Loading...
10-28-08 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 28, 2008 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, October 28,2008 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 - September 25, 2008 MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Kisch and motioned carried unanimously to approve the September 25 minutes as submitted. II. The Petitions are: Continued Item... 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. Hogeboom reminded the Board that this proposal was tabled at last month's meeting in order to allow the applicant time to provide proof of the location of the previously existing driveway. Hogeboom stated that staff has reviewed the photos submitted by the applicant and has determined that the edge of the driveway shown in the photos is landscape rock and not the edge of the previously existing driveway. Therefore, if the applicant wants to expand the driveway all the way to the property line he still requires a variance. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 28, 2008 Page 2 Hogeboom added that the variance request listed above regarding the proposed deck was removed from last month's agenda but is back on this agenda per the applicant's request. McCarty asked Hogeboom to discuss the recent Planning Commission discussion regarding setbacks for patios and other paved surfaces. Hogeboom explained that Golden Valley currently has no setback requirements for patios. He stated that he researched surrounding city's requirements and most of the cities he spoke with require a 5-foot setback for patios. He said at this point staff and the Planning Commission are considering requiring a 3-foot setback for patios because it would be consistent with the driveway setback requirements. Segelbaum asked if a new driveway could be reconstructed in the same location as the previously existing driveway. Hogeboom stated that any part of the previously existing driveway that was paved can be replaced in the exact same location. Segelbaum asked if the City has received an updated survey of the property. Hogeboom explained that the City would not require a survey in order to allow the applicant to replace the previously existing driveway in the same location. However, he has suggested to the applicant that it would be in his best interest to get a new survey because there has been some discrepancy regarding the exact location of the previous driveway. Marlin Henrikson, Applicant, said he misunderstood the Board's request regarding obtaining a new survey. He showed the Board several pictures in order to demonstrate where the previous driveway was located. He stated that the area in question used to be blacktop but it had disintegrated so much that he put rock there to help with drainage issues. He stated that he also wants to place a curb along the edge of the driveway to help with the run-off from his driveway. Kisch said it is difficult to understand the distance of the driveway shown in the pictures in relation to the survey. Sell agreed that the pictures show landscape rock but it is hard to tell where the edge of the driveway is located. Hogeboom stated that the survey shows that the existing driveway is located two feet away from the property line and reiterated that if he wants to replace the previously existing driveway he can, but without a variance the 3 ft. x 11 ft. new driveway area in question must be located 3 feet away from the property line. Henrikson stated that the top portion of the previously existing driveway was located approximately 6 inches away from the property line and then it tapered away from the property line approximately 2 feet. Hogeboom reiterated that the survey is the only proof the City has right now regarding the location of the previously existing driveway and it shows that it was 2 feet away from the property line. Kisch referred to the proposed new deck addition and asked the applicant if the dimensions of the deck are 12 ft. x 5 ft. Henrikson said yes. He referred to a picture of the previous deck location and stated that he would like to have a one level deck as opposed Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 28, 2008 Page 3 to the previous two smaller levels. He stated that the previous deck was 4 feet in width and he would like to build the new deck 5 feet in width in order to make it easier to move things in and out of the house. Kisch stated that an 8 ft. x 5 ft. deck might also work. Henrikson stated that there would be approximately 6 feet of deck space on one side of the door and 3 feet of deck space on the other side of the door. McCarty stated that he wasn't sure if the applicant really needs 3 feet of deck space behind the screen door especially since at last month's meeting he was willing to consider building a 25 square foot landing area instead of deck. Hogeboom said it was his misunderstanding that the applicant would be willing to build a 25 square foot landing area. Henrikson said a 5 ft. x 5 ft. landing area would only give him 1 foot of space on either side of the door. Kisch asked if 25 square feet would be considered a landing area and could be built within the setback area but if anything larger would be considered a deck and would have to meet the setback requirements. Hogeboom said that is correct. He added that when he originally looked at the applicant's proposal he thought a 25 square foot landing would work. Kisch asked the applicant if he would be willing to compromise on the size of the deck. Henrikson said he would rather remove some of the deck to the right side (east) of the door. Sell asked the applicant if he is proposing stairs leading from the deck to the back yard. Henrikson said yes. Sell asked the applicant if he is proposing to move his shed. He stated that the shed shown in the pictures is his neighbor's shed, but that he is proposing to move his shed to a conforming location next summer. Segelbaum referred to the driveway issue and said he would like to see an outline with dimensions of the paved area written on the survey. Kisch agreed and stated that if the variance is denied the applicant will still be able to build a new driveway in the same location as the previously existing driveway. Henrikson asked if he could pave the areas of the driveway/patio area that are not in question. Sell said yes and reiterated that he can pave a new driveway in the same footprint as the previously existing driveway. Sell opened the public hearing. Ginger Dunlap, 1720 Mendelssohn Avenue North, said she doesn't care if the applicant replaces the previously existing driveway in the exact same place. She just wants the driveway of the 8 ft. x 11 ft. area in question to be located 3 feet away from the property line because it is right outside her dining room. She stated that there is no hardship in this case and the applicant has not proven where the previously existing driveway was located.' Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 28, 2008 Page 4 Dunlap asked if the applicant installs gravel in the 3 feet setback area if he will be able to park on it. Hogeboom explained that the applicant is allowed to drive over any gravel area, but he will not be allowed to park on it. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing. McCarty asked if the pavement has changed since they heard last month's proposal. Hogeboom said nothing has changed with this property since last month's meeting. Kisch said he would support the variance request regarding the deck because if it were considered to be a landing rather than a deck it could still be 5 feet in width. Nelson agreed and said she was concerned about the width of the proposed deck more than the length. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance for 3 ft. off the required 12 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a new deck. McCarty suggested the Board make it clear that they are approving a 12 ft. long x 5 ft. wide deck. The Board ag reed. Segelbaum referred to the variance regarding the driveway and stated that he doesn't see the necessary hardship in this case. He said he hoped to see a new survey that clearly showed where the previous driveway was located. McCarty noted that at last month's meeting there was discussion about calling a portion of this proposal a patio. He asked if that patio portion is still being proposed. Hogeboom said yes, part of the proposal is a patio but the applicant will not be allowed to park on it. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Kisch and motion carried unanimously 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 a new driveway. 1520 Toledo Avenue North (08-10-15) Donna Nelson, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 1.6 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 33.4 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage. Hogeboom stated that the applicant currently has a 1-stall garage. He explained that it is the applicant's intent to tear down the existing garage and build a new 2-stall garage in its Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 28,2008 Page 5 place. He referred to a survey of the property and noted that the existing garage was built 1.6 feet into the front yard setback area. He stated that moving the garage to a conforming location further back on the lot would cover up an existing window and there is also a significant slope in the rear yard which would make it difficult to build the garage any further back on the lot. He stated that staff believes this is a reasonable request and is in support of this proposal. Donna Nelson, Applicant, showed the Board pictures of her existing garage and explained how moving the garage further back on the lot would block an existing window. Board Member Nelson asked if the proposed new garage will follow the same plane along the front as the existing garage. Donna Nelson said yes. Segelbaum asked if the stoop area on the back of the existing garage is being removed. Donna Nelson said yes. She explained that there will be an 8 ft. x 12 ft. porch area in its place and in the future she would like to build a mud/room laundry area above the porch. Sell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing. Segelbaum said he thinks this is a reasonable request and he appreciated the fact that the applicant is conforming to the side yard setback requirements. He added that other homes in area also seem to encroach into the front yard setback area. Kisch said that given the fact that the existing garage encroaches 1.6 feet into the front yard setback area and that the proposed new garage will too, he is inclined to support this request because it maintains the integrity of the building. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 1.6 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 33.4 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (west) property line to allow for the construction of a garage. 6736 Glenwood Avenue (08-10-16) Jake & Kelly Schetnan. Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 10ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition. Hogeboom explained that the applicant is proposing to remove an existing carport and replace it with a second garage stall. He stated that staff supports this request. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 28, 2008 Page 6 Kelly Schetnan, Applicant, stated that the recent hail storm has speeded up the process of her needing to upgrade the existing carport/garage. She added that the carport does not have a door so it is not feasible to store anything in it so she would like to add a second garage stall. . Segelbaum asked how much bigger the proposed new garage stall will be compared to the carport. Schetnan said the new garage stall will be approximately 3 to 4 feet wider than the carport. She added that the neighbor most impacted by this proposal is in favor of the project. Sell asked if the existing carport is located 5 feet away from the property line. Schetnan said no, but they would like to build the new garage 5 feet from the property line. Kisch asked the applicant if she intends to keep the existing garage. Schetnan said yes. Sell questioned the size of the proposed new garage stall. He suggested the new garage be 10 feet in width instead of the proposed 11 feet. Kisch stated that the width of the proposed new garage has to do with the header and the size of the garage door. Sell asked the applicant why she isn't proposing to remove the interior wall between the two garage stalls. Schetnan said it was too expensive to remove the wall. McCarty explained that the Board is not supposed to consider economic hardships but in this case, he is in support of this proposal in order to get a second garage stall. Nelson agreed and added that the new garage will aesthetically improve this house and it won't impact the neighboring properties. Segelbaum agreed. Sell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the request for 10ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (west) property line to allow for the construction of a garage addition. III. Other Business Discussion on variance standards - City Attorney Allen Barnard Barnard discussed legislation changes regarding the reasonable use of property. He . stated that since the new legislation the Board of Zoning Appeals has a lot of discretion and can consider the reasonable use, unique circumstances and impact on surroundings when hearing variance proposals. He added that if Golden Valley's laws are more restrictive than state statutes then Golden Valley's laws have to be ignored. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 28, 2008 Page 7 McCarty asked at what point the Board can say no and at what point a house is considered excessive. Barnard discussed the tests to determine reasonableness including unique conditions and the impact to surrounding properties. Segelbaum added that all three things: reasonable use, unique circumstances and impact on surroundings must be considered together. McCarty asked Barnard if he thinks the Board is being too strict. Barnard stated that it is not the Board's job to deny variance requests it's their job to figure out what is reasonable and best. Kisch stated that he also looks at the intent of the Code and questioned setting precedent. Barnard suggested that the minutes show findings and reasons for variances being granted. Segelbaum questioned if the Board is approving a specific plan when they approve a variance or if the approval is just a blanket approval. Barnard suggested that the minutes indicate what is being approved. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 pm. ~ 'iJ--- ~. Chuck Segelbaum, Vice Chair