Loading...
04-22-97 BZA Minutes 1501 Minutesofa Regular Meeting of the Golden \lalley Board of Zoning Appeals - April 22, 1997 The regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held Tuesday, April 22, 1997, in the Golden Valley City Hall Council Chamber~,.7800Golden Valley Rd., Golden Valley, MN. Chair Herb 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 Rich Groger. Also present were Staff Liaison Mark Grimes and Recording Secretary Eve Lomaistro. I. Approval of Minutes - March 25, 1996. MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Sell, and motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the March 25, 1996 as submitted. II. Election of Chairperson . Polachek called for nominations for chairperson. (A new chairperson is elected from the members by the April meeting each year after the members are appointed by the City Council.) Swedberg nominated Robe.rt Shaffer. No other nominations were made. ~,-=-,~ MOVED by Sell, seconded by Swedberg, and motion carried unanimously to accept the nomination of Member Shaffer as Chairperson of the BZA f-or a one-year term. Newly elected Chairperson Shaffer took over the meeting at this point. III. The Petitions: 1114 Wisconsin Avenue South (Map 23) (97-4-8) William and Mollv NaQle Request: Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 2 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 33 feet for the proposed entryl living addition onto the front of the house; and Waiver .of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2) Side Yard Setback -- 9.05 feet off the required 12.75 feet to a distance of 3.70 feet for the proposed living addition on the west side of the house. To allow for the construction of a non-conforming addition onto the northwest corner of the house. . Molly Nagle was in attendance. Purpose: Staff Liaison Mark Grimes reviewed the staff memo indicating that the applicants appeared before the Board in September of 1996 with the same request. In 1996, when staff visited 1502 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals April 22, 19ft! Page 2 the site, there was some question of where the west property line was actually located. The Board deferred this item for three months. The applicants were unable to verify the .. property line during the winter. Molly Nagle has now resubmitted an application after finding a second property iron by using a metal detector. Staff visited the site and found that the Nagle's have strung a line from the front property line to the rear property line. The applicants are proposing to construct an addition onto the front (north) of the house which will wrap around to the west side. The purpose of the addition is for a 9' x 10' enclosed entrance on Wisconsin, along with additional living space to the front and side. This space will extend the two existing bedrooms and bathroom. The basement would also be extended to include another bathroom and other space. Grimes noted that the Nagles are requesting a side yard variance which would allow them to build 3.7 feet from the west side property line. The City's Inspection Department has requested that no building be located within 5 feet of a property line. Grimes continued that the front variance is less problematic than the side variance which is substantially into the setback, going to 3.7 feetfrom the property line. He stated that just today the neighbor to the west had contacted the Planning Department and stated that he might put a garage on that side of their house. Their house is small, and over 30 feet from the property line. However, a garage would bring it to 10 feet from the property line. Molly Nagle stated that her neighbor had never mentioned adding a garage. She asked who called. Grimes stated that the neighbor said that he might build a garage but isn't certain at this time when it would be done. Groger asked if the neighbor's house has a garage and Nagle answered yes, a tuck-under garage in the back. Ms. Nagle stated that if they can't get a 10 foot variance they will go with 8 feet which will leave a side setback of 5 feet from the property line. Swedberg asked how the Nagles came up with the amount of the variance request and Nagle answered that her father-in-law is a former builder and he did some rough sketches. They want a simple wrap-around addition. Swedberg asked about the Nagle's being limited to the 5 foot setback requested by the Inspections Department. Ms. Nagle said that the smaller width addition of 8 feet is workable and this proposal would leave a five foot sideyard setback. . --'" Groger asked about the front and Sell answered that the front is only a 2 foot variance. Shaffer asked if the Nagle's have any plans drawn and Nagle answered only rough ones . done by her father-in-law. , t I. ~. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals April 22, 199t Page 3 1.503 Groger asked Ms. Nagle if she could live an addition extending only 8 feet in the front, Ms. Nagle answered yes. Sell stated that with an 8 foot extension, no variance is needed for the front yard. Swedberg asked if the front is separate and Nagle stated that it is a wrap-around from the front door. He asked why they decided on a 10 foot entry and if they can live with an 8 foot entry. Nagle answered yes, they can live with the 8 feet. Swedberg emphasized that once the numbers are established the owner is locked in. Nagle stated that she understands that and the 8 feet is acceptable to them. They want the simplest possible plan. Swedberg stated that no front variance is required if the addition extends only 8 feet into the front yard. Sell stated that there would be a 5.7 foot distance to the property line instead of the 3.7 feet requested if the addition extends only 8 feet into the side yard. MOVED by Polachek, seconded by Swedberg, and motion carried unanimously to approve a waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2) Side Yard Setback for 7.05 feet off the required 12.75 feet to a distance of 5.7 feet for the proposed living addition on the west side of the house. No waiver is required for the front yard. 6720 Winsdale Street (Map 15) (97-4-9) David A. and Marikav Nelson Request: Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2) Side Yard Setback - .65 feet off the required 15 fe~t to a distance of 14.35 feet for the existing house at the southeast corner; and .50 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.50 feet for the proposed addition, at its closest point, on the east side; and Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 12. Accessory Buildings - 3.07 feet off the required 10 feet to a distance of 6.93 feet for the existing garage, at its closest point to the proposed addition. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition onto the rear of the home and to allow for the accessory building to be closer than 10 feet to the main structure. David and Marikay Nelson were in attendance. Mark Grimes said that City.Code requires accessory buildings to be at least 10 feet from the house and behind the house. The proposed addition would be closer than 10 feet from the garage. Special fire protection would be needed such as a one hour fire wall. The Nelsons are proposing a one-story addition with a full basement. Staff reviewed the plans to determine if a portion of the dining room could be reduced in order to come closer to the 10 foot requirement between the garage and proposed addition. It would be difficult to eliminate this portion of the addition because of the bathroom and bedroom in the basement. 1504 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals April 22, 199$~ Page 4 Grimes suggested that if the Board approves the requested variances, the applicants talk , with the Inspections Department regarding fire walls and doors prior to beginning construction. David Nelson stated that the construction will be stucco which will provide some fire protection. Shaffer asked about attaching the garage but Grimes answered that the garage has no frost footings and cannot be connected. Swedberg asked the owners if they are okay with stucco and David Nelson answered yes. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Swedberg, and motion carried unanimously to approve the waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2) Side Yard Setback for .65 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.35 feet for the existing house at the southeast corner; and .50 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.50 feet for the proposed addition, at its closest point, on the east side; and the waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 12. Accessory Buildings for 3.07 feet off the required 10 feet to a distance of 6.93 feet for the existing garage, at its closest point to the proposed addition. The waivers will allow for the construction of a living addition onto the rear of the existing house. The Board conditioned the waiver on the stipulation that a fire wall of stucco or sheet rock be provided as required by the , Building Code. Lot 1, Block 15, Lakeview Heights (Map 20) (97-4-10) Dave Reael Construction, Inc. Request: Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback - 18.9 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 16.1 feet for the proposed construction of a house. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a non-conforming house on Lot 1, Block 15, Lakeview Heights, Golden Valley. Dave Regel of Dave Regel Construction, Inc.; Nancy Brady of Homeward Bound; and neighbor Lloyd Zoubek were in attendance. Mark Grimes explained that Dave Regel Construction is proposing to construct a handicapped-accessible house for Homeward Bound, Inc. on this lot. Because this is a handicapped-accessible home, it is larger than a normal size house due to wider hallways and doorways and larger than usual rooms. There was a miscommunication between Mr. Regel and the City regarding required ~ setbacks for this site. Mr. Regel purchased the property believing that the setback from the property line was 5 feet. When his surveyor called the City to verify setbacks, he was informed that the proposed house would not fit within the setback window. The surveyor informed Mr. Regel about the setback requirements. Mr. Regel called the Planning , t It Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals April 22, 199~'l Page 5 1.505 Department to verify setback requirements and told staff that he was originally told that the setback requirements were smaller. Mr. Regel met with Grimes who suggested that he file an application for a variance from City Code. Mr. Regel redesigned the house and is now requesting one variance. Grimes stated that the previous owner of the property was informed that the shed at the back of the lot was nonconforming and would need to be removed from the lot. The previous owner agreed to this. Staff questioned Mr. Regel about the shed and Regel said that it would be removed when construction began. Staff suggested that the Board place a condition 9f approval for this variance that the shed be removed before an occupancy permit is issued. Grimes continued that a variance was issued to the property to the south in 1996. There is a house on that lot with a deck that is over the lot line. (These two properties were owned by the same person at that time.) When the variance was issued it was stated that the deck and a storage building on the subject lot must be removed. This has not yet been done. The lot is a smaller size, about 65 or 66 feet in front. This is an older neighborhood built when lots and homes were smaller. Since this lot is on a corner, there is a substantial setback of 35 feet required on both Naper and Independence. It is difficult to construct a home on this lot, especially one that is handicapped-accessible. The property is unusual due to the curve of Naper which put the street surface of Naper Street about 23-28 feet from the property line. The road curves to the north and goes up to the Sheriff's property. Staff contacted the Engineering Department which said they do not anticipate any change in the location of Naper Street. The variance requested is for the setback from Naper. The requirements on the south and on Independence will be met. Swedberg asked if the 5 foot patio on the front is taken into consideration and Grimes answered that it is not considered a structure so it can go into the setback. Swedberg asked who the owner will be. Mr. Regel answered that Homeward Bound will be the owner. Swedberg asked if Dave Regel has any connection to Homeward Bound and Mr. Regel answered no. Swedberg asked if Regel Construction specializes in accessible homes and Mr. Regel answered yes. Shaffer asked Regel to describe the two sets of plans that were submitted. Regel stated that the first set included 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. The second set reduced the size of the home - one bathroom was eliminated but the remaining bathroom was enlarged. The kitchen is large enough for wheelchairs to be around a table. The halls are 5 feet wide to accommodate two wheelchairs in the case of an emergency. Grimes asked if the neighbor had agreed to remove the outbuilding. Regel answered that the owner had asked to borrow a dumpster but Regel offered to demolish the outbuilding during the construction process. 1506 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals April 22, 199ti1 Page 6 Shaffer inquired about the deck that overhangs on the south property line. Regel stated ,.. that he is aware of it, that a foot and a half must be removed and that it isn't a problem to do so. Swedberg stated that the variance request does not bother him. He continued that although the amount of variance seems large, it is consistent with other corner properties in this neighborhood. MOVED by Swedberg, :seconded by Polachek and motion carried to approve the waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for 18.9 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 16.1 feet for the proposed construction of a house on Lot 1, Block 15, Lakevi,ew Heights, Golden Valley, with the condition of removing the shed. Sell asked if the BZA loses power regarding the deck if it is not part of the motion. Regel stated that it is the responsibility of the owner to eliminate the foot and a half that overhangs the lot line. Regel added that he will work with the owner in resizing the deck and landscaping the area. Swedberg stated that it is up to the City to enforce it. Sell asked if a condition should be added to the motion. Regel stated that it is a small issue, just a couple of boards easily removed. Neighbor Zoubek asked if the house is large for the size of the lot. Regel answered no. , Zoubek asked if there will be a garage in the back and Regel answered no, the garage will be in the front. Grimes stated that this is a 2,000 sq. ft. home on a 9,100 sq. ft. lot and the home will be on a slab with no basement. Swedberg added that if a variance is not granted this would not be a buildable lot because it is long and narrow. In this case, the Board tries to cut the best possible deal to get an attractive house that uses the space well. Shaffer added that the plan works well with this corner. Grimes asked Regel to comment on the maintenance. Regel stated that the exterior is maintenance free, the yard will be taken care of on a regular basis, and the snow will be plowed by a commercial company. Regel added that there will be an in-house sprinkler system. Zoubek asked if there will be parking on the street and Regel answered only if there are visitors. A van will be parked in the garage. Mr. Regel asked about the next step. Grimes stated that a building permit is the next step. Grimes suggested that Regel make an appointment to review his plans at that time. 925 Boone Avenue (Map 21) (97-4-11) Ken and Marilvn Koch (The Prize Company) Request: Waiver from Section 11.36 Subd. 7(A and B) Loading and Parking Requirements - 4 spaces off the required 43 spaces for a total of 39 spaces; and ~ , , ~ Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals April 22, 199~1 Page 7 1.507 Waiver from Section 11.36, Subd. 6(C)(4) Yard Requirements - 1.6 feet off the required 10 feet to a distance of 8.6 feet for the lack of landscaping on the west side and south side of the property. Purpose: To allow for a reduction in the required number of parking spaces on the site and for a reduction of landscaping on the west and south sides of the property. Ken Koch of The Prize Company; David Constable, architect for R. L. Johnson; and Tom Osterberg of Benson Orth General Contractors working with R. L. Johnson; were in attendance. Grimes explained that Ken and Marilyn Koch, owners of The Prize Company and the applicants, are not the owners of the property. R. L. Johnson owns the property and requested that the applicants submit an application for any required variances. The building was constructed by R. L. Johnson Company. City staff had many conversations regarding the site and the size of the building being proposed. R. L. Johnson constructed the building to have 1,326 sq. ft. of office space and 18,100 sq. ft. of warehouse space. Grimes noted that more than one company has approached the City inquiring about variances for additional office space, which would require a variance for parking. R. L. Johnson Company told staff that they would only market the site for the amount of office/warehouse space constructed. Ken and Marilyn Koch of The Prize Company would like to buy the building and move their business to this building, but would like to increase the office space to 2,000 sq. ft. They told staff that although they are increasing office space, they do not anticipate ever using all the parking stalls required. The increase in office and simultaneous decrease in warehouse would require the Koch's to request a variance of three additional parking spaces. Because of the increase in office space, another handicapped parking stall was added. The original plan only showed one handicapped stall with dimensions of a regular parking stall. The new plan reveals two stalls with adequate space. These two required handicapped stalls decreased required parking by one space. Staff requested a survey be done to determine exact distances from building to curb and lot line. There was not a survey on file because this building has never been occupied. The Inspections Department requires that a survey be done before occupancy. The survey revealed that setbacks were less than first reported by the applicant. It was thought that the parking stalls would meet code on the west side of the building but not on the south side. Parking stalls are 1.7 feet short on the southwest corner. Grimes talked with Robb Johnson, of the R. L. Johnson Company, about the situation. Staff believes that the shorter parking width and the 20 foot fire lane may end up being a maneuvering problem for trucks when cars are parked on this side of the building. Staff requested Mr. Johnson to remove the curb and gutter on the west and south side of the building to a point that would make parking stalls 9' x 20', as required by code. Mr. Johnson agreed to this and a 1508 By allowing R. l. Johnson to redo the curb and gutter, making the parking stalls the required size, a variance will be needed for landscaping of 1-1/2 feet. Grimes stated that because of the safety concern with the driveway, a landscape variance would be more appropriate. Grimes continued that the building is as large as possible for the lot size. To meet the parking requirements, only a specific amount of office space is allowed. The Prize Company wants to purchase the building and increase the office space from 1,326 sq. ft. to 2,000 sq. ft. That changes the parking requirements to 43 spaces. The Prize Company states that it will not need that many spaces. They estimate they will need about 20 spaces on a regular basis. Future owners mayor may not need more parking. Grimes added that there was an error in the survey along the west line. The curb line was placed one foot too far to the east so it is now 11 feet rather than 10 feet and that reduces the width of the driveway. The City wants a 20 foot fire lane plus 9 feet for a parking lane. The best way to accomplish this is to remove the curb and gutter. Grimes stated that he spoke to the contractor today and the contractor is concerned about removing the curb and gutter on the south side due to a storm sewer which might also need to be moved. This , would be quite expensive. Grimes continued that staff may be able to live with 8 foot parking stalls on the south side. The BZA usually does not allow variances on new construction. However, a good company wants to move in and the building meets their needs. Polachek asked if parking is allowed on 10th Street and Grimes answered that the City does not allow a business to count street parking as part of the required number of stalls. If streets get clogged the City can no-park the street. In the winter it is even more critical as the streets get narrower due to the snow. Parking must be on the property. Shaffer stated that the square footage in the office area excludes toilets and the employee lounge. Grimes stated that the building inspector gave them the benefit of the doubt. The warehouse workers will also be using these facilities. Swedberg stated that on the south side, with the curb problem, there is a manhole on the left and a catch basin on the right. Grimes stated that if the curb and gutter are removed then the manhole and catch basin must be tended to also. Although the parking spaces on that side won't be used very often, they must be there. Shaffer asked how the catch basin affects the situation. Osterberg answered that they must meet the setback to the back of the curb. The problem is the width of the curb which is about 4 inches off. 41 , , I. 1509 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals April 22, 1995' 1 Page 9 '\ Groger asked about the west side. Osterberg stated that the west side reflects a surveyors mistake. The building is actually fine. The curb will be moved west to where it is supposed to be. This means the side yard setback is about 8.5 feet rather than the required 10 feet. Shaffer asked how the space is measured and enforced. Grimes answered that the 20 feet is measured from the face of the curb. Golden Valley doesn't count the overhang. Sell stated that the pencil line is interpreted differently by different people. Grimes stated that the City won't make them tear down the building but there must be enough space for a fire lane along all sides of the building. Swedberg asked what is to the west of the property and was told that it is all business parking areas. Sell asked about landscaping along the west property line. Grimes answered that there is not much. Koch stated that there was a fence but the two owners agreed to eliminate it and re-Iandscape the area. He added that there is still work to be done on the building which will be completed now that winter is over. Grimes asked Osterberg if he had been to the Building Board of Review and Osterberg answered yes. Swedberg asked about the 1.6 feet variance on both the west and south sides. Grimes answered that on the south side the 7 parking spaces would be 7.8 feet rather than 9.0 feet wide. Swedberg asked about landscaping and Grimes answered if the curb is removed the area will be landscaped. Shaffer asked if a truck could get by if the curb is moved 1.5 feet to the west. Grimes answered yes. Shaffer asked if Osterberg had driven a semi in there and he answered yes. Osterberg also stated that he doubts that the parking on the soutH side will be used. Sell added that those spaces are not handy to the entrance of the building. Groger asked if a PUD could be used. Grimes answered not in this instance. Groger asked what control there would be for future tenants needing more parking. Grimes answered none. Grimes added that a condition could be added to an approval but who would be here in 15 or 20 years to remember? The Board must be comfortable that this user and a future user find the parking adequate. Koch stated that the architect put the handicapped parking in front and drew in more space than needed. The parking lot is 203 feet wide and although the drawing shows 20 cars it will actually accommodate 22. Grimes stated that two handicapped stalls are required. Koch answered that there are two handicapped spaces that share a 5 foot buffer between the handicapped spaces. Shaffer stated that with that information, the variance is for only 15:10 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals April 22, 199~1 Page ':K)IO 2 spaces less than the requirement. Koch added that the offices are generous in size, and , house less people than the square footage would suggest. Another tenant would need to do extensive remodeling to make the offices smaller and accommodate more people. Swedberg asked about moving the outside wall and Osterberg answered that it would be a major project to move that exterior wall which goes up 20 feet. Swedberg asked if The Prize Company is buying or leasing. Koch stated that The Prize Company has extended an offer to buy the building. The Prize Company is currently nearby in Plymouth, and the Koch's feel that this building is perfect for them. Swedberg stated that he can live with 2 parking spaces less than the requirement. MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Polachek to grant a variance from Section 11.36, Subd. 7(A and B) - Loading and Parking Requirements - for two parking spaces off the required 43 spaces to 41 spaces; and from Section 11.36, Subd. 6(C)(4) - Yard Requirements - for 1.6 feet off the rquired 10 feet to a distance of 8.6 feet for the lack of landscaping on the west and south side of the property. It was noted by the Board, that if at all possible, the landscaping should come as close to the required setback as possible. Groger asked if the Building Board of Review had seen the plan and was told yes. , Grimes asked the Board to address the size of the parking stalls. Sell amended the motion to also allow 7.8 foot wide parking stalls on the south in lieu of the required 9 foot width. Polachek seconded the amendment. The Board unanimously approved the motion as amended. IV. Other Business There was no other business. V. Adjournment Chair Shaffer adjourned the meeting at 8: 15 PM. (L~ Robert Shaffer, Chair ~~ taff Liaison .,