garage addition. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and discussed the applicant's request to construct a larger 2-stall garage into the side yard setback area. Segelbaum asked if the existing garage is going to remain and be expanded or if it will be demolished and rebuilt. Larry Shapiro/Provident Real Estate, Applicant, stated that they have made significant improvements to the property since they've owned it. He explained his proposal to repave the driveway, extend the existing garage approximately 5 '/ feet into the side yard setback, add a new door in the middle and an access door to the back yard. He showed the Board photos of the property and the area where the proposed new garage would be located. He added that the new garage won't impinge on the neighbor's view. Kisch noted there was a discrepancy in the garage dimensions shown on the survey versus what is shown on the plans. Shapiro discussed the interior dimensions of the proposed garage and said he would make sure the garage is built 7.9 feet away from the south property line as proposed. Segelbaum asked about the width of the proposed new driveway. Shapiro explained his intent to bring new concrete to edge of the new garage where there is currently asphalt. Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Segelbaum said the applicant is doing a good job of balancing his plans with the requirements and not making the new garage too large which would negatively impact the neighboring property. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request 4.6 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 7.9 ft. at its closest point to side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a garage addition finding that adding a 2-stall garage is a reasonable request, the current homeowner didn't create the circumstances and the addition positively impacts the neighboring property owners because cars will be able to be parked indoors. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 28, 2011 Page 4 815 Zane Avenue North (11-06-03) Larry Spears/Tennant Company, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.36, Industrial Zoning District, Subd. 6(A) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 17.25 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 17.75 ft. at its closest point to front yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the expansion of the parking lot. Request: Waiver from Section 11.70, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations, Subd. 3 Minimum Number of Required Off-�treet Parking Spaces • 36 parking spaces fewer the required 167 parking spaces for a total of 131 parking spaces Commissioner Segelbaum recused himself from the discussion and action of this item. Hogeboom explained that Tennant acquired this property and have turned it into a research and development/office use rather than the warehouse space is was previously. As a result of that, they are proposing to put parking stalls in the front setback area. They are also requesting to have 36 fewer parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code. Maxwell asked if the 131 parking spaces proposed would be an increase from what they currently have. Hogeboom said yes, and added that employees have been using the parking lot, also owned by Tennant, across the street. Maxwell noted that there was also a variance granted for parking when Tennant purchased the property. Michael Schroeder, LHB Corp., Representing the Applicant, gave a brief history of the property. He explained that the existing parking lot is deteriorating and needs to be replaced. There are also grade issues and structural deficiencies along with a number of other issues. He explained that there are currently 96 parking spaces so the plans proposed would be an improvement over what is there now. They are also planning to use landscaping to screen the parking in the front. Kisch asked about the distance from the edge of the existing parking lot to front property line. Schroeder said the edge of.the parking lot is right at the 35-foot setback. Kisch asked about the percentage of impervious surface. Schroder said he did have that number available but explained that they are currently going through the approval process with the Bassett Creek Watershed district. He explained some of the mitigation efforts they will be doing including underground storage. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 28, 2011 Page 5 Kisch said he feels shared parking on a campus setting is a good practice. Hogeboom agreed. Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Kisch said this property is unique due to the size of the building. He said he is alright with the front yard variance request because of the other mitigation efforts and the landscaping being proposed. It also won't change the character of this industrial neighborhood. Maxwell agreed and said the property is proposed to be used in a reasonable manner. He agrees the circumstances are unique and the property is bound on two sides by railroad and it won't impact surrounding properties. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Kisch and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests 17.25 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 17.75 ft. at its closest point to front yard (east) property line to allow for the expansion of the parking lot and 36 parking spaces fewer the required 167 parking spaces for a total of 131 parking spaces finding that the property is proposed to be used in a reasonable manner, the circumstances are unique to the property and the proposal won't impact surrounding properties. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8 pm. �"'� -�/ c°-r� Nancy Nelson, Vice Chair Joe Hoge�pm, Staff Liaison �J