Loading...
08-26-08 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 26,2008 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, August 26, 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 - July 22, 2008 MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve the July 22 minutes as submitted. II. The Petitions are: 1400 Rhode Island Ave. N. (08-08-11) FrankA. Manaro, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12(A)(2) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 14.8 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 20.2 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new garage. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12(A)(3) Rear Yard Setback Requirements ~.. 2 ft. off the required 5 ft. to a distance of 3 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new garage. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12(E) Accessory Structure Size Requirements . 75 sq. ft. more than the allowed 800 sq. ft. for anyone accessory structure for a total area of 875 sq. ft. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new garage. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 26, 2008 Page 2 Hogeboom referred to a survey ofthe property and explained that the applicant is proposing to tear down his existing garage in order to build a new garage. He stated that the proposed new garage needs variances from front and side yard setback requirements and also from accessory structure size requirements. He added that in 1997 five variances were granted to bring the existing home and garage into conformance and to allow for the construction of a 3-season porch. Segelbaum referred to the application and asked if there was three feet taken from this property when the streets were reconstructed as the applicant stated. Hogeboom said he didn't know and suggested they ask the applicant. Kisch asked if the existing garage fell under the pre-1982 regulations of the Zoning Code. Joe stated that the existing garage did receive variances to be located where it is. Frank Manaro, Applicant, stated that he is looking for more room to. park cars and the existing garage needs to be torn down because it is bad shape. He stated that when the City reconstructed his street he lost three feet from the length of his driveway so now the driveway is too short to park cars on. Sell noted that the proposed new garage is 25 feet deep and 35 feet wide. Kisch asked about the rationale for the 35-foot width of the proposed new garage. Manaro said he wants a third garage stall to be able to park two cars and have room for storage. Sell stated that variances have been granted in the past for the location of the existing garage so really the only new item is the size of the proposed new garage. He added that it seems strange to him to look differently at the location of the garage now. McCarty said he is ok with the location of the proposed new garage but he is uncomfortable granting a variance for an additional 75 square feet. He stated that if the garage is going to be rebuilt he would like to see it meet the 5-foot rear yard setback requirement. Manaro explained that it would be difficult to meet the 5-foot rear yard setback requirement because the curb cut is already in place and the neighbor has a nice fence along that property line so it would look bad to move the new garage over. Kisch suggested making the garage 24 feet deep and 32 feet wide in order to reduce the square footage of the garage. Segelbaum agreed and said he is guessing that the rest of the Board is most hesitant about the size of the proposed new garage. Manaro said he doesn't want to build something and then be disgusted with it. Segelbaum asked the applicant if he had to reduce the size of the new garage if he would rather reduce the width or the depth. Manaro said he'd rather reduce the depth but if the new garage is too small it is not worth it to him to build it. McCarty stated that technically right now the applicant has a two-car garage so there isn't really a hardship in this case. He said that if the new garage was 25 feet deep and 32 feet wide he would be happy and the new garage would still be bigger than the existing garage. Sell agreed that 25 feet by 32 feet would be adequate. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 26, 2008 Page 3 Kisch said he would be comfortable approving the first two variance requests and denying the third. Segelbaum suggested the Board require the new garage to meet the 5-foot rear yard setback, but he would be comfortable approving the first variance request regarding the front yard setback. Kisch said that requiring the new garage to meet the 5-foot rear yard setback would have a bigger impact on the property to the east because there is already a fence and landscaping in place. Sell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests: . 14.8 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 20.2 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a new garage. . 2 ft. off the required 5 ft. to a distance of 3 ft. at its closest point to the rear yard (east) property line to allow for the construction of a new garage. And to deny the following variance request: . 75 sq. ft. more than the allowed 800 sq. ft. for anyone accessory structure fora total area of 875 sq. ft. 6925 Medicine lake Road (08-08-12) Ronald and Vicki Rath, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 7.75 ft. off the required 22.75 ft. to a distance of 15 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (B) Height Requirements . 2.5 ft. higher than the allowed 28 ft. in height to a height of 30.5 ft. (south front elevation) Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 26,2008 Page 4 Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(d) Articulation Requirements . To allow the front wall (along Medicine Lake Rd.) with no articulation Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new home. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 4 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 31 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck on a new home. Hogeboom stated that the applicants are proposing to build a new home on a vacant lot at the corner of Medicine Lake Road and Sandburg Lane. He explained that this lot was part of a subdivision done a few years ago and that the house the applicants are planning to build met all of the zoning code requirements at that time. The applicants discovered that the zoning code requirements had significantly changed when they applied for a building permit. Hogeboom stated that if these current variance requests are granted it would basically allow the applicants to build their house using previous zoning code requirements before the "infill ordinance" was adopted. He added that one of the significant hardships in this case is the triangular shaped lot with essentially three front yards. McCarty referred to the variance regarding the height of the proposed new home and questioned if the previous zoning code allowed for 30 feet of height. Hogeboom said yes and stated that the requested variance is .5 feet higher than the previously allowed 30 feet. McCarty noted that the articulation requirements would not have been met under the previous zoning code requirements either because the previous code required walls to articulate when they reached 40 feet in length. Hogeboom reiterated that the shape of the lot is the hardship in this case. Segelbaum asked if the house would have had to have been built before the code changed to be considered legally non-conforming. Hogeboom said yes and stated that the applicant was following the regulations of the zoning code at the time. McCarty asked when the property was subdivided. Hogeboom said he wasn't sure. Nelson asked when the zoning code requirements changed. Hogeboom said the "infill ordinance" was adopted in March 2008. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 26, 2008 Page 5 Ronald Rath, Applicant, stated that the property was subdivided in the fall of 2004. He explained that at that time he showed the City Council preliminary drawings showing a 2- story house with no articulation in the front. He stated that at that time the only part of his proposed new house that would not have met the zoning code requirements was the deck along Sandburg Lane. He said he would be willing to build that deck differently in order to meet the current setback requirements. He stated that if he doesn't receive a variance from the side yard setback requirements the lot becomes virtually unbuildable because he would only be able to build a 900 square foot house which wouldn't be worth the money they paid for the lot. Nelson asked about the square footage of the proposed new home. Rath said there will be 1,400 square feet on the main floor, 900 square feet in the master suite above and 900 square feet below. He reiterated that the area he is proposing to build the house on is the only buildable part of the lot and that he did not pay $80,000 for the lot to build a rambler. He explained that the height of the proposed new house would be 28-30 feet if he didn't have to give up 5 feet required for the grading of the lot. He added that the new zoning code requirements just about destroy this property. Hogeboom noted that this property is bordered by light industrial properties so there won't be any homes to the rear of this proposed new house. Sell talked about the many ideas that have been proposed in the past for this corner. He commended the applicant for trying to build a house on this lot. Nelson said she understands the intent of the recently adopted zoning changes but this is certainly a unique lot and the proposed house is not enormous or oversized for this Jot. McCarty asked that applicant why he didn't build this house three years ago when the property was subdivided. Rath explained that the mortgage company folded and the amount of construction money available is down to three lenders in the state. McCarty said he feels ambivalent about this proposal. He said he is fine with the side yard setback variance request because the intent of the new zoning requirements was to avoid a "canyon" affect between houses and he doesn't see that as being an issue in this case. He added however that he doesn't believe that the house plans met the previous zoning code requirements either. Rath stated that every jog in a wall costs more to build, insure and heat and cool. He asked if the proposed deck along Sandburg Lane can be built to within 30 feet of the property because it is considered a front yard. Segelbaum said he thinks this lot has one front setback when considering an open front porch. He explained that the zoning code allows open front porches, not decks, to be located 30 feet from the front yard property line. 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 August 26, 2008 Page 6 Segelbaum said that he feels sympathetic for the applicant because he was caught in the middle of the zoning code changes. He said the house plans look nice but the City Council voted to change the zoning code requirements and he feels that granting these variance requests would go against the City Council's wishes. He said he would like the Council to review this proposal to see if this was their intent. Kisch said he feels fine granting the side yard variance request because this is such a unique lot and he needs the side yard variance to make this a buildable lot. He said he is also ok with the variance regarding articulation because the front porch breaks up the fac;ade of the front of the house and it is in line with the intent of the zoning code. He said that the height of the proposed new home is an issue for him and he thinks the height could be brought down a little bit. He added that the proposed house will fit in with the character of the neighborhood and noted that the next two homes on the same street are also 2-story walk-out style homes. McCarty said the Board can't look at the other homes in area because they were built before the new zoning requirements were adopted. Nelson stated that there are unique circumstances with this property. The proposal is keeping within the spirit of the zoning code and the proposed house won't substantially change the character of the neighborhood. She added that these are the things the Board is supposed to consider when granting variances. Sell stated that if this proposed house were being built between two existing houses he could see that there would be some concern but this lot is unique because of its shape and what is located around it. He said due to the many unique circumstances in this case he is in favor of granting the requested variances. He said he would also like these minutes and issues brought to the City Council's attention because maybe the new zoning code requirements need further review. Segelbaum asked Hogeboom which variances requested are needed as a result of the zoning code changes. Hogeboom said all of the requests except the one for the deck along Sandburg Lane are required as a result of the new zoning code changes. Nelson said she thinks it is important to be consistent when granting variances but this is such a unique circumstance that she doesn't think it will establish any type of precedent. Segelbaum agreed that granting the requested variances wouldn't set a precedent but he reiterated that he is not comfortable going against the zoning code requirements that were just recently adopted by the City Council. He said he would oppose the first three variance requests but he would be in favor of granting the fourth request. He said he thinks the City Council needs to see this request and make the decision. Sell said that the City Council doesn't tend to overrule the Board of Zoning Appeals or go against the Board's decisions. He said he thinks a split vote would be better than a denial in this case. Hogeboom offered to write a report to the City Council regarding the issues in this case. McCarty said he would like to vote on the variance requests individually. The Board agreed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 26, 2008 Page 7 MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Kisch and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the request for 7.75 ft. off the required 22.75 ft. to a distance of 15 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line to allow for the construction of a new home. Segelbaum voted no. MOVED by Nelson to approve the request for 2.5 ft. higher than the allowed 28 ft. in height to a height of 30.5 ft. (south front elevation) to allow for the construction of a new home, the motion died due to the lack of a second. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Kisch and motion carried 3 to 2 to deny the request for 2.5 ft. higher than the allowed 28 ft. in height to a height of 30.5 ft. (south front elevation) to allow for the construction of a new home. Nelson and Sell voted no. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Nelson and motion carried 3 to 2 to approve the request to allow the front wall (along Medicine Lake Rd.) with no articulation to allow for the construction of a new home. McCarty and Segelbaum voted no. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the request for 4 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 31 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a deck on a new home. Rath stated that he has a very unique lot. He stated that is the job of the Board to make these types of decisions, not to pass them on to the City Council to review them. He said with the decisions the Board just made they've basically said that he can't build his house this year. He reiterated that he has to start measuring his lot five feet underground because the Code says elevations have to be taken on both street sides. 117 Meadow Lane South (08-08-13) Wooden Dreams, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 9.16 ft. off the required 15.5 ft. to a distance of 6.34 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of garage/home addition. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and stated that the applicant is proposing to enlarge the existing one-stall garage into a two-stall garage with living space above. He stated that the hardship noted by the applicant is the one-stall garage. He referred to the recent changes to the zoning code requirements and stated that the side yard setback requirement in this case is 15.5 feet. The applicant is proposing to build the addition to within 6.34 feet of the side yard (north) property line. McCarty asked what the height of the addition would be if measured to the fascia. Hogeboom said he didn't know and explained that if the proposed height were fifteen feet or less in height the side yard setback requirement would be 12.5 feet for this property. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August26,2008 Page 8 Sell asked how big the proposed new garage will be. Kisch noted that the proposed new garage will be 25 feet wide and 26 feet deep. Howard Theis, Wooden Dreams, Contractor for the project, explained that there are stairs going into the garage and that is part of the reason they have to build further toward the front of the lot. Segelbaum asked the applicant if he has considered reducing the width of the proposed garage. Theis said no because the need room to get two cars and the stairs in the garage. Sell noted that the garage depth in effect would be 22 feet deep when considering the stairs. Theis agreed and added that there is also a grade change and a retaining wall on the right side of the garage. McCarty asked if the zoning code hadn't recently changed if the variance request would be for 6.16 feet off of the required 12.5 feet. Hogeboom said that is correct. Theis added that a typical two-stall garage is 24 feet wide. Kisch noted that the other homes/garages in the neighborhood seem to be approximately 14 feet away from the side yard property lines so this proposal is quite a bit closer to the property line than others in the area. Segelbaum agreed that 6 feet away from the property line is fairly close and that is why he was wondering if the width of the proposed addition could be made smaller. McCarty asked the applicant if he would agree to build a 24-foot wide addition instead of the proposed 25-foot wide addition. Theis stated that he thought a 24-foot wide garage would still be functional. Kisch stated that given the location of the existing house he thinks this proposal is respectful of the neighboring properties. He noted that the stairwell is causing the addition to jog and to have two garage doors therefore requiring slightly more width. Dennis Dahlman, Homeowner, stated that he spoke with the neighbor to the north who would be the most impacted by this addition and she is ok with it. Nelson stated that in this neighborhood a 2-car garage is appropriate and will improve the value of the property. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance for 8.16 ft. off the required 15.5 ft. to a distance of 7.34 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of garage/home addition. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 26, 2008 Page 9 ~~-- Mike Sell, Chair }--~~'- Jog Hogeboom, taff Liaison