Loading...
09-25-08 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Thursday, September 25,2008 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 - August 26, 2008 MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve the August 26 minutes as submitted. II. The Petitions are: 6400 Hampshire Place North (08-09-14) Kayle Vick, Thomas Renovations, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 8 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 27 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage. Hogeboom stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a garage. Currently, there is no garage on the property. He referred to a survey of the property and noted that the proposed new garage is placed on an angle or askew to the property lines. The reason for the angular placement according to the applicant is that this is a corner lot and angling the garage as proposed will help mitigate the traffic noise from Douglas Drive. Hogeboom stated that this variance request is supported by staff and discussed the Douglas Drive corridor study currently underway. He added that placing the garage as proposed will also help shield the view from the house to any potential future sidewalk along Douglas Drive. McCarty asked if there is already an existing sidewalk along Douglas Drive. Hogeboom said yes but explained that it will probably need to be widened in the future in order to meet ADA requirements. Segelbaum asked if the fact that this property is a corner lot is considered to be a hardship. Hogeboom stated that there is also some vegetation that the applicant is trying to preserve but the main hardship noted is the noise from traffic along Douglas Drive. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 2 Segelbaum asked if there is any information published yet regarding the Douglas Drive corridor study. Hogeboom stated that the Douglas Drive corridor study began in July of 2008 and there is nothing published yet, but staff is expecting there to be recommendations made by January of 2009. McCarty commended the home owner for improving this property. He said he understands the reasons for proposing to construct the garage at an angle but he is concerned because there is enough room on this property to do this project without the need for a variance. He suggested building a garage that would be in line with the front of the house or even pushed back slightly toward the rear property line. Don Weld, owner of the property, explained that there is not enough room to move the proposed garage back on the lot because there is a slope in the rear yard. McCarty noted that the proposed garage is also wider than a typical two-car garage. Weld stated that there are also large trees that would have to be removed if he didn't build the garage at an angle. He added that he also doesn't want to build the garage in line with the house because the house and garage would then be approximately 80 feet in length and it would look like a hotel. Segelbaum questioned if building the proposed garage at an angle would really create a sound barrier. Weld said that angling the garage creates more privacy and will help with the noise issues. Segelbaum questioned where the new driveway would be located. Weld referred to the survey of the property and pointed out where the driveway would be located. McCarty reiterated that the garage could be built in line with the house or even pulled slightly forward right to the front setback line and the applicant would get the same sound mitigation. Weld discussed the location of a doorway that would connect the house to the proposed new garage. He stated that they have considered alternate locations for the garage but the way they are proposing it is what they really prefer and is what they think will work best. Nelson said she is sensitive to the applicant's noted hardships. She said she thinks the property will be aesthetically better and more valuable with an attached garage angled away from Douglas Drive. Kisch questioned if the angle of the proposed garage could be minimized slightly which would require a lesser variance. He questioned if the proposed angle is really optimal for mitigating sound or if the angle is more for visual impact. Weld noted that there is only one tree on the entire corner and does not want to remove it. McCarty said he likes the proposed design but he is having difficulty finding a true hardship. He stated that planting trees and bushes would absorb sound better than any garage. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25,2008 Page 3 Sell questioned why the proposed garage is 30 feet in width and suggested it be made 28 feet in width instead. Weld said he would like to have a little bit of room on the sides of the garage for storage. Sell asked the applicant if the rear yard is wet. Weld said he has not any problems with water. Segelbaum asked the applicant what he thinks the disadvantages would be to building the garage in line with the house rather than at an angle. Weld said that a tree would have to be removed and building the garage in line with the house would look terrible because the house and garage would be almost 80 feet in length. Nelson asked Hogeboom to discuss why staff is supporting this variance request. Hogeboom stated that one reason staff is supporting this request is because the multi- family units and rental homes along Douglas Drive are increasing in disrepair. He explained that this property was previously considered a non-compliant rental home so creating a separation from Douglas Drive with this proposed garage would be a major improvement on a long term basis. Sell suggested allowing the proposed garage to be angled but as a compromise allowing a variance of 5 feet off the required 35 feet instead of the requested 8 feet off the 35 feet. He stated that allowing 5 feet off the front yard requirement would be similar to the setback requirements for a front porch addition. He said he agreed with the applicant that adding a garage in line with the house would be 80 feet in length and it would look too long. He added that constructing a detached garage to the side of the house would look like a separate building so he thinks allowing a smaller, angled, attached garage would be a good compromise. Nelson agreed with Sell and added that because it is a corner lot on Douglas Drive and it would not impact any houses around it, she is in support of a variance to allow the garage to be built. Segelbaum stated that if the other houses in the area are in alignment and this proposed garage comes further forward then it does impact the neighboring houses. Hogeboom stated that in preliminary conversations with Hennepin County they have indicated that they would like to close off access to Douglas Drive from several residential streets. With this in mind, Hampshire Place could potentially one day become a cul-de- sac. McCarty stated that it is hard to see around this corner now and that if this proposed garage is built it might make visibility worse. Sell stated that if trees were planted on this corner as suggested, it would add to the visibility issues too. Sell opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no one wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 4 McCarty said he would like to support this proposal but he is not seeing the hardship with the property because the applicant can still build a really nice garage without needing variances. Kisch stated that he is having a hard time approving this request based on the Douglas Drive corridor study, when that study isn't done yet. He said given the uniqueness of the site and the slope he can see a benefit to angling the garage slightly, but he thinks that angle can be minimized. He said he would support a variance of 5 feet or less and added that he realizes trees aren't a hardship but anytime they can be saved it is good and he would like to see a compromise in this case. Segelbaum said he is in favor of people improving their properties but he is having difficulties finding a hardship in this case. He asked if reducing the requested variance to allow 5 feet off of the required 35 feet would mean that the applicant would have to angle the garage less or make it narrower. Sell stated that he would have to do one or the other or maybe both if the variance request is reduced. Kisch agreed and stated that the overall impact would be lessened if a smaller variance is approved. Segelbaum asked for help in defining the hardship. Kisch discussed the slope off the back of the property and the amount of shoring that would need to be done if the garage were to be moved further back on the property. Nelson agreed that the slope off the back of this property makes building a garage problematic. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Kisch and motion carried 3 to 2 to approve a variance for 5 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a garage. Members McCarty and Segelbaum voted no. 1300 Kelly Drive (08-09-15) Brent Behn, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 3 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 12 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction (replacement) of a new deck. Hogeboom explained the applicant's request to replace his existing deck. The hardship noted by the applicant is the topography and odd shape of the lot. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and noted that the east property line jogs in approximately 15 feet in the area of the proposed deck which is creating the need for a variance. He added that because of the jog in the property line staff is supporting this variance request. Sell asked about the dimensions of the proposed new deck. Brent Behn, Applicant, explained that the deck will have two tiers. The first level is 8 feet deep and 12 feet wide Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 5 which is as large as he can build it because of the existing location of egress windows. He added that this proposed new deck will be much safer and much more appealing than the existing deck. He discussed the shape of the lot and reiterated that the jog in the east property line is why he needs to request a variance. Kisch asked about the size ofthe deck's second level. Behn referred to a drawing of the proposed deck and stated that the second level will be 12 feet deep and 16 feet wide. He noted that there would also be a step leading down to the second level. Sell asked the applicant how long he has lived in this house. Behn said he's lived in this house for 10 years. Nelson asked about the dimensions of the existing deck. Behn said the existing deck is approximately 12 feet by 17 feet in size and has been there approximately 35 years. Segelbaum asked how much further the new deck will extend toward the east compared to the existing deck. Behn said it would extend approximately 3 feet further toward the east than the existing deck. Kisch asked how far above grade the east end of the new deck would be. Behn said it would be approximately 18 to 24 inches above grade. Segelbaum asked the applicant if he has considered extending the larger deck level out 9 feet instead of the proposed 12 feet. Behn said he considered that but then the deck would be 12 feet by 16 feet in size and it would not be very usable. Kisch asked the applicant if he has considered replacing the existing deck as it was, all on one plane. Behn said his proposed new deck will be much more pleasing and will follow the grade of the lot. He added that it will also improve the property without causing an impact to the neighboring properties. McCarty asked the applicant if he would consider building a one level deck right up to the setback line. Behn said he would prefer not to because what he is proposing is much more appealing and will be more usable. He said he wants the deck to look nice and improve the curb appeal of his house. McCarty stated that the applicant could get the same square footage by building the deck 8 feet out along the length of the house rather than going so far out from the house with a two level deck. Behn said if he built the deck that way it would be too long and narrow. Kisch asked the applicant if he had considered building the first level of the deck then having a couple of steps leading down to an on-grade patio rather than to another deck. Behn explained that this proposal is phase one of his plans. He would like to level the grade a bit and add on to the house in the future so he doesn't want to build a deck further to the north. McCarty noted that the Board can't grant variances based on future plans. Behn said he thinks his plans fit in with the intent and spirit of the zoning code and have no impact on any neighbors. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 6 Sell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing. McCarty said he can see other ways for the applicant to build a deck without needing a variance. Segelbaum said he is somewhat persuaded by adding a level of safety by lowering the deck down. He said he understands that the applicant would like more usable space but that is not a tremendous hardship. He said he would prefer to grant a lesser variance because he can see the advantage to lowering this deck. Kisch stated that the grade is more of constraint in this case. He agreed that it is a safety issue to lower this deck and he can see the benefit of the proposed deck design. Nelson agreed that the grade in this case is a hardship and the applicant is not asking for a huge variance. She said she is inclined to support this proposal because it is a side yard and not a front yard. Sell agreed and noted that if the east property line were straight this deck would not even be an issue. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Nelson and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve a variance request for 3 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 12 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line to allow for the construction (replacement) of a new deck. Member McCarty voted no. 1800 Mendelssohn Avenue North (08-09-16) Marlin Henrikson. Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 19 Driveway Setback Requirements . 3 ft. off the required 3 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new driveway. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(c) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 3 ft. off the required 12 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new deck. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 7 Hogeboom stated that the variance request listed above regarding the construction of a new deck should be removed from this agenda. He explained that the proposed new "deck" is really considered to be a landing and that 25 square feet of stairs and landings can be located within a setback area. He stated that the applicant has agreed to work within the parameters of the zoning code regarding the construction of the new stairs and landing without requiring a variance. Hogeboom referred to the variance request regarding the construction of a new driveway and explained that the applicant is asking for a variance from the driveway setback requirements in order to construct a new driveway right up to the south property line. He noted that a portion of the applicant's proposal involves constructing a patio and there has been concern by staff and neighbors that this proposed patio area will be used as a driveway and not as a patio. Hogeboom stated that the applicant has been made aware that cars will not be allowed to be parked on the patio. McCarty asked about the reasoning behind the zoning code amendment in 2005 regarding driveways. Hogeboom said the language regarding driveways was added to the code in 2005 in order to require that driveways be paved (not gravel) and that they aren't paved right up to the property line. Segelbaum asked if it would be appropriate to add a condition of approval saying that the proposed patio could not be used as a driveway. Hogeboom stated that the City can not restrict a homeowner from driving over a patio and the code already addresses the issue of parking on patios. Marlin Henrikson, Applicant, explained that his existing driveway comes to within approximately 1 foot of the south property line. He said that he is proposing to build a new driveway that goes right to the property line because he doesn't have a flat spot to park on. He added that he has a disabled relative that visits so it would also help to have a flat spot so she can get in and out of her car. He referred to the proposed attached patio and stated that cars will not be parked on it. He added that he is also proposing to build a retaining wall and fence so the area will be safer for the neighbor to the south. Sell asked the applicant if he is intending on keeping the existing tree that is located approximately in front of the driveway. Henrikson said he would like to keep the tree because it shades and cools the house. Kisch referred to the survey and noted that there is 14 feet between the applicant's garage and the property line and questioned how a flat spot would be created and how usable the driveway would be if the tree remains. Segelbaum said he assumed if the tree were removed then there would be a flat parking area on the driveway. Henrikson referred to photos of his property and discussed the location of the driveway and fence. McCarty said it appears that the tree would be in the way of the proposed new stairs. Segelbaum asked how close the existing driveway is to the property line. Henrikson said the existing driveway is approximately 1 foot away from the property line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 8 Nelson referred to the survey and asked if the area in question was paved at any time in the past. Henrikson said yes the area was paved but it was in really bad shape so he removed the pavement. McCarty said he thinks it would look cleaner to have the entire driveway follow the same line instead of having part of the driveway a foot or two away and then having another part of the driveway right on the property line. The other board members agreed. Henrikson said he intends to install a curb along the edge of the proposed new driveway to help direct water away from the neighboring property to the south. Hogeboom explained that in order for the applicant to replace his existing driveway in the exact same location the applicant would need to prove where the original driveway was located before it was removed. He noted that the as-built survey shows that the existing driveway is 2 located feet away from the property line. Sell opened the public hearing. Ginger Dunlap, 1720 Mendelssohn Avenue North, asked the Board to deny the variance request. She said she has a right to have a 3-foot setback from the property line for the proposed driveway. She noted that the applicant could have a flat driveway if he removed the tree that has been discussed. She added that there is no hardship in this case and that the existing driveway has never been "blacktop". She referred to several pictures and stated that the proposed driveway will be a safety hazard and that her family has the right to breathe clean air and they won't be able to if cars are parked that close to her door. She referred to the staff report regarding this variance request and said the proposed patio area will be used to park cars on and that the applicant is just calling it a patio so he can build it right to the property line but she knows the entire thing will really be a driveway. She stated that the applicant started the work on his property without talking to the City or to her and that he removed the existing staircase and buried the debris in his front yard. She said he is doing this work with no regard to her even after she told him that his new driveway had to be set back 3 feet from the property line. She said she has tried to talk to the applicant several times about his plans but it is futile because he is going to do whatever he wants to do. She said she caught him in his yard with a metal detector and shovel trying to put in new metal stakes. She referred to the survey and noted that the applicants existing retaining wall and fence are located completely on her property and he has dug holes 5 to 6 inches into her yard. She said the applicant has "skirted" around the code requirements and she wants this variance denied. McCarty referred to the existing retaining wall and fence and asked if the applicant is the person who installed them. Dunlap said the applicant installed the wall and fence before she moved into her house. Paul Grandbois, 1720 Mendelssohn Avenue North, asked the Board to deny the variance request because there is no hardship. He reiterated that there would be a flat spot to park on the driveway if the existing tree were removed. He showed the Board pictures indicating how much room there would be to park if the tree was removed. He stated that the applicant started this project with no permits, variances or plans. He stated that the Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 9 applicant told him that he was going to build a driveway leading to his backyard and that should be able to be done with enough room to follow the setback requirements. He said the only thing that has changed regarding the applicant's plan from the beginning is that he is now calling part of the driveway a patio. He said he knows that this "patio" is really going to be a driveway and asked that it be required to be set back 3 feet from the property line. Sell asked if there is a previous survey on file that would show where the driveway was originally located. Hogeboom stated that there are no other surveys in the City's files. Nelson clarified that because there is no proof of the location of the driveway that used to be on the property the applicant can't replace it with a new driveway in the same location. Hogeboom said that is correct. Segelbaum asked about the definition of a patio versus a driveway. Hogeboom said the zoning code doesn't define a driveway so staff uses the dictionary definition. He noted that when he first spoke with the applicant he was referring the project as a driveway, not part driveway and part patio. Kisch asked if the proposed deck would be located the required 15 feet away from the side yard property line. Hogeboom stated that he erred in calling the landing area a deck and that is why he is removing it from the agenda. He reiterated that the applicant should be able to build a landing within the 25 square feet allowed. Segelbaum said he is also concerned about the location of the applicant's shed. Hogeboom said the applicant's shed does conform to the zoning code requirements. Sell noted that the shed on the neighboring property to the south is only 6 inches away from the property line. Dunlap said she would be willing move her shed. Henrikson said he realizes that his retaining wall and fence are located Ms. Dunlap's property and he intends to move them back onto his property next summer. Grandbois, referred to the survey and reiterated that there is 14 feet between the applicant's house and the property line. He stated that the applicant's plans show that everything is 6 inches over the property line or he wants everything to be right on the property line. He said he wants to make sure that everything is located on the applicant's side of the property line. Kisch said he is still uncertain about where the previous driveway was located. He said if there was proof of where the driveway used to be located he would feel more comfortable allowing the new driveway to be built in the same location. Otherwise, he would like to see the driveway built 3 feet away from the property line. Nelson agreed that without proof of the previous driveway location the applicant should keep the driveway 3 feet away from the property line. Kisch referred to the concerns about the patio really being used as a driveway and said that it is hard for the Board to say what the applicant's intent is regarding the use of the patio. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 10 Segelbaum asked if the Board has the authority to require that the driveway and patio be separated. Hogeboom said the City cannot limit access to a backyard. McCarty asked what the Code says about driving over a patio. Hogeboom said a patio can be driven over but cars can't be parked on it. MOVED by Segelbaum to deny the variance request for 3 ft. off the required 3 ft. to a distance of 0 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of new driveway. The motion died due to the lack of a second. Kisch suggested tabling the applicant's request to allow him time to provide proof of the original driveway's location. Hogeboom noted that the City does not have any proof on file of the original driveway location. Henrikson said he has proof of where the original driveway was located and he would be willing to have his request tabled. Dunlap asked if the applicant comes to the City with a picture of a pile of rocks if that would be considered proof of the driveway location. Hogeboom stated that the Director of Planning and Development will look at what the applicant submits and make a decision. He added that he thinks it will be hard for the applicant to prove where the previous driveway was without having an old survey. Kisch said he wants to give the applicant a chance to prove the location of the previous driveway. He stated that he thinks no more work should be done by the applicant until the City has the proof that has been requested. Dunlap said the work the applicant has done so far looks horrible. Nelson explained that the Board has to go by what the zoning code requires and not by how things look. Kisch stated that if it turns out there is no proof of the previous driveway's location then he thinks the Board will agree to deny the variance requested. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to table the variance request (per the applicant's request) for 3 ft. off the required 3 ft. to a distance of o ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of new driveway. The applicant has until the October 2008 Board of Zoning Appeals to prove to the City the location of the previously existing driveway. III. Other Business 2310 Byrd Avenue North - Continued (tabled) Item Hogeboom reminded the Board that the property owner at 2310 Byrd Avenue North came before them at their June 24, 2008 meeting requesting a variance to build a deck. At that meeting that Board tabled the applicant's request to the September meeting in order for him to come back to the Board after he had time to consider alternative designs for his proposed deck. He stated that the applicant has not proposed any alternative designs so staff is therefore asking that the Board officially deny this variance request. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 25, 2008 Page 11 MOVED by Nelson, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to deny the applicant's request for 16 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 19 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line to allow for the construction of a deck on the side of the home. IV. Adjournment , The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 pm. Mike Sell, Chair ~7kq~ Jd6 Hogeboom, Staff Liaison ~ IJdL