Loading...
05-25-99 BZA Minutes 1667 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 25, 1999 . The regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held Tuesday, May 25, 1999, in the Council Conference Room, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN. Chair Swedberg called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Those present were: Members Lang, Polachek, Sell and Swedberg; and Planning Commission Representative Shaffer. Also present were Staff Liaison Mary Dold and Tammi Hall, Recording Secretary . I. Approval of Minutes - April 27, 1999 MOVED by Sell, seconded by Polachek and motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of April 27, 1999 as submitted. II. The Petitions: 7156 Harold Avenue (Map 17) (99-5-10) Thomas and Sharon Ruble Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for: e · 17.75 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 17.25 feet for a proposed two-stall garage and mudroom attached to the front of the house; and Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback for: · 3.25 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 11.75 feet for a proposed garage at its closest point to the west property line; and Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Structures for: · 3.5 feet off the required 5 feet to a distance of 1.5 feet for the existing shed at its closest point to the rear (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a two-stall garage and mudroom area attached to the front of the house. The existing single-stall garage would become living space. Chair Swedberg read the requested variances. Thomas Ruble was present. Staff Liaison Dold reviewed the facts of the case. She stated that the applicants would like to construct a two-stall garage with a mudroom onto the front of the existing single-stall garage. The proposed garage would require both front and side yard variances. She indicated that a variance is also needed for an existing shed that sits too close to the rear property line. . Swedberg asked the applicant if he had consulted with an architect or builder regarding the proposed addition. Ruble indicated that he had not received any professional advice regarding the addition. Swedberg asked how long they have lived at this address. Ruble indicated they have lived in the home for approximately 13 years. Swedberg stated that the requested variance is outside the parameters of what the Board would generally consider approving. Ruble responded that he was aware from discussions with staff that his request was unusual. Swedberg stated that the Board has 1668 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting May 25, 1999 Page 2 e never acted favorably in regard to a request for a variance of this size from the required front yard setback. He indicated that the Board generally holds the front yard setback as more sacred since front yards create the distinguishing characteristic of a neighborhood. Swedberg stated that the applicant would need to prove some hardship or reason that the proposed construction is necessary in order for the Board to approve his request. Ruble responded that he felt this was the best option and wanted to pursue it before they considered other alternatives. Polachek asked if they had considered adding onto the back of the house and widening the existing garage. Ruble responded that they had originally considered widening the existing garage but decided that as long as they were adding on they wanted to expand the project to include some additional living space. He indicated that they do not want to build into the back yard. Lang suggested that the applicant discuss possible options with an architect or builder. Swedberg informed the applicant that the Board generally looks favorably on expanding single car garages and that he may want to consider other options for increasing the garage size. Shaffer stated that even if the Board approved the variance request he felt there would be difficulties in building the structure due to problems with the roof lines. Sell stated that the Board would be willing to work with the applicant if a variance was needed for the sideyard setback. He suggested that the Board could postpone a decision on the proposal to give the applicant the opportunity to investigate some alternatives and Come back to the Board within the next 90 days. Swedberg clarified that this discussion applied only to the variance requests for the front and side yards. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Polachek and motion carried unanimously to delay action on the variances requested for the front and side yards to give the applicant opportunity to investigate other _ alternatives and come back to the Board, no later than September, with a different proposal for .. expanding the garage. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Lang and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Structures, as requested, for the existing shed. 4224 Golden Valley Road (Map 5) (99-5-11) Robert and Denise Kina Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback for: · 3.3 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 21.7 feet for the existing house at its closest point to the rear property line; and · 10 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 15 feet for a proposed second story balcony off the rear of the house at its closest point to the rear (north) property line Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Structures · To allow for a 5.5 foot x 24.25 foot addition onto the existing detached garage which is located to the front of the main house. . Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second story balcony and addition onto the existing detached garage. Chair Swedberg read the requested variances. Robert King was present. e . e 1669 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting May 25, 1999 Page 3 Oold stated that the applicants appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals in July of 1998 for approval of a proposed balcony constructed onto the rear of the house that would intrude into the rear yard setback. Oold indicated that this variance was granted. She stated that they would now like to make this balcony four feet longer than originally planned (10' x 10' vs. 6' x 10') and are now requesting a new variance. She stated that they are making a second variance request for an addition onto the existing detached garage of 5.5 feet by 24.25 feet. She indicated they would like to have the extra space for storage of lawn and snow removal equipment. Oold stated that this addition requires a variance since City Code states that detached acces~ory buildings shall be located wholly to the rear of the house with at least 10 feet of separation between the main building and the accessory building. She stated that the variance would allow for an addition to the existing detached garage that is located to the front of the house. Oold noted that one of the neighbors is concerned about drainage problems due to the increase in impervious surface on the property to the rear of the property. Robert King indicated that he had spoken with the neighbor who was concerned about the drainage issue. He indicated that the neighbor would be satisfied if the size of the balcony was restricted to 6' x 10' as originally planned. He indicated that they would stay with the original plan of constructing a 6' x 10' balcony which would eliminate the need for the new variance for the rear yard setback. Oold stated that the variance granted in 1998 is effective until August 18. King stated that he would need an extension as he does not anticipate the work will be done by that time. Oold indicated that the work would not have to be completed by August 18 but the permit would need to be issued by that date. Oold stated that a variance is also needed for the existing house. She said the house is 21.7 feet from the rear property line and indicated that the nonconformity of the house was not addressed when previous variances were granted. Shaffer stated that, as a general rule, he dislikes garages placed in front of houses and would be opposed to increasing the width of such a structure. He said he would have less of a problem with the addition if it were placed off the rear of the garage rather than increasing the width that faces Golden Valley Road. King said the garage is set back far enough that it is in line with the surrounding houses along Golden Valley Road. He said constructing the addition off the rear of the garage would require the removal of a large tree and would interfere with the current location of the foot entrance and the sidewalk that leads to the foot entrance. Shaffer stated that the addition could be constructed in a square off the rear of the garage to avoid interference with the foot entrance. King stated that access to the storage area would also be more difficult if it were located to the rear of the garage. Sell noted that the garage is 70 feet from the property line along Golden Valley Road. Swedberg stated that the distance between the garage and the street makes the proposed addition more acceptable. Shaffer said his concern is with allowing the expansion of the garage when it is increasing the width of a structure that is placed in the front yard. He suggested that this would not be an acceptable option for most homes, but that the distance from the property line makes this option acceptable for this property. MOVED by Polachek, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variances as requested: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setbacks for 3.3 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 21.7 feet for the existing house at its closest point to the rear property line. 1670 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting May 25, 1999 Page 4 . Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Structures to allow for an addition to an existing detached garage that is located to the front of the house. 2240 Pennsylvania Avenue North (Map 14) (99-5";12) William Malvin and Hanna Anderson Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Structures · to allow for the construction of a 10' x 26' upper level balcony (deck) onto the rear of the house which would make the in-ground pool less than 10 feet from the house structure. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an upper level balcony onto the rear of the house which will make the in-ground swimming pool non-conforming. Chair Swedberg read the requested variances. Hanna Anderson was present. Dold stated that the applicants would like to construct an upper level balcony off the rear of the home. She said there is an in-ground swimming pool located approximately 19.8 feet from the house with declining steps into the pool approximately 17.8 feet from the house. Dold stated that the proposed balcony would be 10' x 26' leaving 7.8 feet from the balcony structure to the steps of the pool. She added that the Inspections Department defines a swimming pool as a structure and therefore the . proposed structure requires a variance because there would not be 10 feet of separation between the balcony, which is attached to the house, and the steps of the swimming pool. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Lang and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance as requested. 4725 Olson Memorial Highway (Map 8) (99-5-13) E.C. Fackler. Inc. Request: Waiver from Section 11.45, Subd. 3. Parking Requirements · 4 parking spaces off the required 40 spaces to allow for 36 marked parking spaces and 9 proof of parking spaces; and Waiver from Section 11.45, Subd. 5 Yard Requirements · 35 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 0 feet for a proposed drive aisle accessing the proof of parking lot located to the east of the existing building; and · 11 feet off the require 35 feet to a distance of 24 feet for the proposed addition at its closest point to the street easement located at the northwest side of the property; and Waiver form Section 11.70, Subd. 5(B)(3) Side and Rear Yard Setbacks · 10 feet off the required 10 feet to a distance of 0 feet for the lack of greenspace due to the parking lot abutting the west property line; and e 1671 . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting May 25, 1999 Page 5 Waiver from Section 11.70, Subd. 7(C) Design Standards · For the lack of curb and gutter on the property Chair Swedberg read the requested variances. Jim Dahlberg, Architect for E.C. Fackler, was present. Oold stated that the applicant's property abuts Olson Memorial Highway to the north, railroad to the east and north, and business and professional office to the west. She stated that the property is zoned Business and Professional Office. Oold said the applicant would like to construct a 3,000 square foot, two-story addition onto the west side of the existing structure, and in order to construct the proposed addition they need several variances. Oold indicated that the proposed addition is 11 feet from a City street easement on the northwest side of the property. She stated that this would require a variance to allow 11 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 24 feet for the proposed addition. She said another variance required is for the lack of greenspace along the west property line due to the existing parking lot directly abutting the property line. The variance request is for 10 feet off the required 10 feet to a distance of zero (0) feet for the lack of landscaping along the west property line. e Oold noted that there are nine parking stalls along the south property line and the staff memo states that these stalls are 17 feet in length and would require a variance because City Code requires that parking stalls be 20 feet in length. Oold said that staff further reviewed the survey and found there is more space available than required for the drive aisle, and that some of this space can be used to lengthen the parking spaces to 20 feet in length. Oold stated that City Code would require 49 parking spaces for this structure. She said the applicant is proposing 36 parking spaces with an additional 9 "proof of parking" spaces leaving a deficit of 4 parking spaces which would require a variance. She said the current survey shows the existing building located 35 feet from the front property line. She indicated that the applicant is requesting that when the "proof of parking" spaces are required that a new drive aisle be placed fronting Olson Memorial Highway. Oold noted that the new drive aisle would directly abut the front property line and would require a variance of 35 feet off the 35 feet to a distance of O. She indicated that if the Board chooses to grant this variance, the minutes should indicate that the drive aisle can be constructed at the time the "proof of parking" is needed. Oold stated that there is a large greenspace right-of-way between the applicant's property line and Olson Memorial Highway. . Swedberg questioned if "proof of parking" should be used when a variance is required to allow for the construction of the "proof of parking" spaces. He indicated that another alternative would be to simply grant a variance from the required 49 spaces to the 36 spaces proposed by the applicant and eliminate the "proof of parking" spaces. Oold stated that staff would prefer to include the "proof of parking" since it allows the City to require that the spaces be added if they are ever needed. Shaffer stated that the "proof of parking" spaces may be needed by a future tenant. He also indicated that this option allows the City to keep parking areas to a minimum, reducing impervious surface, but giving the City control to require additional spaces if they are ever needed. Shaffer asked the applicant if it would be possible to construct a drive aisle through the back of the property. Dahlberg responded that there is not enough room and the grade is too steep. Sell stated that he would agree with the "proof of parking" option and felt it would be a better alternative than granting a variance for the parking spaces. Lang indicated that he also felt the "proof of parking" was a good alternative. 1672 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting May 25, 1999 Page 6 e Dold stated that there is not curb and gutter on the site as required by Code. She stated that staff would recommend that the Board grant a variance to allow the applicant to construct the curb and gutter at the time the parking lot is refinished. Jim Dahlberg, architect for E.C. Fackler, provided a brief background on the purchase of the property by his client and the plans for the proposed addition. In regard to the number of parking spaces, Dahlberg stated that they calculated the number of parking spaces that would be needed using a formula of 4 spaces per 1000 square feet. He indicated that their calculation used the net square footage of the building eliminating internal space for mechanicals, stairwells and other unusable space. He added that the steep grades and the triangular shape of the parcel present a hardship in regard to complying with parking code. Dahlberg stated that his client conducted an informal count of the number of cars in the parking lot at various times, ending up with an average of 23 cars occupying the site at any given time during the week. Dahlberg indicated that an additional 6 parking spaces were added for the upper level of the addition. He stated that 4 spaces were added for the lower level addition. He noted the lower level addition would be used by the owner to give them additional office space since they are quite cramped in the current space. Shaffer asked if there are enough handicapped parking spaces. Dahlberg responded that the plan includes two handicapped spaces which meets the requirement of one handicapped space per 25 parking spaces. Shaffer also asked about the location of the trash area. Dahlberg responded that there is a trash dumpster behind the building. He stated that the dumpster will be on a concrete pad. Shaffer stated that the city code requires that trash containers be placed in an enclosed structure. e Dold stated that parking spaces could not be located in the easement area located to the west side of the building. There was discussion regarding the easements on the property and whether or not the parking in this easement would be prohibited. Swedberg asked about the traffic pattern in the parking area. Dahlberg stated that the layout of the parking area would not work for public parking but it is believed that there will not be a problem since the parking lot would be used by the employees everyday and they will be familiar with the space. Dahlberg stated that his client understands that curb and gutter will have to be installed when the parking area is resurfaced. Swedberg asked how the City monitors to ensure that the applicant resurfaces the parking area in a reasonable amount of time. Dold commented that it would be noted in the Inspections file that there is outstanding work to be done and that the Engineering Department is also good at reviewing these situations. Dahlberg responded that his client is relying upon rental tenants to occupy half of the building and the building and parking area would have to be properly maintained to attract tenants. Swedberg questioned the situation with parking in the easement and asked if two additional spaces should be added to the parking variance. Dold responded that the Board could include the additional two spaces. Lang suggested that the Board approve the variance for 4 parking spaces, as requested. He indicated that if the City Engineer determines that the two parking spaces partially . located in the easement to the south cannot be used, the applicant would be required to come back before the Board for an additional variance for 2 parking spaces. MOVED by Lang, seconded by Polachek and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variances as requested: . . . 1673 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting May 25, 1999 Page 7 · 4 parking spaces off the required 49 spaces, with 9 "proof of parking" spaces, to allow for 36 marked parking spaces. The owner shall construct the "proof of parking" spaces when the Director of Planning and Development or the Chief of Fire and Inspections deems that the additional parking is needed on the site. · 35 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 0 feet for a proposed drive aisle in the front setback along Olson Memorial Highway. This variance will continue perpetually since the drive aisle will not be added until such time as the "proof of parking" spaces are deemed necessary . · 11 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 24 feet for the proposed addition · 10 feet off the required 10 feet for the lack of landscaping on the west side of the existing structure · to allow the applicant to construct the required curb and gutter at the time the parking lot is resurfaced The approval includes a requirement that the trash dumpster be enclosed and that the variance for the proposed drive aisle to be located along the north property line be constructed at a time when the "proof of parking" is required. IV. Other Business There was no other business addressed. V. Adjournment Swedberg adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. "'- ~~/ Mary D d, Staff Liaison