Loading...
02-25-97 BZA Minutes 1,188 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals February 25,1997 I The regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held Tuesday, February 25, 1997, in the Golden Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN. Chair Polachek called the meeting to order at 7pm. Those present were: Chair Herb Polachek; Members Mike Sell, Robert Shaffer, and Mahlon Swedberg, and Planning Commission Representative Paula Pentel. Also present were Staff Liaison Mark Grimes and Recording Secretary Eve Lomaistro. I. Approval of Minutes - January 28, 1997 MOVED by Pentel, seconded by Sell, and motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of January 28, 1997, as submitted. II. The Petitions are -- 1800 Major Drive (97-2-4) Robert and Kris Meller, Jr. Request: Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- .32 feet off I the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.68 feet for the existing house on the north corner; and Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback -- .22 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.78 feet for the existing house on the north corner; and Waiver of Section 11.65, Subd. 5(A) Standards -- 22.5 feet off the required 75 feet to a distance of 52.5 feet for the existing house at its closest point to the ordinary high water level of Sweeney Lake; and Waiver of Section 11.65, Subd. 5(A) Standards -- 34 feet off the required 75 feet to a distance of 41 feet for the proposed additions at its closest point to the ordinary high water level. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck and several additions facing Sweeney Lake. Staff Liaison Mark Grimes stated that the first three variance requests deal directly with the existing structure. The last variance request is for an addition, deck, and two bay I window extensions to the rear of the house, which faces Sweeney Lake. Staff is treating the addition, deck, and window-bays as one variance request. I I I Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals February 25, 1997 Page 2 :1t189 Grimes explained that Section 11.65, Subd.. 8 (Notification Procedures) states that in cases where a variance has been requested ina shoreland area, a hearing notice shall be sent to the Commissioner of Natural Resources. Tom Hovey, Area Hydrologist from the DNR, has contacted the City in response to the request. It is the DNR's opinion that the variance request should be denied. This recommended denial is based on the fact that no hardship is shown, reduced setback would impact the area adjacent to the lake, and it would possibly be a visual obstruction for neighboring property owners. Mr. Hovey stated that the DNR would only recommend approval of this last variance if the proposed construction met the average setback of the two properties, on either side of the subject property. The City staff determined that the property to the north to be approximately 25 feet from the ordinary high water level (OHWL). Because there is no house on the property to the south, staff determined that if a house is built in the future, it will need to meet the 75 foot setback requirement; therefore staff used 75 feet. The average was determined to be 50 feet. The applicants' proposed setback for the addition exceeds this distance by 9 feet. The BZA does not have to abide by the DNR's request to deny the variances. Mr. Hovey suggested that the BZA place two conditions on the approval if the BZA grants the variances as requested. First, one-half of the remaining back yard, after the addition is constructed, be left natural (left unmowed), and second, additional vegetation be added. Staff is unclear as to the minimum amount of required vegetation. The applicant could work with the City's forester, in conjunction with the DNR, regarding this requirement. Robert and Kris Meller, Jr. were in attendance. Robert Meller handed out a drawing from his developer and showed a large graphic of the area. The Mellers purchased the house seven years ago and didn't realize the challenging nature and inherent problems of the lot. The survey shows it is an odd lot - having only a small amount of footage along the lake. Unlike the neighbors' homes, the Meller house faces the peninsula with a limited view of the lake. In addition, the next door neighbor's house is enormous, big enough for a gym in the basement, and was built after the Meller house. The Mellers have no view of the lake itself. Other homes are not obstructed in their view of the lake. Eventually there will be homes on the peninsula which will limit the Meller's view of the natural areas. This is compounded by the design of the Meller home, like a "double wide trailer or an aircraft carrier" flat against the lake, with no nooks or crannies, which makes the house less attractive than if it had bay windows, etc. Another problem is that the views are all one dimensional. By adding a three foot bay window in the bedroom, more interesting views will be created. The three season porch'will raise the pitch of the roof and the additional bays will allow a broader view of the lake. The Mellers have looked at other properties in West Edina, built in the 1960's, and a similar plan has been used, making homes more attractive inside and out. The Meller's neighbors are supportive of the proposal. The owner of the woods to the south has no intent to develop the woods and gave the Mellers first right of refusal if that decision changes. The Mellers like the area because the lake is 1.49C) Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals February 25, 1997 Page 3 less developed than others such as Lake Minnetonka. Robert Meller emphasized that this I is a good plan for Golden Valley because of the improvements that will bring the house into the 90's. The Mellers are willing to work with the DNR and the City Forester. Robert Meller concluded his remarks by requesting that the variances be granted. Mike Sell asked what the addition will add to the footprint in square feet to which Mr. Meller answered about 200 square feet. Mahlon Swedberg asked about the three season porch being 14 ft deep. Mr. Meller answered that there is a large elm in front of the porch. Swedberg asked if the porch would be on pillars. Mr. Meller said it will be on pillars. Paula Pentel referred to a prior request for variances from one of the neighbors that the BZA did not grant in its entirety. She continued that the DNR averaging would be 50 feet. Since there are no homes on the peninsula yet there is no hardship now and a decision should be based on what is happening now. She added that houses wouldn't be built that way today. She complimented the style of the plan saying it is beautiful but asked if there is any way to shift it. Herb Polachek stated that a few years ago the Board approved a similar request. He added that the only increase of the footprint is in the setback. He concluded that he tends I.. to be in favor of the request. Sell stated that the plan may be adjusted but if four feet is pulled off it still doesn't get to the 50 feet and the addition would be quite small. If the building went down to the ground it would be different but since it will be on pillars, he is in favor. He also stated that the area can warrant the request as it doesn't intrude on anything else. Swedberg asked Grimes what the rear yard setback would be if it were not on the water and Mark answered about 30 feet. Swedberg continued that the 43.5 feet proposed is within the limits of the rear yard. Grimes stated that to get to the 50 feet one would need to cut through the middle of the proposed porch. He added that the DNR concern is the view of the lake and aesthetics. This plan will not cut off the neighbor's view on the north. Pentel asked if the lake will be in view from the bays and Meller answered that due to the angle of the windows the view may improve. Robert Shaffer stated concern to set a precedent for other houses and that other requests for variances may follow. Polachek stated that each variance request must be addressed individually. I I I I . '1- '~ ;t 14'1 J Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals February 25, 1997 Page 4 Shaffer stated that this could set a precedent that others can go to 41 feet of the OHWL. His main concern is that one could appeal past the BZA with some rationale behind it. He added that it is not a hardship to be without a three season porch. The dinette. and deck could be expanded. The porch is really punching out and creating the problem. Swedberg asked Grimes if the OHWL is the standard or the 100 year mark. Mark defined it as "ordinary", keeping in mind that lakes go up and down. The OHWL is the standard that the state uses. 'The 100 year high water mark refers to the flood plain. In today's standards this subdivision would not be approved. Lots now must have a minimum of 150 feet of depth on the lake. These lots are only about 120 feet deep. Swedberg stated that the house is a little over 50 feet from the water. The house won't move. All requested changes are either cantilevered or on posts and even though they may intrude on the OHWL, he does not see it as a problem. Grimes stated that they are still structures even if cantilevered or on-pillars. He added that the DNR looks at aesthetics and views. Swedberg stated that he had taken that into consideration. Swedberg stated that this is a choice piece of property with or without houses on the peninsula, with or without the best view. The proposed changes won't affect the neighborhood from the street as all the changes are on the lake side. He also stated that the posts and cantilever have minimal affect on the flood plain. He sees the request as okay but suggested the Board request a hold harmless agreement to cover future flooding. Grimes stated that the house elevation is 838.6 while the OHWL is 827.7. Flooding will not occur at the 838.6 level. Pentel asked Meller if he is planning any change on the front of the house to which he answered no, that the front is quite attractive as it is. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Swedberg, to grant the waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- .32 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.68 feet for the existing house on the north corner; the waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Sid,e Yard Setback -- .22 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.78 feet for the existing house on the north corner; the waiver of Section 11.65, Subd, 5(A) Standards -- 22.5 feet off the required 75 feet to a distance of 52.5 feet for the existing house at its closest point to the high water mark; and the waiver of Section 11.65, Subd. 5(A) Standards -- 34 feet off the required 75 feet to a distance of 41 feet for the proposed additions at its closest point to the high water mark to allow for the construction of a deck and several additions facing Sweeney Lake, Polachek stated that the DNR comments had not been backed up and, therefore, the DNR comments do not bother him. Grimes stated that he doesn't see any action the DNR could take short of going to court. Sell added that the DNR didn't visit the site or request aerial photos and offhandedly suggested the addition of shrubs with no further details. t, J 4Q2. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals February 25, 1997 Page 5 Swedberg further observed that the three season porch is 14 feet deep and if it is cut back I. it will not be auseable porch. Sell added that it is not 14 feet at all places. Pentel stated that she stands opposed. Grimes stated that if homes are built on the peninsula they will meet city code because variances are not granted on new construction. The question was called. The vote was four in favor of granting the requests and one opposed. Pentel was the lone dissenter. The motion carried. 6210 Wayzata boulevard (97-2-5) Hennes Gebo Fine Art Request: Waiver of Section 11.36, Subd. 6(A) Yard Requirements -- 9 feet off the required 35 feet to adistance of 26 feet for the building facing Colorado Avenue South; and Waiver of Section 11.36, Subd. 6(A) Yard Requirements -- 35 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 0 feet for the lack of green space facing Colorado Avenue south; and Waiver of Section 11.36, Subd. 6(A) Yard Requirements -- 8 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 27 feet for the building facing Wayzata Boulevard; and I Waiver of Section 11.36, Subd. 6 (A) Yard Requirements -- 24 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 11 feet ofthe parking areafaCing Wayzata Boulevard; and Waiver of Section 11.36, Subd. 6 (C)(4) Yard Requirements -- 9 feet off the required 10 feet (for landscaped area) to a distance of 1 foot for the parking lot to the north of the building; and Waiver of Section 11.70, Subd. 7(C) Off-StreefParking and Loading Regulations -- Design Standards -- Elimination of curb and gutter on the east, north, and west side of Parcels 1 and 2. Purpose: To allow for the extension of the existing building moved closer to Wayzata boulevard. Staff Liaison Grimes provided the following information. Greg Hennes is the new buyer of I the property which will be used for Gebo Fine Art. The business leases art Works, and does art restoration and custom framing. This business uses three quarters of the building and the balance is used by a computer business. I I I 1.493 Minutes ofthe Board of Zoning Appeals February 25, 1997 Page 6 The new owner likes the building and wants to add on by coming forward of the glass front. The basement is wet and the owner wants to improve the basement and increase the size upstairs. The building is already non-conforming along both Wayzata Boulevard and Colorado Avenue. Several years ago, there was a taking for the 394 frontage road. The proposed small parking area along Wayzata Boulevard will make the building more accessible. The owner does not want to have a larger parking lot in this area because several trees would have to be moved. Additional parking could be developed in the rear. Grimes continued that the property is on two lots and the building is right on the property line. The City wants it consolidated to one lot and the owner agreed. That paperwork is now in process and will take about a year to complete. The big issue is the front parking lot and the BZA will need to determine if it is a justifiable variance. Greg Hennes stated that the plan does not change the footprint of the building but just moves the glass wall to the south. This will make the front handicapped accessible. Further, he intends to clean up the basement, pave the parking lot, and add landscaping in the front to keep the property attractive. He added that the property met the City code until the taking for 394. Mr. Hennes stated that he will not do the front parking area for only six spaces and without the front lot there will be no handicapped accessibility. Pentel asked Grimes about the parking requirement for this building. Hennes answered that 71 spaces are requested but they have only 38 employees and 53 spaces. He will add parking if it becomes necessary. Pentel asked if this is the time to require curb and gutter since the area is being redeveloped. Hennes said that he wants to wait until the construction on Colorado Avenue is finished rather than doing it twice. Grimes added that Colorado Avenue is scheduled to be done this summer and that it would be wise to wait until it is completed to do curb and gutter. Pentel stated that since the neighborhood is being changed maybe it should be required to upgrade after Colorado Avenue is done. Pentel stated that the plan is a good idea and she likes the footprint. However, she does not like the minimal setback along Colorado. She asked if they could landscape the unused portion of the City's right-of-way. Grimes said that the City engineer could review it. Hennes stated that he has a landscape plan which he will submit. He will not do anything along Colorado Avenue until the construction is completed. Sell observed that the survey submitted is not signed. Hennes stated that the original one on file is signed. Grimes added that the City must see the signature, on the survey, before it will issue a building permit. MOVED by Sell and seconded by Shaffer to approve the variances as requested subject to having a dated and signed survey in file. 14194 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals February 25, 1997 Page 7 Swedberg stated that he could not justify a variance because of a tree. He added that I trees are temporary and a variance is permanent. Hennes stated that he won't cut down a 100 year old tree just to put more grass in front of the building. And he won't do a parking lot in front for three spaces. Grimes suggested he call the City Forester, AI Lunstrom, for advice on how to prevent damage to the root system if there will be digging. Hennes stated that there will not be any digging. Sell added that the parking lot has to be where it is planned in order to be accessible. The question was called. The vote was four in favor and one, Swedberg, opposed. The variances were granted as submitted. Swedberg explained that he has no objection to the variances on Colorado Avenue or Wayzata but sees no reason whatsoever to grant a variance because of a tree. Trees and scrub are not enough of a reason to grant a variance. III. Other Business There was no other business. IV. Adjournment Chair Polachek adjourned the meeting at 8: 10 PM. I 4~ Mark Grimes, Staff Liaison Herb Polachek, Chair I