Loading...
07-09-85 BZA Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE � O � GOLDEN VALLEY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS July 9, 1985 The regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held Tuesday, July 9, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The following Board members were present: Chairman, Larry Smith Margaret Leppik Mike Sell Mahlon Swedberg Art Flannagan The first order of business was approval of the minutes of a regular meeting held June 11 , 1985, copies of which had previously been distributed to the Board. Margaret Leppik moved to approve the minutes as written and presented, second by Art Flannagan and upon vote carried. 85-7-17 (Map 15) Residential 1600 Florida Avenue North Robert M. Korstad The Petition is for waiver of Section 3A.06(3)b side setback, for 8,5 feet off the required 13.2 foot setback to a dis- tance of 4 J feet from the east lot line to the proposed deck addition. Mr, and Mrs. Korstad were present. The petition was in order. Consent had been obtained from all adjacent properties. No others were present for this proposal . Margaret Leppik noted that the site plan submitted also showed a privacy fence along the east lot line as part of the deck and landscape and she questioned whether the Board was to address this also as the tence is 8 feet high. Secretary Lloyd Becker stated that any fence over 6 feet high requires a building permit and by practice, upon application for permit, such fences were sent to the Building Board of Review foc comment. There is no section in the Residental Zoning Code at this time that sets requirements or limits for fences other than corner visibility. Therefore, the Board could not address the fence for any waiver directly. However, as part of the overall proposal , it could be considered or commented on by the Board in making their determination on the proposed decks. Lloyd Becker noted that the previous day in reviewing all the properties that have petitioned for waiver, the fence and landscape had been installed. The decks had not. 9 0 � goard of Zoning Appeals Page 2 July 9, 1985 Mr. Korstad addressed the Board and explained that he missed the date for the previous Building Board of Review, that he was unfamiliar with boards and pro- cedures and he was committed to a contract and installation date for the fence and landscape and had no other alternative but take his chances for subsequent approval . Mahlon Swedberg asked if this will still be brought before the Building Board of Review. Lloyd Becker replied that a permit was required for the decks. Prior to issuance, the entire proposal , while now somewhat redundant, would be referred to the Building Board of Review to be consistent with prior procedures. He described his conversation with City Planner, Mark Grimes, wherein it was agreed that an amendment to the Residential Zoning Code to address fences, their placement and height would appear to be warranted, as any fence over 6 feet high actually may be considered a structural wall . Mahlon Swedberg said he felt the entire proposal and the height of the fence, in his opinion, really has the visual impact of a zero lot line structure. Swedberg also noted the placement originally of the house which crowds it on the lot toward the east and north lot lines. It presently is 53 plus feet from Olympia (35 feet required) and there appears to be no other reasonable location for the decks. This is also a corner lot in a highly visible location on a well traveled street. Mr. Korstad explained in further detail the construction of the decks in conjunction with the overall landscape. He called attention to the adjacent neighbor's fence, part of which exists somewhat higher than his. Art Flannagan noted the close proximity of the other houses and the desire- ability of having privacy on this corner lot. Margaret Leppik felt that overall it was a creative solution to a difficult lot that was highly visible and heavy traffic. Mike Sell noted that on the survey submitted with this proposal , it located the existing house slightly off the required 35 feet from Florida Avenue (at 34.8 feet) and irrespective of any other decision regarding the proposed decks, he suggested the Board address this. Larry Smith suggested a motion was in order. Art Flannagan moved to approve the waiver for the decks as requested and to also include the house as it now exists at 34.8 feet from Florida Avenue. Second by Mike Sell , and upon vote carried unanimously. Board of Zoning Appeals 9 o J Page 3 July 9, 1985 85-7-18 (Map 19) Residential 2425 Wisconsin Avenue North Glen Gersbach The Petition is for waiver of Section 3A.06(1) front setback, for 1.5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 33.5 feet to the existing house at its closest point, to allow addition af a fully conforming garage and room. The petition was in order. Consent had been obtained from all adjacent pro- perties. Mr. and Mrs. Gersbach were present. No others were in attendance. Mr. Gersback explained they recently became owners of the house and their proposal is to add a room and garage addition that fully conforms. Wisconsin Avenue curves sharply at this location and the front lot line is similar to a lot on a cul-de-sac. The house at its closest point on this radius is 33.5 feet from the lot line. Mike Sell noted that by his observation it appeared that when the house was built, the foundation quite possibly was staked out from both ends to establish the corners. At these points the house exceeds 37 feet because of the radius and it appears that is how the error of being too close at the center of the lot occurred. The Board concurred. It was also noted during discussion that the house as presently placed on the lot appears to have been intended for future addition of a garage and the curb cut that exists on the street fits the proposed location. Mike Sell moved to approve the waiver as requested. Second by Margaret Leppik and upon vote carried. 85-7-19 (Map 15) Residential 1550 Pennsylvania Avenue North Robert Feldges The Petition is for waiver of Section 3A.06(1) front setback, for 20 feet off the required 35 foot front setback to a distance of 15 feet from the lot line along Olympia to the proposed patio deck. Mr. and Mrs. Feldges were present. Consent had been obtained from all adjacent properties. No others were present. �fl4 Board of Zoning Appeals Page 4 July 9, 1985 The Board noted this is also a corner lot located on Olympia at Pennsylvania and very similar to the previous proposal at Florida and Olympia. Mr. Feldges said after hearing the previous proposal he was somewhat confused as his patio deck is ground level (paver type bricks set in sand) and his fence is only six feet high. Lloyd Becker explained that while there was similarities to the previous proposal at Florida and Olympia, there are also some dlffierences. While the patio is a flat surface at ground level that is located 20 feet into the setback area from Olympia, nothing in the residential section of the Zoning Code actually says that the setback areas must be grass or landscape, nor does it prohibit some other material at ground level that could be used as a patio area. However, staff felt that the fence around this patio area is actually an an enclosure and the appearance of a structure within the 35 foot setback. That is why it was brought to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mahlon Swedberg concurred. In his observation, it had the appearance of a structure not a fence and properly should be addressed by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Art Flannagan noted that on three sides of this lot, it is heavily screened by substantial evergreens that provide privacy year round. The fence or enclosure would be very difficult to see. Mahlon Swedberg noted this is a corner lot with 35 foot setback on two sides and the house is located well back into the corner of the lot. The proposed patio as it relates to the door and kitchen area is the best location and makes sense. The lot also has other limitations including a substantial hill on the north side. Art Flannagan moved to approve the waiver for the privacy fence as proposed, noting the heavy screening the existing evergreens provide, the requirement for a 35 foot setback on two sides, the topography to the north and the lack of any other reasonable placement based on the present location and construction characteristics of the existing home. Second by Margaret Leppik. During additional discussion on the motion, Margaret Leppik noted the beautiful maple trees that were also on the lot in conjunction with the everyreens. Upon vote, the motion to approve carried unanimously. 85-7-20 (Map 18) Institutional 145 Jersey Avenue South Church of the Good Shepherd The Petition is for waiver of Section 11.07 side setback, for 25 feet off the required 25 feet of landscape along the portion of the south lot line adjacent to the revised plat. The petition was in order. Notice had been sent to six properties adjacent to or reasonably near this area. None were present. Father Theodore C. Campbell , Pastor of the Church of Good Shepherd, and Mr. Milton Bix, Attorney Representing the Church, as legal council were present. Board of Zoning Appeals � � � Page 5 July 9, 1985 Mr. Bix made a presentation which included an overview of the many years the Church has existed in Golden Valley, that it has been a good neighbor to the community and had recently made some substantial improvements in upgrading and maintaining its structures. Mr. Bix described that the new plat divides off a substantial portion to provide sufficient area to meet the requirements for the purchaser, Speak the Word Church. At the present time, they have approximately 600 people in their con- gregation but they intend to build to meet their future needs of approximately 1 ,200 members. The Church, theefore, required sufficient space to meet the current parking requirements. Mr. Bix described the property as having two sides (Laurel and Jersey) that require the 35 foot setback. He also des- cribed that the Church "gave" the 50 feet of property along the south side to the City for the required right-of-way and green area for Laurel Avenue. Rather than have the City go through condemnation, etc. , and purchase this area, the Church cooperated with the City in this plat and they also included an area to the City along Cortland Avenue to prevent traffic flow through that area. Mr. Bix said he felt it would be an extreme hardship to rip up 25 feet of blacktop and playground area, which really affected no one. Secretary, Lloyd Becker, noted to the Board that the green area along Laurel Avenue was required as 10 percent of the total lot area to be dedicated to the City or cash in lieu of as part of a new plat. Art Flannagan questioned, what is the hardship? It appears to him that the proponent created the situation by dividing off the property and recognizing that the new development would have to meet the landscape requirement but the Good Shepherd Church should not do so. Margaret Leppik questioned the present parking and the times of most use, i .e. , mass or at weddings, or large social church events. She questioned why that pre- sent blacktop playground area with one basketball hoop couldn't be used for parking when required and then there should be no reason that removal of the 25 feet of blacktop and installation of the required landscape couldn't be done. Mr. Bix said the Church would remove the blacktop if they had to but there is 25 feet of trees and grass on the Speak the Word Church site plus all the existing wooded area and it seemed unreasonable just to avoid setting a precendent or to enforce the litecal provisions of the ordinance in this case. He felt the Board should exercise flexibility in areas where there appeared that granting a waiver such as this request would appear to harm no one. Art Flannagan and others disagreed. Mahlon Swedberg said it appeared to him a "cart before the horse" situation arguing in effect for the new proposed Church. Margaret Leppik questioned why the proposed Church couldn't reduce its size and parking requirements. � o � Board of Zoning Appeals Page 6 July 9, 1985 Mike Sell said he saw several unusual aspects of this proposal . The property is zoned institutional . The proposed church use appears to be less intense than any other use possible in the Institutional Zoning and the present blacktop being discussed has been there for years and to dig it up now doesn't make sense or appear reasonable. Sell also noted that the area on the south dedicated to the City was a far greater benefit for the use of all the other citizens for roadway than any benefit that might be obtained by removal of the blacktop. Sell , in summary, felt the 35 foot requirement on two sides, plus the loss of the south end along Laurel Avenue creates a hardship for this site. Larry Smith noted the difference where a deliberate violation may occur or exist versus this situation where the Church is up front and open to the Board and is trying to keep a commitment it made to the other Church. It is unfortunate that in dividing the property it creates this hardship. Smith said he could look favorably toward approving the waiver request and frankly to ask to rip up 25 feet of existing blacktop is questionable in his mind. The Board and the proponent continued a lengthy exchange of views and the merits of the proposal and alternatives. Margaret Leppik said she disagrees with Mr. Bix's assumption that the proposed waiver affects no one as she feels the people on Cortland are directly affected, especially when any new con- struction occurs. Mahlon Swedberg, in a final comment said he could possibly agree to some extent with Mr. Bix's rational . However, the most striking argument is that the problem is created by the Good Shepherd Church in dividing the property and can be avoided by simply removing the blacktop. Swedbery further stated that every argument put forth by Good Shepherd Church, who was selling the property, was toward the new Church (Speak the Word) and the new Church should argue their own if applicable. In closing, Mr. Bix said the Church will abide by any decision the Board makes. They would like to use the storage garage for approximately 12 months before they remove it because they need time to remodel another area for storage. Mike Sell moved to approve the waiver as requested, noting the loss of land at the south end, the existing soil conditions and the 35 foot requirement on two sides. Second by Larry Smith. During discussion on the motion, it was the concensus of the Board that removal of the garage was a separate issue. Art Flannagan asked Mike Sell to amend his motion. Sell withdrew his previous motion and Smith his second. Mike Sell moved to allow a waiver that would provide for the garage to remain for 12 months from this date to provide the proponents time to construct alternate storage area after which the garage shall be removed from the site or demolished. Margaret Leppik seconded the motion and upon vote carried. Board of Zoning Appeals � 0 � Page 7 July 9, 1985 Mike Sell reintroduced his previous motion to approve the waiver of 25 feet off the required 25 feet of landscape as described on the site plan. Smith seconded the motion. During discussion on the motion, Margaret Leppik said she had great difficulty with this proposal . Art Flannagan again expressed his concern for the precedent approval would set and the appearance that waiving the removal of the 25 feet of blacktop would have. Mahlon Swedberg commented he could not support the request and it is ridiculous to give two minutes thought to this. Chairman Smith called the vote on the motion for approval . There were 2 ayes for approval , 3 nays, Leppik, Flannagan and Swedberg. The motion denied. Mr. Bix and Father Campbell were made aware of the appeal process by the Chairman. Following Board discussion on other developments underway or proposed in the City, the Board adjourned at 9:50 P.M. � f La y Smit , hairman 1 yd G. Becker, Secretary