Loading...
05-27-08 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 2008 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Sell called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members, Hughes, Segelbaum, Sell, Weisberg and Planning Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman I. Approval of Minutes - April 22, 2008 MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Hughes and motion carried unanimously to approve the April 22, 2008 minutes as submitted. Commissioner McCarty abstained from voting. II. The Petitions are: 4223 Glencrest Road (08-05-05) Wooden Dreams, Applicant representing Robert and Bridaet Burke, Homeowners Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A) Stairs and Landings Requirements . 7 sq. ft. more than the allowed 25 sq. ft. of stairs/landings into the front yard setback area. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new stoop. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 6.3 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28.7 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new stoop. Hogeboom explained that the applicant is requesting variances in order to construct a new front stoop. He stated that the hardship noted by the applicant is the lack of safety. Currently a person can not stand on the front stoop and open the door at the same time. Segelbaum asked if the house is built right up to the front setback line. Hogeboom noted that the house was built 33.7 feet at its closest point to the front property line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 2008 Page 2 Hughes asked if the proposed new front stoop will be covered. Hogeboom said the proposed new stoop will not be covered. Howard Theis, Wooden Dreams, representing the applicant, reiterated that the proposed new front stoop will not be a covered entry. It will just be front steps going into the front setback area. Hughes asked if the stoop is going to be constructed of wood. Theis explained that the stoop will be constructed of brick and bluestone. Segelbaum questioned the hardship. Theis explained that the current landing area is only 3. % feet in size and the homeowner needs more room in order to stand on the steps and open the front door. McCarty asked if the front door could be approached differently or accessed from the side. Theis said that could be an option but the way they are proposing to build the front stoop is more congruent with the style of the house. He referred to a survey of the property and added that their proposal also works better with the way the driveway is placed. Bridget Burke, homeowner, stated that extending the front stoop to the side won't solve the safety issue because people would still have to take a step back in order to enter the house. Hughes said that this variance request is nota prominent part of the homeowners reconstruction. He added that this is a minor request and it seems reasonable. McCarty said he agrees the request seems reasonable but was wondering if the applicant had thought about any alternatives. Hughes asked if the proposed new steps would be higher than the previous steps. Theis said the new steps will be slightly higher because they will have to be built according to current code requirements. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Weisberg and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests: . 7 sq. ft. more than the allowed 25 sq. ft. of stairs/landings into the front yard s.etback area to allow for the construction of a new front stoop. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 2008 Page 3 2404 McNair Drive (08-02-02 ~ continued) 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 req u ired 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 reminded the Board that this applicant's requests were tabled at the February 26,2008 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. He stated that the requests were tabled to allow the applicant time to explore different options to build their proposed garage. He explained that the applicant has spoken with several builders and is now back with the same variance requests, because she feels that her proposal is the best way to construct the proposed garage. Cheryl Wahlin, Applicant, stated that she spoke with six different builders. One builder came up with a design changing the entryway that would cost $120,000. She said she can't do that financially and in addition they would lose all of the windows in the living room. She explained that another builder proposed to get rid of the dining room making the traffic pattern unworkable. She showed the Board a proposal that would not require variances but she would end up with a garage that would only be 18 feet in depth. She showed the Board another proposal that indicated a 24 feet wide by 22 feet deep garage which would require a slightly smaller variance. McCarty asked the applicant if she is still planning on building living space above the proposed new garage. Wahlin said they are not planning on building above the garage at this point, but they may in the future. Weisberg asked for clarification on whether the applicant is asking for 4 feet or 7 feet off the front yard requirements. Wahlin clarified that she is now asking for 4 feet off the required 35 foot front yard setback requirement. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 2008 Page 4 Segelbaum noted that since the applicant is now proposing a 24-foot wide garage if she would still require the requested side yard variance. Wahlin said she thinks she still needs a side yard variance because of the angle of the lot line. Sell stated that the variance requests would be for 4 feet off of the front yard requirements and 1.5 feet off of the side yard requirements. McCarty stated that the Board was clear about what they were looking for back in February. He added that he is willing to work with the applicant but there are still other options for this proposed garage. Wahlin explained that with any other option she won't have an entrance from the garage into the home. She'd have to walk outside of the garage and back into the house. McCarty noted that the applicant presented plans that showed an entrance from the garage into the house. Wahlin reiterated that she can't put an entrance in the dining room as alternative plans suggest. Weisberg asked if there is an entry into the house in the current garage. Wahlin said no. McCarty said he is not willing to grant the front yard variance request because he thinks the garage addition in this case could work if done differently. Wahlin stated that she wouldn't gain the entry into the house any other way and if she doesn't go forward (toward the front) with the garage then she can only have an 18-foot deep garage and it would make her dining room unworkable. McCarty suggested moving the entry to a different location in the garage. Wahlin stated that if the entry location were moved then there would be a doorway in the middle of the garage and the garage would have to be even wider to accommodate that, or she would have an entry right in the middle of her living room. Segelbaum agreed that there are other options and suggested she make the garage wider. McCarty agreed and suggested allowing a larger side yard variance, then the garage could be built 27 feet wide which would allow for stairs inside the garage for the entry into the house. Hughes referred to the neighboring property at 2310 Byrd and asked how this garage would affect them. Wahlin said the neighbor's back yard and deck would face the proposed new garage. Weisberg said he thinks that encroaching on the neighbor's deck is more egregious than building the garage more toward the front yard. McCarty noted that all the houses on that street are lined up so to have this garage in front would really stick out. Hughes asked how close the neighbor's deck is to the property line. Wahlin said it is fairly close to the property line. Segelbaum asked if the neighbors have any concerns. Wahlin said the neighbor's are not objectionable. Hughes agreed that it is a bigger deal to build the proposed garage closer to the neighbor's deck than it is to build forward Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 2008 Page 5 toward the street. McCarty said he thinks the garage will be more noticeable if it is built more toward the front than if it is built 1 more foot toward the side. Cleon Wahlin, Applicant, stated that if the garage is just made wider there would have to be a lot more dirt removed and that it works better with the elevation of the lot to build the garage forward more to the front. Segelbaum noted that if the applicants construct a 27 -foot wide garage then they would need a 3 foot variance. Hughes reiterated that it bothers him more to allow the garage to be built closer to the neighbor rather than toward the front. He added that the neighbor's rights are important too and a slight front yard variance would be better. McCarty suggested that the Board allow the applicant's to build their garage 9.5 feet away from the side yard property line because there are many ways to do this addition without variances. Sell stated that he doesn't think anyone would want to buy a house that has a garage with an entry into the living room. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to deny the request for 7 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 28 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line and approve the request for 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 to allow for the construction of a garage addition. 108 Turnpike Road (08~05~04) David & Joan Frenz, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(0) Cornices and Eaves Requirements . 16.8 inches more than the allowed 30 inches to a distance of 46.8 inches into the setback area. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and explained that the applicant's home is located 36.4 feet from the front yard property line. The applicants would like to construct an overhead roof over the front steps that would encroach into the front yard setback area. Jay Fisher, Custom Home Service, representing the applicants, showed photos of the existing house and a rendering of the roof overhang they are proposing. Segelbaum asked if there will be an overhead roof constructed above the garage as well as above the front door. Fisher said yes. He stated that they are proposing an eyebrow across the garage but that part of the proposal is within the 30" of allowed overhang into the setback area. He added that the homeowners could construct a porch within the zoning code requirements but a porch would not work in this situation. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 27. 2008 Page 6 Sell asked how the proposed gable roof would be supported. Fisher said the roof would be supported with brackets attached to the house, not posts going down to the ground. Weisberg asked how much further out the gable over the front door is compared to the proposed eyebrow over the garage. Fisher said the gable over the front door is approximately 42 inches deep. Segelbaum asked if the dimension of the stairs will be staying the same. Fisher said yes. Weisberg asked about the hardship. Fisher said they would like to have a covered entryway. McCarty asked how this proposal is different from a porch. Hogeboom stated that a porch has supports that go to the ground. He reiterated that the applicants could probably build a porch in the same location without a variance but it doesn't work in this situation with the style of the house. Fisher added that he thinks the existing stairs are floating and they wouldn't be able to support a porch. Hughes said that architecturally the proposed roof overhang will be an asset. Segelbaum agreed that there would be a positive impact to the surrounding properties. He noted that the existing house was built right up against the front yard setback. MOVED by Weisberg, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve 16.8 inches more than the allowed 30 inches to a distance of 46.8 inches into the setback area. 1051 Sumter Avenue South (08-05-06) Vasiliv Mamnev, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd.10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 11 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 24 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and noted that this is a corner lot and therefore has two front yard setback areas but the area where the applicant wants to build the garage addition is actually on the side of the house. He stated that the hardship noted by the applicant is that they currently have a single stall garage. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 2008 Page 7 McCarty asked about the width of the existing garage. Hogeboom said he wasn't sure. McCarty guessed that the existing garage is approximately 13 feet wide. He questioned the location of the storage shed located on the property. Segelbaum referred to a fence located along the south property line and asked who it belonged to. Hogeboom said he doesn't know who owns the fence. Vasiliy Mamnev, Applicant, stated that it is a simple project. They currently have a one stall garage and they would like to have a two stall garage. Sell asked the applicant how long he has lived in this house. Mamnev said 9 years. Sell asked the applicant if he built the shed. Mamnev said yes. McCarty asked the applicant about the width of the existing garage. Mamnev said it is approximately 13 or 14 feet in width. Weisberg referred to a photo of the property and questioned if the garage addition would encroach on the neighboring house at 1060 Rhode Island. Hughes referred to a red brick area located next the existing garage and asked if the proposed new garage addition would be in approximate location of those bricks. Mamnev said yes. Segelbaum asked the applicant about the fence along the south property line. Mamnev said the fence is 6 feet in height and he built it. Segelbaum asked if he planted the trees there as well. Mamnev said yes. He referred to the survey and showed where the fence and trees are located. Segelbaum asked what the ultimate width of the garage would be. McCarty referred to the survey and stated that the garage would be 29 feet wide in the front. He said he would like to see the variance minimized. Weisberg asked what the overall dimensions of the garage would be. Sell stated that the proposed garage would be 29 feet wide in the front and 37 feet in the back. McCarty suggested reducing the width of the garage in front to 25 feet to make the variance request 6 feet off the required 35 feet instead of the requested 11 feet off the required 35 feet. Sell suggested allowing one more foot in order to make the width of the garage an even number. McCarty suggested allowing the width of the garage to be 24 feet in width. Sell stated that the proposed garage is over the 1,000 square feet allowed. McCarty said if they allow the applicant to construct a 24-foot wide garage than he would be under the 1,000 square feet allowed. Mamnev said he would like to build an entry door into the garage and he wasn't sure if he could with a 24 feet wide garage. Segelbaum suggested the applicant make a Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 2008 Page 8 connection between the existing garage and new garage addition instead. Mamnev said he will reconfigure the entry door location. MOVED by Sell, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve 8 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 27 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a garage addition. III. Other Business Sell reminded the Board Members of the upcoming board and commission recognition dinner. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 pm. 111 lL M-- Mike Sell, Chair ~~~. J e Hog om, Staff Liaison