07-09-96 BZA Minutes
I
I
I
1437
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
July 9, 1996
The regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held Tuesday, July
9, 1996, in the Council Conference Room, City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden
Valley, Minnesota. Chair Herb Polachek called the meeting to order at 7pm.
Those present were: Chair Herb Polachek, Members Mike Sell, Robert Shaffer, and
Planning Commission Representative Paula Pentel. Also present were Staff Liaison Mark
Grimes and Recording Secretary Eve Lomaistro.
I. Approval of Minutes - June 18, 1996
MOVED by Sell, seconded by Pentel and motion carried unanimously to approve the June
18, 1996 minutes as submitted.
II. The Petitions are:
1230 Wills Place (96-7-20)
Katherine Anderson/Alan Flory
Request:
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 1.22 feet off
the required 35 feet to a distance of 33.78 feet for the existing house
facing Wills Place; and
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback -- 9.48 feet off
the required 25.03 feet to a distance of 15.55 feet for the existing
house, and 9.4 feet off the required 25.03 feet to a distance of 15.63
feet for the proposed deck.
Purpose:
To make the house legally nonconforming to allow for the construction
of a deck.
Staff Liaison Mark Grimes reviewed the request for the construction of a 22.5 x 24 foot deck
onto the southeast side of the house. This deck would replace a recently removed deck of
same proportions because it was deteriorating.
Katherine Anderson and Alan Flory were present to answer any questions. Ms. Anderson
commented that there is an existing entrance onto the deck from the house and without the
deck this entrance would not be usable. She also referred to a letter endorsing the waiver
from a neighbor, Linda L. Grimes, who lives at 1231 Wills Place.
1.438
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
July 9, 1996
Page Two
MOVED by Sell, seconded by Pentel and motion carried unanimously to approve waiver of
Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for 1.22 feet off the required 35 feet to a
distance of 33.78 feet for the existing house facing Wills Place; waiver of Section 11.21,
Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback for 9.48 feet off the required 25.03 feet to a distance of
15.55 feet for the existing house, and 9.4 feet off the required 25.03 feet to a distance of
15.63 feet for the proposed deck.
I
4625 Roanoke Road (96-7-21)
Jerry Rubino
Request:
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 1) 3.2 feet
off the required 35 feet to a distance of 31.8 feet for the existing house
on the northwest side; 2) 1.2 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance
of 33.8 feet for the proposed garage addition, and 3) 7 feet off the
required 35 feet to a distance of 28 feet for the proposed covered
entrance.
Purpose:
To make the house legally nonconforming and to permit the
construction of a nonconforming covered entrance and garage addition.
I
Staff Liaison Grimes reported that the applicant is proposing to add a 9.3 foot addition onto
the front of the existing garage and an eight foot covered entrance just to the north of the
new garage addition. The existing entrance will be covered by the garage addition.
The garage addition will allow for a two-car garage and a separate nine foot mechanical!
laundry area where the front of the existing garage is now located. The addition will give
the applicants the needed room to park cars in a garage.
Pat Golliker, Golliker Construction, represented the owners and stated that there has been
a water problem resulting in flooding and freezing water in the garage. The floor of the
garage was originally built with in-floor heat which is part of the problem. The proposed
construction would include removing the existing floor and in-floor heat and pouring a new
floor to eliminate the water problem.
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Shaffer, and motion carried unanimously to approve
waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for 1) 3.2 feet off the required 35
feet to a distance of 31.8 feet for the existing house on the northwest side; 2) 1.2 feet off
the required 35 feet to a distance of 33.8 feet for the proposed garage addition, and 3) 7
feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 28 feet for the proposed covered entrance.
I
I
I
I
:1439
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
July 9, 1996
Page Three
7700 Laurel Avenue (96..7..22)
Bill and Sandra Ritter
Request:
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback -- 9.64 feet off
the required 30.82 feet to a distance of 21.18 feet for the existing
house on the west side; and
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2) Side Yard Setback -- 1.43 feet
off the required 14.84 feet to a distance of 13.41 feet for the existing
house on the north side, and 1.43 feet off the required 14.84 feet to a
distance of 13.41 feet for the proposed deck.
Purpose:
To make the house legally nonconforming and to allow for the
construction of a legally nonconforming deck.
Staff Liaison Grimes commented that a front yard variance was granted in September of
1982 for an addition onto the house. It is unclear why the Zoning Administrator, at that time,
did not address the side yard setback and what was considered the rear yard. Therefore.
staff is addressing these two items at this time in order to make the house legally
nonconforming and to allow for the construction of the proposed deck.
The homeowner was unaware that any variances were required for the construction of the
deck and ordered the materials. The contractor, Mark Curtis of Curtis Construction, asked
staff if anything could be done to initiate the start of this project before the meeting. Staff
Liaison Grimes and Inspector Gary Johnson reviewed the survey and determined. with the
approval of the contractor. that if the Board turned down the request for the deck to enter
the side yard setback, the deck would be cut back one foot to meet the setback. A "Hold
Harmless" letter was obtained with this language.
Member Shaffer questioned whether a variance was needed for the steps which project into
the setback. The Board recommended an additional 40-inch side yard setback variance.
(Note: Per staff review after the meeting, Inspections does not consider steps part of the
structure unless the platform is more than 5 sq.ft. in area.)
MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Pentel, and motion carried unanimously to approve
waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback for 9.64 feet off the required 30.82
feet to a distance of 21.18 feet for the existing house on the west side; waiver of Section
11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2) Side Yard Setback for 1.43 feet off the required 14.84 feet to a
distance of 13.41 feet for the existing house on the north side, and 1.43 feet off the required
14.84 feet to a distance of 13.41 feet for the proposed deck. Also approved was a 40-inch
variance for the deck stairs.
1.440
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
July 9, 1996
Page Four
516 Parkview Terrace (96-7-23)
Ralph Jacobson
I
Request:
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 1.28 feet off
the'required 35 feet to a distance of 33.72 feet for the existing house
facing Parkview Terrace; and
Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 5 feet off the
required 35 feet to a distance of 30 feet for the extended overhang with
the support pole or waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 9 Cornices and
Eaves -- Waiver of variance for 3 feet due to the eaves extending past
the allowed 30 inches into the setback area.
Purpose:
To make the existing house legally nonconforming and to allow for the
construction of an eave over the front step. The applicant is also
constructing a conforming addition onto the rear of the house.
Staff Liaison Grimes reported that the proposed living area addition to the rear of the house
is completely conforming. The proposed extended eave over the front steps will help to I
alleviate snow and ice on the front steps during the winter months and rain during the rest
of the year. At the time the architect submitted the plans, he was unsure whether the front
overhang would have a support pole or not, thus two alternatives are presented because
two separate ordinances affect this front overhang. Although it is unusual to request two
waivers for the same project, the applicant will use only one waiver, the other waiver will
automatically expire in 12 months.
Ralph Jacobson explained that the front steps freeze over in the winter and make the entry
treacherous. Since he is adding an area in the rear of the house, he feels that this is an
opportune time to take care of this problem.
MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to approve waiver of
Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for 1.28 feet off the required 35 feet to a
distance of 33.72 feet for the existing house facing Parkview Terrace. Both of the following
waivers were granted, only one waiver will be carried out concerning the proposed
extended eave to the front of the house. Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard
Setback for 5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 30 feet for the extended overhang
with the support pole and waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 9 Cornices and Eaves for waiver
of variance for 3 feet due to the eaves extending past the allowed 30 inches into the
setback area.
I
I
I
I
1441
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
July 9, 1996
Page Five
III. Other Business
A. Amendment of Minutes from the Special Meeting of February 20, 1996
The Board and Staff Liaison Grimes reviewed the amended minutes and accepted the
minor changes and the language change regarding the sidewalk easement and
handicapped parking. The following are the amended minutes:
I. The Petition:
8100 Wayzata Blvd. (96-2-6)
Minnesota PrQfessional Fire Fighters
Request:
Waiver of Section 11.45, Subd. 5(A)(1) Front Yard Setback--
a) 6 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 29 feet for the building
at its closest point to Wayzata Blvd.; and
b) .5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.5 feet for the
building at its closest point to Field Drive; and
c) 18 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 17 feet for the
parking lot along Field Drive; and
d) 35 feet off the required 35 feet for the 12 parking spaces in front of
the building ofWayzata Blvd.; and
Waiver of Section 11.45, Subd. 5 (B)(1) Rear Yard Setback -- 17 feet
off the required 25 feet to a distance of 8 feet for the landscaped area
to the north.
Purpose:
To make the building and parking areas legally non-conforming so a
conforming addition can be constructed on the northeast side.
The following people were in attendance: Craig Moleski of Moleski Builders, contractor and
tenant; and Link Wilson and John Van Heel of Miller Hanson Westerbeck Berger, Inc.,
architects.
This petition was carried over from the last regular meeting of February 13, 1996 to discuss
two items: 1) who owns the front strip of land, indicated on a survey to be MnDOT right-of-
way, and 2) traffic flow along the frontage road and the nature of the City's responsibility for
the strip in front of the building.
1442
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
July 9, 1996
Page Six
I
It was determined that MnDOT is the permanent owner of the strip of land in front of 8100
Wayzata Boulevard. Parallel parking is now permitted along the north side of the street.
A revised plan was handed out showing ways to accommodate parking in front of the
building via indented parallel parking. The drawings also showed a sidewalk. The Board
asked who would build the sidewalk. Director of Public Works, Fred Salsbury stated that in
most cases the developer would build the sidewalk although it would belong to the City and
be maintained by the City.
Mr. Salsbury continued that the issues the City faces include drainage, plowing, street
sweeping, and general maintenance. He said that parking indentations such as the one
proposed mayor may not be a problem for the City. The question was asked if safety
factors would be improved by changing the parking configuration. Mr. Salsbury stated that
he would prefer to widen the street rather than contend with indented parking.
The Board discussed the parking issue at length and looked at a number of options. It was
agreed that drive-in angle parking is not an option.
The architects listed several reasons in favor of off-street parking in front of the building I
including:
. without it pedestrians walk in the street
. street parking makes the driving lane more narrow to get in and out of cars
. reception entrance to the building is in front
. the City could rescind on street parking at will
. off street parking has been there since before the present owners purchased the
property
. the issue was researched in 1992 and the parking was okay at that time
. the owners feel that this renovation is a positive one and that the City would be
punishing them by removing off street parking in front of the building
. the owners could walk away from the improvements and keep parking as it is.
Member Pentel pointed out that the person who did the research should have known that
the building was non-conforming at that time and this is an opportunity to remove the
dangerous drive-in angle parking and increase the safety of visitors to the building.
The Board suggested parking on the green area in front of the building with one way traffic
entering on Hanley Road and exiting on Wayzata Boulevard. The owners' representatives
stated emphatically that this is not an acceptable option to them. The Board continued to
review alternatives.
I
I
I
I
14:43
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
July 9, 1996
Page Seven
Widening the street would have to be done for the full width of the property facing Wayzata
Boulevard. This would have to be done by the City at tax payer expense. The cost of
constructing an indented space for parking would be at applicant expense and would not be
for the full width of the property. Curb parking without indented parking space would be
unsafe, considering the present narrow width of the street and the speed of cars driving by.
MOVED Polachek, seconded by Pentel and motion carried unanimously to approve the
front indented parking as indicated in plan #2 resulting in 5 regular parking spaces and one
handicapped space with the stipulation that the owner will provide an easement to the City
for the sidewalk. Either the owner or MnDOT, as allowed for by law, shall designate a
handicapped space. Chair Swedberg and Link Wilson signed two copies of plan #2, one of
which is attached. The other was given to Mr. Wilson for the owner's records.
MOVED Shaffer, seconded by Pentel and motion carried unanimously to approve waivers
of Section 11.45, Subd. 5(A)(1 )(a, b, and d) as proposed.
MOVED Polachek, seconded by Pentel and motion carried unanimously to deny the
request for waiver of Section 11.45, Subd. 5(A)(1 )(c), which will require the owner to
remove two parking spaces from the rear parking lot and replace them with landscaping
MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Pentel and motion carried unanimously to approve waiver
of Section 11.45, Subd. 5(B)( 1) Rear Yard Setback for 17 feet off the required 25 feet to a
distance of 8 feet for the required landscape area located to the north of the building.
V. Adjournment
Chair Polachek adjourned the meeting at 7:30 PM.
~RQQ4 ~C7C-
Herb Polachek, Chair --- Mark Grimes, Staff Liaison