Loading...
03-23-99 BZA Minutes . -- - 1657 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 23, 1999 The regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held Tuesday, March 23, 1999, in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN. Acting Chair Polachek called the meeting to order at 7pm. Those present were: Members Lang, Polachek, Swedberg and Hughes (alternate); and Planning Commission Representative Shaffer. Also present were Staff Liaison Mary Dold and Tammi Hall, Recording Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes - February 23, 1999 MOVED by Lang, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of February 23, 1999 as submitted. II. The Petitions: 4022 Wayzata Blvd. (Map 9) (99-3-4) Harold and Linda Fahrendorff Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for: · 3.6 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 31.4 feet for the existing house at its closest point to the front property line; and Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback for: · 9.75 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 5.25 feet for the proposed garage at its closest point to the side (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition, onto the existing garage, into the side yard setback. Polachek read the requested variances. Harold and Linda Fahrendorff were in attendance. Staff Liaison Dold reviewed the facts of the case. She indicated that the first variance requested is for the existing house and the second for a proposed garage addition. She stated that the applicants currently have a single-stall garage. They would like to be able to construct a second stall, that would infringe into the side yard setback on the east side, and enlarge the area to the north of the existing garage for additional space. Dold commented that the addition would be fairly close to the neighbor on the east side, Gerald Mindrum. Mr. Mindrum was present at the meeting. He stated that his address was 4012 Wayzata Boulevard. He indicated that he had been concerned with the potential affect the addition may have on his property value. He said that he had spoken with several realtors and was comfortable that the addition would not have a negative impact on his property value, and consequently, he would have no objection to the addition. Swedberg asked staff about the topography of the back yard. Dold responded that the rear topography has a substantial incline that 1658 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals March 23, 1999 Page 2 . may make it difficult for any type of construction to occur to the rear of the lot. Swedberg commented that, in general, the Commission has looked favorably on the addition of a second stall to a garage. MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Hughes and motion carried unanimously to approve the variances as requested. Lot 6, Block 1, Glenwood View (Zealand Avenue) (Map 20) (99-3-6) Ross and Elizabeth Farmer Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for: · 15 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 20 feet for a proposed single-family dwelling at its closest point to the front property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a single-family dwelling into the front setback area. Polachek read the requested variances. The Farmers' daughter, Joann Farmer, was in attendance on their behalf. Oold stated that this is currently a vacant lot and that the Farmers are proposing to build a single story or possibly a 1-1/2 story home on the property. They are working with Robert Gerloff, an architect from the Twin Cities area, to draw up their house plans. Oold stated that the home would be used by an extended family, with Joann and her children living on the lower level, and all sharing one common kitchen area. Oold added that there are not many vacant lots in the City and it would be good if a house could be constructed on the property. Oold stated that the neighboring property at 1504 Zealand Avenue North had also requested a variance for 10 feet off the required front setback in order to construct a single-family dwelling closer to the property line. She said the Board had approved this variance request. e Farmer stated that her father has Parkinson's disease and needs a universal design floor plan. She indicated that her parents have been living in a newer home in Chaska. They would like to move closer in and there are very few lots available. She stated that the design of the house is not yet finalized, but it would include a two-car garage, one kitchen, and possibly a sunroom. She stated that they plan to design a home that would blend in with the lot and complement the neighboring home. Swedberg asked if 15 feet is the absolute minimum they can work with or if it would be possible to design the house in such a way that it would require less of a variance, since the neighboring property only required a variance of 10 feet. Farmer responded that the surveyor had indicated that the proposed placement of the house would minimize lot preparation costs. Lang stated that it appears as though there is very little buildable area on the lot. Swedberg commented that he would recommend a height restriction on this lot and that he would propose the motion include a condition that would prohibit construction of a two-story home. Farmer stated that she anticipated the home design to have a low profile. Shaffer suggested that the structure be limited in height and that the existing natural vegetation be maintained to every extent e possible. Farmer said it is their intent to maintain as many of the trees and natural vegetation on the 1659 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals March 23, 1999 Page 3 . lot as possible. She stated that they do not plan to remove any of the bigger trees and that the backyard will not be formally maintained, to preserve the park-like setting. MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Lang and motion carried unanimously to approve the variances as requested with the following conditions: · the house will be limited in height to less than two stories · the natural vegetation on the lot be preserved as much as possible 1520 Kaltern Lane (Map 10) (99-3-5) Jeffrev and Lea Scherer Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback for: · 8.1 feet off the required 23.30 feet to a distance of 15.1 feet for the proposed living addition on the southwest side, at its closest point to the rear property line; and · 6.47 feet off the required 20.8 feet to a distance of 14.33 feet for the proposed living addition on the southeast side, at its closest point to the rear property line. e Purpose: To allow for the construction of a living addition that would extend to the rear and southeast side of the existing yard. Potachek read the requested variances. Jeffrey and Lea Scherer were in attendance. Dold stated that the applicants wish to construct an addition while preserving the integrity of the original house. They have determined they can best do this by placing the addition to the rear and side yard. She stated that the addition would house a library, and weaving and painting studios. Dold stated that the property's front setback is curved creating a necessity to average out the calculation of the rear yard setback. She added that the applicant determined that there should be two variances at either side of the proposed building because of the curve in the front setback. Mr. Scherer submitted a plan showing the window of opportunity and then calculated the setbacks. Dold indicated that she had spoken with City Building Official Gary Johnson, who indicated that the previous Building Official, Jay Ipsen, sometimes calculated rear setbacks using this method. Dold said using Mr. Scherer's process, two variances are required, one for either side of the proposed structure. - Swedberg asked if there had been an effort to determine if the proposed structure could be built without the necessity for variances. Mr. Scherer responded that staying within the required setback would leave an internal dimension of 4 feet in the bridge between the original house and the new addition, which would result in a hallway rather than a room. In addition, he explained that his father- in-law, the previous owner of the home, had an agreement with the neighbor that he would not construct anything that would block his view. As a result, Mr. Scherer indicated they have placed the addition so that it will not block the neighbor's view. He indicated that the other neighbor is not concerned with the addition because it does not really affect them. He added that there is a row of cedars between the two properties. Mr. Scherer stated that the main reasons for the proposed 1660 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals March 23, 1999 Page 4 location of the addition are preservation of the facade and historical character of the house and to respect the wishes of the neighbors. He also indicated they wished to preserve the trees on the property. He stated that there is a white oak and a black oak on the property and, according to the landscape architect, the width of the connecting portion of the addition is the maximum allowable to stay within the drip line of these two trees. Scherer also indicated that if the addition were designed in an L shape they would lose the windows and the light to the lower level. Swedberg stated that trees are temporary and that a variance is permanent. He asked Mr. Scherer if he wouldn't rather construct the addition without consideration for the trees. Mr. Scherer responded that they would like to preserve the trees, but in addition they want to maintain the view for the neighbor and maintain the integrity of the original design of the house. He stated that if the existing trees were lost they would want to replace them. Swedberg asked if the length of the bridge between the existing house and the new structure was dictated by the location of the trees. Mr. Scherer responded that they also wished to maintain a landscaped area or courtyard between the two portions of the house. He added that there would be a piano and a library in this area, so its size was also dictated by the size of the piano and the amount of books they possess. Shaffer asked what would be used for siding on the addition. Mr. Scherer responded that there is clear redwood on the original house, with a trim piece at the bottom that is white painted wood. He said the addition would be glass and white painted wood. He added that the back of the house would be brick on the full walls, since brick is already present on the lower part of the original house. . Shaffer stated that he feels it is important to maintain the character of neighborhood and that the _ design proposed by the Scherers is sensitive to preserving the character of the home and the . neighborhood. He added that backyard setbacks are generally not as sacred as front yard setbacks, and that is especially true in this neighborhood because of the way the properties are sited. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Swedberg and motion carried unanimously to approve the variances as requested. 6020 Wayzata Blvd. (Map 13) (99-3-7) Christianson and Toraerson. LLP (Holidav Inn Express) Request: Waiver from Section 11.36, Subd. 6(A) Front Yard Setback for: · 29 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 6 feet for the lack of landscaping in .the front yard setback facing 1-394; and Waiver from Section 11.36, Subd. 6(C)(4) Other Side and Rear Yard Setbacks for: · 10 feet off the required 10 feet to a distance of 0 feet for the lack of landscaping on a small portion of the west side of the property due to a drive aisle. Polachek read the requested variances. Tom Torgerson of the Holiday Inn Express and Kevin Hanson, Architect for the project were in attendance. Oold stated that the frontage road, to the south of the Holiday Inn Express site, was vacated as a street in 1998. She indicated that it remains in MnOOT ownership. She added that there is a - . . . 1661 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals March 23, 1999 Page 5 temporary easement on this former frontage road, allowing the public to use it, until Golden Hills Drive is open. Dold explained that MnDOT is now turning it over to the City who will then turn it over to the Holiday Inn Express to be used as part of their property. She said that with this additional land, Holiday Inn Express would like to add additional suites, due to the fact that they are maintaining full occupancy of the facility. She stated that the requested front yard setback variance would allow Holiday Inn Express to place parking in the front setback along 1-394. She reminded the Board that, in September 1998, DUKE Realty, who owns the property to the west and is proposing to develop a one-story office building, requested a similar variance for their property that was approved by the Board. Dold said that the second variance requested is for the lack of green space in the side yard setback. She indicated that the Holiday Inn Express would need an easement to use the DUKE property driveway to Colorado Avenue as an alternative egress/ingress into their site. After briefly reviewing the plan with Mr. Torgerson, Dold stated that the front yard setback variance request should be changed to 31 feet off the required 35 feet. She indicated that the parking spaces were 18 feet in length and that City code requires 20 feet. She also stated that an additional sideyard variance should be added for 8 feet off the required 10 feet to a distance of 2 feet for the northeast side of the parking lot. Shaffer asked if MnDOT has any authority in this matter. Dold responded that MnDOT is turning the land over to the City. She indicated MnDOT may ask Holiday Inn Express to make available those parking spaces along 1-394, at certain times during the year, for maintenance of the fence. Mr. Torgerson indicated that the plan may be inaccurate in terms of the length of the parking spaces. He indicated that if the spaces were not 20 feet, they would make the necessary changes to comply with code. Lang asked if the Fire Department has approved the plans for access to this site. Dold responded that he had. Shaffer asked if the plans would go before the Building Board of Review for landscape approval. Dold responded that additions do not always go before the Building Board of Review. Swedberg commented that this is the second addition to this hotel. Shaffer asked if they have plans for any further expansion. Torgerson responded that the area has changed substantially since the property was originally developed. He indicated that, at the time of the initial development, they were unaware that the frontage road would be eliminated. He said that they feel the area has changed for the better, however, they may have done things differently in the initial development if they had known about the changes that would be taking place. He stated that they believe that some of the challenges for their site and the changes in their plans are small in comparison to the positive changes that are occurring in the whole area. Torgerson indicated that he could not foresee space for any future additions. There was brief discussion regarding whether the number of parking spaces complies with City requirements. Torgerson indicated they have 127 hotel rooms and 12 employees (code requires one space per three employees). Dold indicated that City code would require 131 spaces and their lot contains 135 spaces so there would be no need for a variance. Dold said they may need to remove the curb so that some spaces on the west side would comply with code requirement for length. Torgerson responded that they would correct this situation if the plan is correct and the length is insufficient. Dold indicated that the Board could require that at the time of the construction of the driveway to the west, the curb on the parking spaces be removed. 1662 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals March 23, 1999 Page 6 e Lang asked if there were any restrictions due to the maintenance agreement with MnDOT. Torgerson responded that there is no requirement that would prevent placement of the parking spaces. Dold stated that the variance could be approved contingent on notification of approval from MnDOT. Lang stated that he would like to see this language included in the Board approval. Swedberg stated that the Holiday Inn must be willing to grant any easements that MnDOT would require. Torgerson indicated that they have an agreement with MnDOT, but he indicated that he would be happy to obtain notification from MnDOT that the variance does not conflict with their easement. Dold added that the same variance was granted on the DUKE property which has the same situation with MnDOT. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Swedberg and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variances as discussed: Waiver from Section 11.36, Subd. 6(A) Front Yard Setback for: · 31 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 4 feet for the lack of landscaping in the front yard setback facing 1-394; and Waiver from Section 11.36, Subd. 6(C)(4) Other Side and Rear Yard Setbacks for: · 10 feet off the required 10 feet to a distance of 0 feet for the lack of landscaping on a small portion of the west side of the property due to a drive aisle . · 8 feet off the required 10 feet to a distance of 2 feet for the northeast side of the parking lot Approval of the above variances is conditional upon verification of the size of the three parking spaces discussed and, if necessary, removal of curb to bring them into compliance with City Code. III. Other Business No other business was addressed. IV. Adjournment Polachek adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. 4Js~ Herb Polachek, Acting Chair Mary Dold, Staff Liaison .