Loading...
06-24-08 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 24, 2008 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, June 24, 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 Kisch, Nelson, Segelbaum, Sell, and Planning Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes - May 27, 2008 McCarty noted several typographical errors. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve the May 27,2008 minutes with the corrections noted by McCarty. II. The Petitions are: 400 Dakota Avenue South (08-06-07) Tim & Cathy Cope, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 17 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 18 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck on the rear of the home. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and explained that the house was originally built too close to the front yard property line. He stated that the issue was brought to the Board of Zoning Appeals and the City Council in 1970 where it was decided that the home could stay where it was located and continue as a non-conforming use, but there could be no future expansions to the footprint of the home. He stated that the current owners, Mr. & Mrs. Cope purchased the home in 1994 and were not aware of the stipulation placed on the property by the City Council in 1970 until they recently applied for a building permit to expand their existing deck. Hogeboom stated that'the City Council decided at their May 20, 2008 meeting to amend the language in the pre-existing variance to allow the applicant to apply for a variance only for this proposed deck expansion. The pre-existing variance was amended to read: "At no time shall there be any further expansion of the residential structure at 400 Dakota Avenue South covered by Building Permit #9036, except that said residential structure may be expanded to the rear side of the house and the house may be repaired, rebuilt or remodeled so long as there is no expansion to exterior dimensions." Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 24, 2008 Page 2 Hogeboom stated that staff is recommending approval of this variance request because the applicants are restricted to building only in the back yard, it is a very unique lot and it will not have an adverse affect on any neighboring properties. Segelbaum clarified that the Board is considering a front yard variance even though the applicant's are not proposing to expand toward the front of their house. The City Attorney has recommended that a condition of approval be placed on this request only to allow this proposal. Hogeboom said yes and reiterated that this variance request only pertains to this proposed expansion of the deck and any other proposals in the future would have to come before the Board again. Kisch asked if the Board could still consider the house to be non-conforming or deny the front yard setback variance request but still somehow allow the applicants to build the proposed deck in the rear yard. Hogeboom stated that the Board can not say that a use is legally non-conforming. They can only approve or deny variance requests. He explained that if the Board were to deny this variance request the applicants could appeal that decision to the City Council. He added that the City Council has indicated that they are in support of this proposal. McCarty questioned if the Board were to approve this variance request why the applicants couldn't build any type of conforming structure in rear yard in the future. Hogeboom stated that the City Attorney has suggested only allowing this particular proposal because the City doesn't know what a homeowner might want to build in the future. Nelson stated that the City Attorney and City Staff have reviewed this proposal and taking their advice makes sense. Cathy Cope, Applicant, stated that this variance issue has been going on since March. She said she bought a hot tub and has talked to a contractor about building a 10ft. x 10ft. deck expansion onto the existing deck to accommodate the hot tub. She stated that she has no plans for any expansion to the front of the home. Segelbaum questioned if the Board should allow for larger deck dimensions so the applicant wouldn't have to come back if they discover they need a slightly larger deck to accommodate the hot tub. Hogeboom suggested that if the Board approves the variance not to mention deck dimensions so the applicant would have some room to work with. Nelson noted that any size deck would still have to be built within the setback areas. Sell asked if the hot tub is going to be located on the lower level. Cope said no. It will be built on the upper level of the deck but it will be partially lowered. She noted that if the house were built in the correct location to begin with, she wouldn't need a variance to build her proposed deck. Sell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 24, 2008 Page 3 McCarty said this is a tough decision because the intent back in 1970 is clear. He said he doesn't see any problems with granting a variance for this proposal or denying it and having the City Council decide. He said it seems silly that the applicants have to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals because of a mistake made over 30 years ago. Segelbaum questioned if there is a way that people could be made aware of these types of issues before purchasing a home. Sell stated that is why he recommends people have title insurance or an attorney with them at their closing. He stated that this house has been here for many years and there are so many trees on this property that it would be hard to even see the deck being proposed. He said a lot of people were involved in the original 1970's decision and it is hard to overturn all of their work. He explained that front yards are sacred in Golden Valley so it is a big deal to approve front yard variance requests. Kisch said he is unsure if it would be best to approve this variance or have the applicant go back to the City Council to make the house legally non-conforming so any future additions won't have to go through this process. Nelson stated that the City Attorney and the City Council have recommended that the Board approve this request. Segelbaum stated that given the fact that the Board knows how staff and the City Council feel makes him be in favor of granting the variance request. Sell agreed and said he would rather see an up or down vote than sending the item back to the City Council. Kisch questioned what type of language would confine expansion only to the rear of the home, not to the sides or front. Sell suggested language allowing the hot tub to be built within the confines of said deck. McCarty said he would be in support of granting the variance as it is worded in the staff report. Segelbaum questioned if the rear of the house means straight back from the plane of the sides of the house or if it means straight back from the plane of the sides of the house outward and toward the side property lines. McCarty said he thinks that it would mean the plane of the sides of the house straight back toward the rear property line, not out toward the side property lines. Segelbaum said he is concerned about building in the side yards and that the language for "rear yard" is too ambiguous. He said he would be more comfortable with language stating that construction can take place behind the house as it exists today. McCarty asked if there is any possibility of this property being subdivided. Hogeboom said that the applicant has not indicated that they plan to subdivide the property but the property could potentially be subdivided if the existing house was removed. Nelson asked if the language proposed in the staff report would be clearer if the word "side" was taken out. Segelbaum said the words "directly behind the rear wall of the existing house" are clearer. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 24, 2008 Page 4 McCarty asked if the Board is approving a variance based on what was submitted to them from the City Council and staff or if they are approving a variance for the proposed deck or for any type of structure in the rear yard. Hogeboom clarified that the language submitted to the Board from the City Council and staff only gave the applicant the right to come to the Board of Zoning Appeals but the Board is deciding on whether or not to approve a variance to construct this specific deck. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Kisch and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance request: . 17 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 18 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of a deck on the rear of the home. The deck must be located behind the rear walls of the house and within the confines of the existing structure. 1845 Hampshire Lane (08-06-08) David & Mariorie Gardeen, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 7.66 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 7.34 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck on the rear of the home. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property. He stated that the applicants are in the process of remodeling their home. They are proposing to build a deck on the rear of the house that would be in line with the side plane of the house. He noted that the way the house was placed on the lot limits how the homeowners can expand. Jeremiah Battles, Acacia Architects, architect for the project, stated that the applicants recently purchased this home and they want to build a screen porch on the back corner of their home. He stated that when the survey was done they realized that the back corner of the house is already in the side yard setback area. He noted that the proposed new deck would not encroach any further into the side yard setback area than the existing home already does. He showed the Board pictures of the neighboring homes that have the same sort of porch and deck that they are proposing. Sell referred to the survey and asked if the applicants are proposing to build the deck around an existing tree. Battles stated that the tree Sell is referring to may have to be removed because it is close to the foundation. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 24, 2008 Page 5 Sell asked the applicant how long they have owned this home. David Gardeen, Applicant, stated that they closed on the house on May 1 and they are currently renting another home in Golden Valley while this house is being remodeled. McCarty said he thinks the proposal is a good idea but there are other ways to build a deck without requiring a variance. Segelbaum referred to the site plan and asked Battles to comment on the proposed deck adjacent to the "porch deck". Battles stated that initially they were going to build one large deck off of the screen porch but the house has an odd configuration and elevation and there is a side door leading no where. Sell asked when the house was built. Battles said the house was built in 1956. Marjorie Gardeen, Applicant, stated that both neighbors are ok with the proposal. Segelbaum asked the architect if he had considered having the edge of the porch deck end right at the 15-foot setback line. Battles stated that the porch deck wouldn't fit within the setback area because there would be a safety hazard. He explained that the porch deck is more of a landing or transition to the main deck. Hogeboom referred to a presentation given to the Board of Zoning Appeals a few months prior and reminded the Board that there are three things to consider when granting a variance. The first is the reasonable use of the property, the second is if there are unique circumstances with the property and the third is the impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Kisch said that given those things, he would support this proposal. Segelbaum stated that the lack of a deck is not a hardship. However the homeowners did not create the current situation so the situation is unique to these homeowners. He said it is a matter of the impact to the surrounding neighbors and he does not think this proposal has a negative impact to the surrounding neighbors so he is in favor of the proposal. Nelson said she thinks the proposal would add value and aesthetically improve this home. Sell said that since the proposed deck is keeping in line with the side of the house and does not encroach any closer to the side yard property line he is also in favor of the proposal. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance request: . 7.66 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 7.34 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line to allow for the construction of a deck on the rear of the home. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 24, 2008 Page 6 2310 Byrd Avenue North (08-06-09) Beau Farrell, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 16 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 19 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck on the side of the home Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and noted the area in which the applicant would like to construct a deck. He stated that the proposed deck would be located on the side of the home but in a front yard setback area. He stated that one of the hardships noted by the applicant is that there is no other way to expand this house due to the placement of the house on the lot. Segelbaum referred to the survey and asked about the distance from the house to the property line along Byrd Avenue. Beau Farrell stated that there is a deck on the front of the house and it is located approximately 35 feet from the property line along Byrd Avenue. Kisch noted that all of the houses along McNair Drive line up with each other and if this proposed deck is allowed it may stick out further toward McNair than the other houses. Farrell explained that the main reason he wants to build the proposed deck is for aesthetic and safety reasons because there is a sliding glass door on that side of his house that leads to no where. Sell asked how far off of the ground the proposed deck would be. Farrell said the deck would vary from approximately 1 to 3 feet in height. He added that during his research he discovered that his house used to have a McNair address but he is not sure why it was built so close to the north property line. Sell asked when the house was built. Farrell said the house was built in 1949. McCarty asked if there was a deck on the rear of the house. Farrell said yes and pointed out the location on the survey. Sell asked the applicant how long he has owned the property. Farrell said he has owned the property since 2004. McCarty asked if the existing deck in the back yard is useable. Farrell said it is useable but he wants to build the proposed new deck because he has the sliding glass door that goes no where. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 24, 2008 Page 7 Kisch asked which room in the house has the sliding glass door in it. Farrell said the sliding glass door is in the living/dining room area. Kisch asked if the proposed 16 ft. x 14 ft. deck size is relative to the function of the deck or if it could be made smaller. Farrell said the proposed deck could be smaller but without a variance it could only be five feet in depth. McCarty asked the applicant if he has considered building the deck from the sliding glass door side of the house and then wrapping it around toward the front of the house toward Byrd Avenue where there is more space. Ferrell stated that there is a tree in that location. McCarty asked the applicant if he is planning on replacing the deck on the front of the house. Farrell said he will probably need to replace it in a year or two. Segelbaum stated that putting the deck in the southwest corner of the house as McCarty suggested would only require approximately a 2-foot variance and asked Farrell if that would interest him. He added that the Board seems hesitant to grant such a large front yard variance request. Farrell stated that the gas meter is also located at the southwest corner of the house and with the way the topography of the land is laid out it makes more sense for him to build the deck as he has proposed it. Sell noted that the applicant could have the gas meter relocated. Segelbaum suggested that the Board table the request to allow the applicant to come back with a different proposal. Farrell questioned the Board's reasons to deny his request. Kisch stated that allowing this proposed deck would break the line up of all the houses and change the site pattern along McNair. He added that the applicant could replace the sliding glass doors with windows and that would solve any safety issues. Sell agreed that the houses all line up along McNair and that this proposed deck would stick out comparatively. Farrell questioned why front yards are so sacred and said he thinks the City would want properties to be upgraded. Segelbaum explained that there is a lot of precedent set regarding front yard setbacks and that the Board has to look hardships when approving variances. He added that this request is for a deck to be located in almost 50% of the front setback area and he doesn't really see a unique circumstance in this case. He again suggested that that applicant table his request and come back with an alternate design that would require a lesser variance. McCarty stated that another option would be to install steps off of the sliding glass doors and build a patio instead of a deck. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 24, 2008 Page 8 Farrell agreed that it would be best to table his request at this point in order to try to come up with an alternative that may not require any variances at all. Sell stated that the applicant can table his request until the September 2008 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. III. Other Business Sell reminded the Board Members of the Board/Commission appreciation dinner on June 25 at Brookview. IV. Adjournment The meeting was. adjourned at 8:45 pm. m~~ Mike Sell, Chair J~~~