Loading...
02-26-08 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals February 26, 2008 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Boudreau-Landis called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members, Boudreau-Landis, Morrissey, Segelbaum and Planning Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Sell was absent I. Approval of Minutes - January 22, 2008 MOVED by Morrissey, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve the January 22,2008 minutes as submitted. II. The Petitions are: 2404 McNair Drive (08-02-02) Cleon & Cheryl Wahlin, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 7 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage with living space above. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 1.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 11 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage with living space above. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and explained that the applicant is proposing to build a new two-stall garage with living space above. He stated that the proposed garage would encroach into the front and side yard setback areas. He stated that the hardships noted by the applicant are the lack of a two car garage and thefts from cars occurring in her neighborhood. He added that no other variances have been granted for this property in the past. Segelbaum questioned if the thefts in the area could be considered a hardship. Hogeboom stated that the single stall garage is the main hardship in this case but that Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals February 26, 2008 Page 2 the thefts add to the hardship. He showed the board a police report he pulled for this property. Segelbaum noted that the topography on the lot is also listed as a hardship on the application. Hogeboom stated that the topography on the lot is another reason the applicant is proposing to place the garage in the location shown. Cheryl Wahlin, Applicant, stated that she doesn't want to focus on the thefts. The real reason for the variances requested is because she wants a two-stall garage for protection from the weather, general storage, motorcycle storage and protection from theft. She explained that one of the factors driving the size of the proposed new garage is that the existing dining room wall jogs out so in order to make the interior floor plan work she has to place the garage further toward the front yard property line. McCarty asked the applicant if she is proposing to keep the existing garage. Wahlin said no. She referred to the survey of the property and explained that her intent is to get an entryway into the garage and expand the size of the dining room. Segelbaum asked the applicant if a possible alternative could be to extend the existing garage into the side yard. Wahlin said it would be possible but then she'd be building closer to the neighboring property and she was trying to be sensitive to that. She added that there is also a fairly steep hill that wraps around the side of her existing garage. Morrissey added that it could also be more difficult to build a driveway on the side of the existing garage. Hogeboom noted that there is an 8-foot difference in topography on the applicant's property. Boudreau-Landis asked the applicant if she would consider keeping the proposed dimensions of the new garage but sliding it back a bit further on the lot (into the existing garage space) so she wouldn't need a front yard variance. Wahlin stated that sliding the garage back would limit how they get in and out of the garage, it would not allow for an entryway or stairs to the second floor and it would cut into the living room area. Morrissey asked ifthis was an undersized lot. Hogeboom said it is smaller than some other lots in the area. McCarty said he is concerned about granting the front yard variance. He explained that the Board has to look at actual hardships not cost, design or layout. He said he thinks there are other ways to make this garage addition work and he would be more inclined to grant a larger side yard variance rather than the requested front yard variance. Morrissey stated she is concerned that if the proposed new garage were to be pushed back into the existing garage area it would render the balance of the existing garage unusable and not very functional. She said it would be helpful to her if the Board could see the plans or get more information about the proposed addition. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals February 26, 2008 Page 3 Mark Williams, friend of the applicant, said that he's been helping Wahlin with her proposed project. He stated that they had discussed sliding the proposed garage further back on the lot but it causes problems with the layout of the dining room. He agreed that having drawings of the proposed addition would help. Wahlin said she is in a "catch 22" because she doesn't want to have architectural drawings made until she knows she has a variance. Morrissey stated that the applicant should be able to find an architect that can propose solutions that maybe won't require variances. Segelbaum stated he thinks the Board is hesitant to grant front yard variances and may be more willing to grant a larger side yard variance request in this case. Williams stated that currently there is no entrance door from the garage into the house. McCarty questioned what is preventing an entrance door in the existing garage. Wahlin explained that if there were an entrance door in the existing garage it would be in the middle of the dining room. Segelbaum asked if the existing garage floor is just a concrete slab. Wahlin said yes and explained that the existing garage floor is deteriorating. She added that her proposal is to excavate the area where the current garage is located in order to install a new driveway that isn't as steep as the existing driveway. Boudreau-Landis explained to the applicant that she has the option of tabling her request until there is a full Board present or until she has more detailed plans or she has the option to have the Board vote on her current request. Wahlin said she would prefer to table her request. Williams said he feels confident that an architect can help them draw plans that would work with a side yard variance and not a front yard variance. MOVED by Morrissey, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to table the applicant's request for 90 days. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 pm. 'J?7;L ~ Chair ~ Mark Grimes, Staff Liaison