Loading...
01-28-14 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 28, 2014 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Maxwell called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm. Those present were Members Johnson, Maxwell, Nelson and Planning Commission Representatives Boudreau-Landis and McCarty. Also present were City Planner Jason Zimmerman and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes — December 19, 2013, Regular Meeting MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the December 19, 2013, minutes as submitted. II. The Petition(s) are: 1800 Mendelssohn Ave. N. Danette & Marlin Henrikson, Applicants (Continued Item) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 3 ft. off of the required 12 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck/lift addition on the south side of the existing home. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 19 Paved Area Requirements • 1 ft. off of the required 3 ft. to a distance of 2 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new driveway along the side yard (south) property line. Zimmerman reminded the Board that this request was tabled at their December meeting. Since then, the applicant has submitted revised plans and is now requesting a variance for 3 ft. off the required 12 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to the south property line rather than 5 ft. off the required 12 ft. to a distance of 7 ft. for the proposed deck/wheelchair lift. Also, the variance request for the construction of a new driveway is now 1 ft. off the required 3 ft. to a distance of 2 ft. at its closest point to south property line rather than 3 ft. off the required 3 ft. to 0 ft. as proposed last month. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 28, 2014 Page 2 Zimmerman referred to the site plans and noted that the applicant is proposing to move an existing shed 3 ft. away from the north side yard property line. He explained that if the shed is moved to this location it would need to be 5 ft. away from the property line. Marlin Henrikson, Applicant, stated that the shed will either be removed from the property or it will stay in its current location. It will not be moved to the location shown on the plans. Maxwell noted that the Board's suggested changes from last month have been made. Zimmerman agreed and added that the proposed new plans allow more distance from the proposed new deck/lift to the neighboring property to the south. He also noted that the proposed amount of impervious surface has been reduced since the Board last reviewed this praposal. Maxwell stated that the reason the proposed construction has to be on the south side of the house is because the main entrance is on that side of the house. He added that the applicant didn't build the house originally and did not choose the location of the main entrance. Maxwell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. Boudreau-Landis questioned the need for the 7-foot wide paved area shown on the plans. Henrikson stated that he needs that width for access. He added that he also wants the edge of the driveway to go all the way to the retaining wall so there isn't an area of gravel between the edge of the driveway and the retaining watl. Maxwell added that the Veterans Administration also has certain requirements that have to be met. Johnson stated that it looks like this proposal addresses what was discussed last month and looks to be the best option. Nelson agreed and added that the proposal fits with the criteria that the Board uses: it is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance, it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the request is reasonable, the property is unique because of the grade and the proposal will not alter the essential character of the locality. Boudreau-Landis added that the Veteran Administration requirements are unique to this case as well. McCarty asked the applicant if they had given any more consideration to moving the elevator to the east side of the house. He said the new design is nice, but it is very close the neighboring property and he still thinks there is a way the design can work on the east side of the house. Johnson noted that the stairs and a landing area can be built within the setback area without a variance so really there is only 1 ft. of the proposed structure that will be located in the setback area. McCarty stated that what is being proposed is much more substantial than just stairs and a landing. Nelson agreed it is more substantial, but it is not as close to the neighbor as it was is the previous proposal they reviewed. McCarty said he understands that the variance amount has been lessened but he still thinks the Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeais January 28, 2014 Page 3 elevator could be moved to the east side of the house. Henrikson added that moving the structure to the east would add another $24,000 to the project. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests: • 3 ft. off of the required 12 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a deck/lift addition on the south side of the existing house. • 1 ft. off of the required 3 ft. to a distance of 2 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a new driveway along the south property line. 245 Kentucky Avenue North Scott Newland, Newland Architecture, Inc., Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 1.19 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 33.81 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to the front of the house. Zimmerman explained the applicant's proposal to expand a second floor bedroom and add an interior elevator. He referred to the applicant's plans and noted that the proposed expansion would not protrude out from the house any further than the existing eaves of the house. Maxwell asked if the foundation of the house is changing. Zimmerman said no and explained that if the proposed addition was a bay window it would be allowed without the need for a variance. It is when the floor area expands that an addition is required to meet setback requirements. Maxwell asked why the proposed "bump ouY' area is necessary. Scott Newland, Architect for the project, discussed the required clearances in order to make the interior space wheelchair accessible and functional. He added that they also need to provide space for physical therapy. He reiterated that the proposed addition would go no further than the extent of the existing roof. Maxwell asked what other options were considered. Newland stated that they considered remodeling the entire house but it is not functional or feasible with the cost and the existing layout of the upstairs space. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 28, 2014 Page 4 Maxwell asked if there are any unique features to the property. Newiand stated that the uniqueness in this case is not so much the site, it is more of how the inside of the house is configured, the location of the stairs, corridors, bathrooms, etc. Nelson noted that the house was built right at the front setback line, which the applicant did not do. Maxwell opened the public hearing, seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. McCarty said this proposal seems reasonable to him and that the addition will be no more intrusive than the proposed bay window will be. Nelson agreed and added that it meets the criteria the Board considers. Johnson also agreed and added that the proposed addition will make the home more in tune with the homes in the neighborhood. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance request for 1.19 ft. off of the required 35 ft. to a distance of 33.81 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of an addition to the front of the house. 641 Westwood Drive South Curtis and Javne Olson, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 12(A)(3) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 5 ft. off of the required 5 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the reconstruction of an existing deck in the same location. Zimmerman stated that this property has a deteriorating retaining wall located under the existing deck. The applicant wants to remove the deck, replace the retaining wall and reconstruct the deck. He stated that the north corner of the deck is located too close to the side yard property line and explained that plans from 1985 were located in the City's files that show the deck in its current configuration. Also, in 1991 the property received a variance for a new garage and breezeway addition. The deck was shown on the survey at that time but there was no mention of the deck in the meeting minutes. He stated that he is not sure why a variance for the deck was never obtained, but guessed that staff might have considered the setbacks for the deck the same way the concrete pool surround was considered. Nelson asked if the concrete pool surround was allowed to go right up to the property line at the time it was constructed. Zimmerman said yes. He showed the Board an illustration and explained that if the proposed new deck were angled in order to meet the setback Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 28, 2014 Page 5 requirements it would still be approximately 10 ft. wide. Nelson noted that this home has been sold a couple of times since 1991. Maxwell asked if the deck in its current location would have always required a variance. Zimmerman said yes and added that it also should have received a permit. Nelson asked if the setback issue regarding the deck was discovered when the applicant decided to replace the retaining wall. Zimmerman said yes. Maxwell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. Zimmerman noted that the applicant was not in attendance. Maxwell asked the Board if they would like to consider tabling this item since the applicant was not present. The consensus of the Board was that the request did not need to be tabled. McCarty said he didn't think it would be a hardship to the applicant to build the deck in a conforming location because they would be losing such a small fraction of the deck space. Nelson stated that it is an unfortunate situation because the applicant is making the effort to replace the retaining wall properly and then discovered they need a variance for the deck. Johnson said he thinks this situation is unique because there is a pool. The applicants are not just asking for a variance because they want a bigger deck. He added that the deck won't have an impact on any neighboring property owners. Nelson stated that the situation wasn't caused by the current homeowners; they were just trying to fix something that has been there for a long time. McCarty stated that if the deck was built in a conforming location the new deck would still be 10 ft. wide which is an average deck width. Boudreau-Landis said he is supportive of the applicant's request. He said he would feel differently if the deck had not been there for such a long time and if the neighboring house to the north were closer. Maxwell added that no one has ever questioned the location of the existing deck, the need for a variance came as a surprise to the homeowner and the homeowner wants a uniform- sized deck around their pool. McCarty said he doesn't think the fact that the deck has been there a long time should be considered a hardship, especially when the applicant is proposing to replace the nonconforming section of the deck. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 28, 2014 Page 6 Nelson noted that the application states that if the deck were built in conformance with setback requirements it would only be 2 ft. wide. Zimmerman stated that is incorrect, the deck would be approximately 10 to 12 ft. wide on the north corner if it were angled to meet the requirements. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Johnson and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the variance request for 5 ft. off of the required 5 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line to allow for the reconstruction of an existing deck in the same location. 6005 Golden Valley Road Vladimir Sivriver dba EDS, Inc., Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.35, Light Industrial Zoning District, Subd. 6(C)(4) Yard Requirements • 10 ft. off of the required 10 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (south) property line. Purpose: To bring the recently constructed driveway into conformance with Zoning Code requirements. Zimmerman stated that the Light Industrial zoning district requires one half (10 feet) of the side and rear yard setback areas to be used as a landscaped buffer. He stated that the applicant recently constructed a new parking lot which ended up being 0 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (south) property line. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the newly constructed parking lot to remain as built. Zimmerman explained that in August 2013 the City issued a Stop Work Order for parking lot construction without a Storm Water Management Permit. In October 2013, the City issued a Storm Water Management Permit based on plans submitted by the applicant which showed a 10-foot setback for the parking lot. In November 2013, a violation letter was issued upon inspection of the parking lot. McCarty asked where the edge of the previous parking lot ended. Zimmerman said he didn't know the exact distance but he doesn't think there was a well-defined edge on the former parking lot. However, there was some distance between the edge of the parking lot and the property line. Boudreau-Landis asked about the setback area for the building to the south. Zimmerman said it appears that the building to the south is approximately 20 ft. away from the property line. Maxwell asked if the applicant received a Storm Water Management Permit. Zimmerman said yes, the applicant did receive a Storm Water Management Permit based on plans that showed a 10 ft. setback. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 28, 2014 Page 7 Boudreau-Landis asked if the applicant submitted plans for the new parking lot. Zimmerman said he didn't think plans were required because at the time the applicant was proposing to do a mill and overlay of the parking lot, not a reconstruction. Vladimir Sivriver, EDS Inc., Applicant, referred to topography he completed in 2006 which showed that the original intent was to accommodate flow to a culvert. He stated that in 2012 he completed plans for a proposed building addition and that the plans complied with the requirements. However, last year the property owner decided not to move forward with the building addition, only the repairs to the parking lot. He stated that when construction started on the parking lot they realized there was a high water table so they had to excavate more material. At that time they also realized that the existing culvert was filled with silt and dirt, so the flow would come back into this parking Iot and the outlet was two feet higher than the existing culvert. He said construction of a culvert was stopped by the neighboring property owner so they proposed a new culvert and at that time they obtained permits and continued working on the property. He said there was a lot of misunderstanding and confusion. He stated that they were just repairing the parking lot and that the majority of the parking lot had a 0 ft. setback from the property line and they had to remove existing curb and install new curb and gutter so there was confusion about that as well. He discussed an existing concrete swale along the edge of the parking lot and stated that a grassy area would create more flow and worsen the conditions. Boudreau-Landis asked for clarification on whether the edge of the previous parking lot went all the way to the property line. Sivriver said yes. Johnson said the photos show that it did not. Sivriver said that only a small portion along the edge of the parking lot was grass. McCarty asked Sivriver if he removed the bituminous. Sivriver said they didn't have access to the existing culvert so repairing the parking Iot would have been for nothing. Nelson asked how long the current owner has owned the property. Barry Rothman, Vice President of Operations for Bellboy, stated that the current owner has owned the property since 2005. Maxwell referred to the application and asked for further clarification about the maneuvering of trucks. Sivriver stated that their new trucks are 75 feet long and that it would be impossible for the trucks to back up without destroying a 10 foot grassy area. Sivriver referred to a photo and noted that the edge of the concrete swale was right on the property line. Johnson said he is not familiar with 75 foot long trucks. Rothman stated that they need more room to pull in and back up. Maxwell asked when the concrete swale was installed. Sivriver said it was installed in 2007 or 2008. Maxwell asked if it was installed because of water run-off issues. Sivriver said it was installed for the trucks to be able to back up and for the water issues. Maxwell asked if the concrete swale was there when the property was purchased. Rothman said he didn't recall. Maxwell asked if the property to the south would not let the applicant use the existing culvert. Sivriver said that was his recollection. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 28, 2014 Page 8 Johnson asked how the water table issue was discovered. Sivriver said that water came up during their excavation. McCarty asked if it was the high water table or the run-off that required them to build the concrete swale. Sivriver said he didn't know the history. He referred to the culvert situation and stated that they had to redesign the grade. Boudreau-Landis said he hasn't heard how the situation got to this point. Sivriver reiterated that the majority of the parking lot was always right on the property line. Boudreau-Landis asked Sivriver if the parking lot was removed. Sivriver said yes, because the water table had to be fixed. He said the project was treated as a repair and if it were a new parking lot it would have required new curb and gutter. Boudreau-Landis stated that the plan for a 10 foot setback along the south property line wasn't followed. McCarty said he is hearing that the applicant was going to repair the parking lot and then found out there was a high water table. He asked the applicant when he found out a permit was needed, when a new design was done, when he received a permit and when construction started. Sivriver said his plans show a zero setback. McCarty stated that the plans Sivriver used should be the plans that were approved by the City, there should be just one set of plans. Sivriver said they did some modifications. McCarty asked if they were just going to do an overlay of the parking lot, then discovered the water table and started tearing out the parking lot instead. Sivriver said he obtained permits from the City and from the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission. McCarty asked if the plans were redone to show the required 10 foot setback. Sivriver said the 10 foot setback was shown on the 2012 plans when they were proposing an addition to the building, but there was a misunderstanding because the plans he has from when he obtained his building permit clearly shows a 0 foot setback. He reiterated that the edge of the parking lot was at a 0 foot setback along a majority of the property line. Johnson stated that the Board is not going to be able to solve the timeline issue and suggested that they instead look at the criteria they use to make their decisions. McCarty said he thinks the Board's decision does depend on the timeline because he doesn't know what drawing was used to issue the permit. Nelson said the drawings show a 10 foot setback area and the applicant is here after the fact. McCarty asked what prompted the permit. Boudreau-Landis said his understanding is that the initial plan was to overlay the parking lot, but then the applicant ran into problems which led to work stoppage, then they had to get a Storm Water permit based on plans that showed a 10 foot setback. Sivriver said he did the designs ten times. He noted that the silt fence goes along the property line to the existing concrete curb that has a 0 setback. Boudreau-Landis asked if the Watershed gave approval based on the 10 foot setback. Sivriver stated that the Watershed doesn't look at setback requirements they look at the existing parking lot and the new parking lot. Maxwell asked if there are unique features with the property other than the length of the trucks and the high water table. Sivriver said there is a large amount of roof drainage and there was no outlet created which leads to a large amount of water in the parking lot. Maxwell asked if that is a reoccurring issue. Rothman said yes. Sivriver reiterated that his understanding is that the permit allowed a 0 foot setback because the majority of the edge of the driveway was located on the property line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 28, 2014 Page 9 Maxwell opened the public hearing. Mike Abrams, 1109 Zane Avenue North, said there was never an overlay planned and that this has been a planned assault from the beginning including the applicant digging on his property without permission. He said when he saw them digging he went to the City to look at the plans and was asked "what plans?" Then the City issued a stop work order. He said there was a 10 foot buffer between the edge of the applicant's parking lot and the property line and that it did not go right up to the property line. Nelson asked Abrams if the grassy area shown in the photos was on his property. Abrams said yes. He added that as far as trucks and trailers maneuvering, there is room for them to turn around without having to build the parking lot all the way to the property line. Nelson asked if the concrete swale was built right to the property line. Abrams said he couldn't tell by the photo. He stated that the applicant has done lots of things including using his property as a holding pond for their water. He said he's heard enough of "it's complicated" and "it's a misunderstanding." Maxwell asked if this issue is in litigation now. Abrams said it is not in litigation yet, but it will be. McCarty asked Abrams if the applicant literally dug a holding pond on his property and how long it was before he noticed. Abrams said yes, and added that it took a couple of weeks before he noticed because his building has been empty for a while. Nelson asked Abrams how long he has owned his property. Abrams said he's owned it since 1991. Bill Skolnick, Skolnick & Shiff, P.A., representing Mr. Abrams, stated that Abrams didn't know about the parking lot reconstruction until he saw them digging the hole. He said there is no question that work began without a permit. There are letters from the City showing that the applicant needed to have a 10 foot setback and the City has plans from the applicant that show a 10 foot setback for a new parking lot. He introduced R. Eric Zimmerman, R.E. Zimmerman Consulting, LLC. Dr. Zimmerman said the question is where the original parking lot was located before any work was done. He stated that based on aerial photos there was 40 feet befinreen the north edge of Mr. Abrams building and the south edge of the paved parking lot or 20 feet of property on each side of the common property line. He referred to the concrete swale and said that was put in as a stop gap. Skolnick stated that the applicanYs parking lot was expanded. The applicant has been asking for forgiveness rather than permission and has disregarded the City's letters. He referred to a letter from City staff saying that there needs to be a signed agreement with Mr. Abrams. The applicant has never asked for a letter from Mr. Abrams and has never given Mr. Abrams any consideration or tried negotiating. Maxwell asked Sivriver when they knew they needed a variance. He said he knew when he received a letter from the City. Rothman added that the culvert has never been cleaned or maintained and that an extraordinary amount of water comes out of the drains on the back of Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 28, 2014 Page 10 the neighbor's building and erodes their parking lot. Sivriver said the purpose of this meeting is the 0 foot setback issue and it is his apinion that the majority of the parking lot was setback 0 feet from the property line. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Maxwell closed the public hearing. Maxwell said the Board needs to focus on the criteria used when considering variance requests. Nelson agreed that the Board has been asked to consider a variance to allow a parking lot to be located 0 ft. from a property line and she doesn't think the criteria have been met in order to grant a variance in this case. McCarty said that the need far the variance was caused by the landowner. He added that he doesn't know which plan was issued with the City permit. Nelson noted that the applicant received a letter from the City stating that there needed to be a 10 foot setback from the edge of the parking lot to the property line. Maxwell asked about the water table issue. McCarty said the water table should have been discovered earlier in the process. He said it appears that the applicant did the work, got caught doing the work then asked for a variance. He noted however, that the Board of Zoning Appeals has granted variances in the past when errors have been made. Nelson said she doesn't think the variance request meets enough of the criteria used when granting variances. Johnson referred to the criteria and stated that he thinks the proposal meets two of the criteria, it is a reasonable use and it doesn't alter the essential character of the locality however, there are no unique circumstances not caused by the landowner, and the variance is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinances. MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to deny the variance request for 10 ft. off of the required 10 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (south) property line to bring the recently constructed driveway into conformance with Zoning Code requirements. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:59 pm. � � � ` � ; jr � �i , y'l/ �_ ' ( ` G ge Maxwel Chair Lisa Wittman, Administrative Assistant