Loading...
03-27-18 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2018 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, March 27, 2018, 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 Representatives Blum and Waldhauser. Also present were Associate Planner/Grant Writer Emily Goellner and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Nelson was absent. I. Approval of Minutes— January 23, 2018, Regular Meeting MOVED by Perich, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried 3 to 2 to approve the minutes as submitted. Waldhauser and Blum abstained. II. The Petition(s) are: 8806 Olson Memorial Highway Erica Freeman, Shea Architects, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.70, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations, Subdivision 3, Minimum Number of Required Off-Street Parking Spaces for Class III Restaurants • 20 parking spaces off the required 94 parking spaces for a total of 74 parking spaces Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new restaurant. Goellner referred to a site plan and explained the applicant's proposal to replace the existing Perkins restaurant with a new restaurant. She noted that the existing building will be used however, Perkins was considered at Class I restaurant which means they did not have a liquor license and the proposed new restaurant will be a Class III restaurant with a liquor license. She added that the proposed new restaurant will also have a bar area and a patio on the west corner of the building which adds to the amount of required parking. Goellner discussed the parking requirements and explained that the proposed new restaurant is required to have 94 parking spaces and that they are proposing to have 74 parking spaces. Maxwell asked about the rationale behind requiring more parking with the addition of a liquor license. Goellner stated that generally Class III restaurants include a bar where people might come individually so more parking spaces would likely be needed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2018 Page 2 Goellner noted that the applicants have stated that their unique circumstances include the following: there is no room to expand the parking lot, the outdoor seating is only used four months of the year, other communities count outdoor patio seating differently, operating a Class III restaurant without a patio or bar would still require a variance of five parking spaces, the City Code requires about twice as much parking for a restaurant serving liquor, and they are proposing to reduce the overall seat count from the existing Perkins. Blum stated that the building already exists and operates as a business. He added that the applicants are proposing to add the new patio and bar area and that both of these things are circumstances being created by the applicant. Goellner agreed and reiterated that in order to have any type of Class III restaurant at this property, a variance of five parking spaces would be needed. Orenstein asked if there is any on-street parking available. Goellner said there is some on-street parking available now, but that sidewalk and bike lanes are planned on 7�h Avenue in the near future. She added that on-street parking doesn't count toward the required number of off-street parking spaces. Orenstein asked where overFlow parking would go. Goellner said it would most likely go to neighboring properties. Waldhauser added that a brewery is proposed for the property across the street and that they will probably need all of the available parking for their business. Goellner stated that the applicant has contacted TruStone Financial and Red Lobster about shared parking, but it hasn't worked out. She stated that the applicant did adjust their plans to reduce the parking demand by eliminating 1,500 square feet of patio space, reducing the size of the bar area, and adding 11 existing parking spaces back into their plans. The applicant is also including bicycle racks in their plans. Blum asked if the proposed patio area could be used for parking instead. Goellner said no, parking spaces would not work in that area. Blum asked about the dimensions of the patio. Goellner said it is approximately 500 square feet. Blum asked about the dimensions of an average parking space. Goellner said an average parking space is 9 feet in width and 18.5 feet in depth. Blum asked if the dumpster will be located in the northwest corner. Goellner said yes. Erica Freeman, Shea Architects, representing the applicants, stated that they are currently remodeling the restaurant to be a Thai restaurant and it has been difficult changing the use. She stated that the patio is 18 ft. x 36 ft. and that a sidewalk wraps around the building so the west side of the building is not wide enough to add parking spaces and a drive aisle. She stated that the applicants also own a restaurant in Brooklyn Park that shares parking with a grocery store and has adequate parking so they don't think the number of spaces in this proposal will be an issue. She said they know a brewery is going in across the street but they have hundreds of parking spaces and they are still talking with TruStone Financial about shared parking. She stated that this proposal has quite a few less seats than Perkins and they don't think the bar calculations make sense for this use because they won't have a bar that will be three people deep, it will just be a bar to serve the restaurant. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2018 Page 3 Maxwell asked Freeman if the bar area could be made smaller. Freeman stated that it is a relatively small bar with 10 seats. If it were too much smaller there wouldn't be adequate space for the things needed in a bar. Ann Ahmed, Applicant, stated that it doesn't make sense that the bar only seats 10, but that 11 parking spaces are required. Freeman noted that the patio is only used three or four months out of the year, but the parking is counted the same as the interior space. Perich opened the public hearing. Rob Smolund, Open to Business, stated that there is a bike trail near this property and that he will bike to eat at this restaurant. He stated that he supports this proposal and that the parking requirements should be lowered to encourage people to find alternate ways to get to places. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Waldhauser stated that there is logic to the arguments for less parking. She stated the City doesn't want a lot of excess parking, but right now the Zoning Code doesn't support that. She said she thinks the proposed 74 parking spaces is probably adequate because the bar is basically used by people waiting for tables so the bar shouldn't add a lot of parking demand. She said that there will be some on-street parking available and that the proposed patio is too small to add big crowds. She said it is a little more problematic when they look at the criteria used to grant variances because the circumstances are being created by the landowner but there is logic to what is being requested and it is hard to stay in business without a bar. Perich stated that the parking lot is too small and the City's parking requirements are too large. He noted that the patio will only be used when the weather is nice, they've exhausted their options, and they are asking for a reasonable option. Orenstein agreed and said he thinks this is a reasonable request. Maxwell also agreed and said the applicant has tried to ameliorate their issues and the property has been a restaurant in the past so he is in favor of the requested variance. Blum said many people are excited to see new business in Golden Valley but he is struggling with the matter of equity and fairness. He said he thinks the BZA is more restricted in how they interpret things rather than pushing an outcome and it is ok for the BZA to be objectively following the rules and that there is an appeals process. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve a variance for 20 parking spaces off the required 94 parking spaces for a total of 74 parking spaces to allow for the construction of a new restaurant. Commissioner Blum abstained. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2018 Page 4 7210 Harold Avenue Tollberq Homes, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.22, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(B) Height Limitations • 5 ft. over the 28 ft. of height allowed for a total height of 33 feet. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home. Request: Waiver from Section 11.22, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 12(C) Maximum Garage Width • 10% off the maximum garage width allowed of 65% of the dwelling's front facade to a garage width that is 75% of the dwelling's front facade. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home. Goellner referred to elevations of a home being proposed at 7210 Harold Avenue and explained that the house requires two variances. The first variance request is to allow the house to be 33 feet in height rather than the allowed 28 feet, and the second variance request would allow 75% of the home's front facade to be garage rather than the 65% allowed. Maxwell asked how much wider the house would have to be to make the garage percentage work. Goellner stated that the garage width could shrink or the width of the house could expand because there is some additional buildable area on the sides of the lot. Goellner noted that the applicant stated that the unique circumstances in this case include that the topography of the lot necessitates a tuck-under garage, the height of the proposed home above the tuck-under garage is normal height, the proposed garage width is 24 feet which is a standard size, the width of the lot (56 feet) limits the ability to meet maximum garage width requirements, they can't meet the building envelope requirements if the house were made wider on all stories, and the proposed design has curb appeal without overemphasizing the garage. Goellner stated that staff is recommending denial of the requested variances because while the topography necessitates a tuck-under garage, two stories above the tuck-under garage is optional, there is imposing visual impact from a tuck-under garage with two stories above, there is significant buildable area on the lot that is not being utilized, garage width requirements are important to preservation of neighborhood character in the R-2 Zoning District, the applicant is able to build a 24-foot wide garage if other design changes are made, and no alternative designs have been provided to show that all reasonable options have been exhausted. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2018 Page 5 Wade Tollefson, Northwest Design Inc., representing the applicant, referred to the height of the proposed house and stated that they would be building down into a hill so a regular two story home would not sit higher as it relates to the street. He stated that it is not a height issue, it is a grade issue and added that if they added retaining walls it would meet the requirements, but it wouldn't change the height of the house. Maxwell asked if the house were moved forward on the lot if the variance regarding height would still be needed. Tollefson said he would still need the height variance and that moving the retaining walls would require about $10,000 in changes because they would need to be taller and engineered. He said that they are proposing a proper design for this lot and the two story product fits the buyer's lifestyle and added that there would be a financial hardship just to meet the code, or they would be changing the grade to meet the height requirements. Maxwell asked about different options for the garage and front facade percentage. Tollefson said if they build a more traditional house, the trusses and design of the garage would appear much bigger from the street. Perich asked about making the house wider. Tollefson said there is no room on the east and it is very tight on the west. Perich said he would like to see other options they've tried. Blum noted that the applicant said he has built other homes taller than this one and asked if those are in Golden Valley. Tollefson said yes and stated that the house next door to this lot is equivalent or taller as it relates to the street. He stated that it is just a matter of how the grade is being viewed and that most cities use the average grade of the property, not just the grade at the front like Golden Valley does. He noted that if the average grade of the side and front were used, this house would work. Goellner asked Tollefson how the house would be designed differently if he had known about the grade requirements. Tollefson said he didn't even realize there was a height issue and that this is the first house in the City where the garage width and percentage issue has corne up. Blum asked if there is anything preventing a side or rear entry garage. Tollefson said neither would work with the grade of the lot. Blum asked if it was difficult, but not impossible. Tollefson said financially they couldn't make a rear entry garage work. He added that the lot to the east is lower so a rear entry garage worked on that property. Tollefson said they could go with a traditional two story house but it would not fit in and it would look even taller which would do the reverse of the spirit of the Zoning Code. He showed the Board a rendering of a house that would fit on the lot and said it would look higher out of the ground as it relates to the neighborhood and the street. Perich opened the public hearing. Josh (last name not given), said he is looking to purchase this home and there is a dramatic slope and a wetland in the back of the house. He said the design of the home has a deck above the garage to overlook the park and to move two retaining walls just to meet the code doesn't make sense. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2018 Page 6 Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Orenstein said he would prefer to see other alternatives. He said he understands the rationale, but he would like to see other options. Perich said he understands the issue with the height variance request, it is the garage width request he is struggling with. Waldhauser said she also understands the issues, and the aesthetics of the proposed home are good but a five bedroom, 3 bathroom home is not what the City had in mind when this property was split into two 50-foot wide lots. Maxwell said he doesn't understand why the house can't be made wide enough to make the garage percentage work. Waldhauser noted that if the house were wider they may need side yard variances. Blum said the steep grade and wetland are compelling, but don't seem to justify what the applicant is asking for because there are a lot of other options. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Perich and motion carried unanimously to table the request to the April 24, 2018, Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. 400 Ardmore Drive Rodnev Haas, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District, Subd. 11(A)(2) Rear Yard Setback Requirements • 10 ft. off of the required 25 ft. to a distance of 15 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a screened porch addition. Goellner referred to a site plan and explained the applicant's request to build a screened porch addition on the north end of the house. She explained that the north property line is considered the rear lot line and the required setback is 25 feet. Goellner discussed the applicant's stated unique circumstances which include that this is a small corner lot with two front yards, the rear yard is on the side of the house and the addition would meet side yard setback requirements, there is less space for an addition on the east side of the home due to the location of the house on the lot, the proposed porch would be away from the street, and the alley creates more space between this property and the home to the north. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2018 Page 7 Goellner stated that staff is recommending denial of the requested variance because it is possible to build a smaller porch to reduce the size of the variance request and the neighborhood character may be better maintained with a smaller screened porch. Perich asked if the house was built before the alley. Goellner said she wasn't sure but she would guess that the alley was probably built first. Maxwell noted that the alley does provide some distance between this home and the home to the north. Rodney Haas, applicant, said the house was built in 1964 and that the plan is to remodel it but maintain a lot of the existing features. He said he thought Ardmore Drive was the front of the property and that he considered putting a screened porch on the east side of the property on the back of the house, but there are some trees in that area that he would like to save so the north side of the property with the alley seemed to be the least intrusive location. Waldhauser asked about the size of the house. Haas stated that it is approximately 1,100 square feet and that he is also planning on building a second story that will meet all of the Code requirements. Perich opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Perich closed the public hearing. Orenstein stated that this is an unusual corner lot, the variance request is due to the positioning of the house on the lot, the rear yard really acts like a side yard, and the alley provides a buffer for the property to the north. Waldhauser said she supports the requested variance. Blum said he doesn't think that corner lots are a rationale the Board is supposed to use. He said this is a significant variance request and that he hasn't heard any circumstances unique to this property. Orenstein said he would argue that the alley is unique to this property. Maxwell reiterated that the rear yard really acts like a side yard and the proposed porch would be in compliance if this were a side yard. He stated that most houses have clear front and back sides and that the same rules apply to corner lots as other lots which doesn't always make sense. He stated that there is no real building envelope left because it is a small lot with large setback requirements. He added that the applicant didn't build the house, the porch fits in with the neighborhood and the applicant has met the requirements for a variance. Blum said side and rear yard setbacks are very important and he doesn't think this variance request meets the criteria the Board uses when approving variances. Orenstein said the proposed porch doesn't bother him and that sometimes the Board makes decisions that make sense, but don't necessarily meet the criteria exactly. Waldhauser suggested the porch be made more of an oblong shape and extend the access to the east. Haas said he would be open to making the porch smaller or moving Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals March 27, 2018 Page 8 it further to the east, but he thinks he would probably still need a variance. Goellner added that the porch may need a variance from the articulation requirements if it is relocated. MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by Orenstein and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the variance request for 10 ft. off of the required 25 ft. to a distance of 15 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of a screened porch addition. Commissioner Blum voted no. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. • 2017 BZA Annual Report Goellner noted that there were significantly fewer variances in 2017. She referred to the annual report and discussed the various types of projects, trends, and maps of where variances were requested. Orenstein asked if variances change the look and feel of the community. Goellner said she thinks the Board is doing a good job looking for alternatives to granting variances and of keeping the character of the community in mind. She added that staff is also trying to update the Zoning Code when things aren't working. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 pm. ,r',, . A�AI� � VV� David Perich, Chair Lisa ittman, Administrative Assistant