Loading...
02-28-17 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals February 28, 2017 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, February 28, 2017, at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Perich called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Maxwell, Orenstein, Perich and Planning Commission Representative Segelbaum. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Nelson was absent. I. Approval of Minutes— January 24, 2017, Regular Meeting MOVED by Baker, seconded by Perich and motion carried to approve the January 24, 2017, minutes as submitted. Segelbaum abstained. II. The Petition(s) are: 1509 Alpine Pass James Rutherford, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 10 Impervious Surface Requirements • 2.55% more than the allowed maximum total impervious surFace of 50% of the lot area. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a driveway expansion. Goellner reminded the Board that this property received variances in December to construct a garage, master bedroom/bathroom, and porch/office addition. She stated that the applicant is now proposing a driveway expansion and is seeking a variance to have more impervious surface than the maximum amount allowed. She added that the proposed driveway shown on the plans in December was narrower and did not require a variance. Segelbaum asked about the variances approved in December. Goellner stated that the applicant was granted a variance to allow a garage addition to be located approximately 10 ft. from the north side yard property line and a variance to allow a house addition to be located approximately 9 ft. from the south side yard property line. Goellner referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicant's current proposal. She noted that the Zoning Code allows lots to have a total impervious surface coverage amount of 50%. The existing impervious surface amount on the property is 44.7%. After the approved building additions are constructed the impervious surFace amount will be 47.18% and if the proposed driveway expansion is allowed the total amount of impervious surFace would be 52.55%. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals February 28, 2017 Page 2 Goellner explained that the proposed width of the new driveway is 27 ft. and the maximum width allowed by the Engineering Division is 25 ft. measured at the back of the driveway apron. Segelbaum asked if the 25-foot driveway width is addressed in the City Code or if it is an Engineering requirement. Goellner said it is her understanding that it is an Engineering policy. Segelbaum asked if the allowed driveway width is also 25 feet for properties with three garage stalls. Goellner said yes, and reiterated that the width of the driveway is measured at the back of the driveway apron but driveways can be wider beyond that point. Maxwell asked why the width requirement is 25 ft. Goellner said it is a best practice to try and limit the amount of impervious surFace on a property and keep visual green space on each lot. Maxwell said it seems like the applicant could access the proposed second garage stall with the first proposal he submitted. Goellner agreed and said the applicant has stated that the unique circumstances are that the challenging topography requires a large driveway in order to drive in at an angle and that the relatively small lot limits the amount of impervious surface he can have. She stated that staff is recommending denial of the requested variance because there are other options available that would work and meet the requirements of the Code. She showed the Board several pictures of properties in the area that have steeper slopes with driveways that are less than 27 ft. in width. She added that if the Board approves the requested variance staff recommends adding a condition of approval to mitigate negative visual and environmental effects. Possible options for this particular project could include one of the following: planting new trees to mitigate the removal of the two large trees that provide stormwater infiltration and other benefits at a ratio of 2:1 or 1:1, or the applicant could construct or install one stormwater management tool of their choice, including vegetated swale/depression, rain barrel, rain garden, or French drain. Orenstein asked if the existing large pine tree near the street will be removed. Goellner said yes. Maxwell asked if that tree could stay if the driveway were narrower. Goellner said probably not, because the proposed garage addition and any driveway expansion would probably call for the removal of that tree. Segelbaum asked about the amount of impervious surface on other parts of the property. Goellner referred the survey of the property and pointed out a patio, sidewalk, stairs, and planters that are all contributing to the amount of impervious surface. She added that the applicant is proposing to add a new grass area behind the garage addition. Segelbaum asked if the proposed new deck shown on the surface is pervious. Goellner said yes, if what is underneath it is pervious as well. Segelbaum asked if the houses are typically larger compared to their lots in this area. Goellner said no, the houses in this area are typically smaller compared to their lots, but there are many retaining walls in the area. James RutherFord, Applicant, said this is a strange shaped lot and there are a lot of big homes in the neighborhood that are double the value. He said they bought this small house with plans to do renovation and modernize the home and they want to have a simple entry and exit into the new garage. He stated that when backing out of their garage it is tight between the retaining walls. He gave the Board a photo of his driveway that showed the Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals February 28, 2017 Page 3 retaining walls and said that they have nicked their car doors on the walls. He also stated that a person's van has slid down the driveway into the street and he has spun out trying to climb the driveway so he needs a straight shot up the driveway because turning could cause sliding and accidents. He explained that the driveway expansion they are proposing would go 1 to 2 ft. beyond the edge of the garage entry and won't end right at the edge of the new garage stall. He stated that there was confusion with the plans at the meeting in December, but the plans he submitted for this variance request are the plans he always meant to propose. He said they care about the look of the house and with the house/garage addition two trees will need to be removed. One of the trees has a lot of dead branches and would need to be removed anyway. He said he would be happy to plant new trees and added that there are many trees in the backyard and there is pervious surFace under the proposed new deck. Mandy RutherFord, Applicant, said the high retaining walls on both sides of the driveway have been dangerous to alpine skiers in the neighborhood and she would love to have extra room to be able to see better because it is dangerous. Segelbaum asked the applicants if they had considered installing a pervious driveway instead. Mr. Rutherford said they have thought about it, but considering the incline of the driveway he is concerned about longevity and if it would wash away. Ms. Rutherford reiterated that they have explored the idea of a pervious driveway but they've been warned against it because of the incline of the driveway. Perich asked the applicants if they had thought about moving the retaining walls, because they would still be an issue even with a new driveway. Mr. Rutherford said if they expand their driveway there would only be a retaining wall on one side of it because they are going to grade the other side differently. Segelbaum asked the applicants if they have thought about removing the concrete patio in the back yard. Mr. Rutherford said it really isn't a patio, it is part of an addition done in the 1960s. Maxwell asked if the patio is part of the basement. Mr. RutherFord said yes, it is really a ceiling and there have been some drainage issues. Segelbaum asked the applicants if the steps in the front yard could be replaced with a pervious material. Mr. Rutherford said the front steps match the rest of the property. Segelbaum asked about the concrete around the landscaping. Ms. RutherFord stated that the house is built into the landscaping in the back yard. Mr. Rutherford handed out emails of support from the neighbors to their right and left. He said he had a conversation with the Engineering staff who said the plans look good and make sense. Segelbaum referred to some existing steps on the driveway side of the property and asked if those will be removed. Mr. Rutherford said they will be removed, but the new garage/house addition will be in that space. Ms. RutherFord added that there are also some steps in the back yard that are part of landscaping, but lead to nowhere. Orenstein noted that removing the steps that lead to nowhere might be enough to get the property under the 50% of impervious surface allowed. Ms. Rutherford said she thinks those steps are already Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals February 28, 2017 Page 4 pervious. Mr. RutherFord agreed that the steps have probably been improperly classified as impervious because there is dirt and plants on the steps. Goellner said she could work with the architect to help figure out if the steps are pervious or not. Orenstein said he thinks that would be the simplest solution because the applicant's only need to remove 225 square feet of impervious surface to make the plan work. Perich opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Maxwell suggested tabling the proposal in order to get a re-calculation of the amount of impervious surface. Orenstein agreed. Segelbaum said he would be willing to table the proposal as well, but he would be inclined to deny this plan because if they do some re- calculations, it might work and he doesn't like the idea of a huge driveway on this property. Perich said he would be inclined to deny this proposal because there are many other options. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to table this request. III. Other Business Discussion of 2017 Board of Zoning Appeals Bylaws Goellner stated that the City Council is considering appointing a teen member to each board and commission. She explained that a teen member on the BZA would not be a voting member they would just observe. She added that the Planning Commission discussed this at their last meeting and the consensus was not to appoint a teen member to the BZA because they vote on things that affect property owners directly. Segelbaum stated that the Planning Commission's sentiment was that a teen member would not be equipped to make the types of decisions that the BZA makes. He said the Planning Commission felt that a teen member could be helpful on other boards and commissions and that it may be worthwhile for a teen to observe, but not to participate in BZA meetings. He added that the Planning Commission also discussed being mentors to teens and bringing them to BZA meetings with them to observe. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:49 pm. �` � av' erich, Chair Lisa ittman, Administrative Assistant