Loading...
12-23-08 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 23, 2008 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, December 23,2008 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 - October 28, 2008 MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve the October 28,2008 minutes as submitted. II. The Petitions are: 1816 York Avenue North (08-12-17) Tom & IIse Clark, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 3 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 32 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (southeast) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition with a sunroom above. Hogeboom stated that the applicants are proposing to convert their existing one stall garage to living space with a sunroom above. He noted that the proposed new addition will not extend any further toward the front yard property line than portions of the existing home already do. He added that the applicants are also proposing to construct a two-stall, detached garage in the rear yard that will meet all of the zoning code requirements. He stated that staff is in support of this request due the lack of a second garage stall. Sell referred to the survey of the property and noted that the variance request should be amended to read 4.41' off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30.59 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line rather than the 32 ft. written on the agenda. Hogeboom and the rest of the Board Members agreed. Segelbaum referred to the survey of the property and questioned the distance from the corner of the proposed new addition to the side yard property line and if there will be enough room for a new driveway. Kisch noted that there is approximately 16 feet of width to accommodate a new driveway. Hogeboom stated that he has been working with the applicants to make sure they understand the requirements for the proposed new driveway and two-stall garage. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 23, 2008 Page 2 Kisch expressed concern about the proposed new garage requiring variances in the future. Hogeboom reiterated that he is confident that the applicants understand all the requirements they will have to meet when they build the proposed new two-stall garage. Kisch noted that since the proposed new garage is detached it is allowed to be located 5 feet away from the rear and side yard property lines. Hogeboom agreed and added that if the garage were attached to the house it would have to follow the same requirements as the principal structure. Tom Clark, Applicant, stated that they currently have a one-stall tuck under garage and their plan is to extend the footprint of that garage closer to the front yard property line (even with the front of the existing house) and convert it to living space. He explained that they have had severe water issues in their existing garage and that this proposal will fix those issues. Sell asked about the grading of the lot to accommodate the proposed new addition and garage. Clark explained that they will be grading the lot and landscaping the property to help the water flow out to the street. Sell asked the applicants how long they have lived in their house. Clark said 10 years. McCarty asked if the existing driveway and retaining walls will all be removed. Clark said yes. Sell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing. Segelbaum asked the applicants if they are planning to build any type of connection from the garage to the house in the future. Clark said they would like to build some sort of walkway between the house and garage and they are thinking about building footings under the new garage in case they ever want to attach it to the house in the future. Sell explained that if the house and garage are connected then there would need to be a larger side yard setback. IIse Clark, Applicant, stated that she understands that an attached garage would not be possible with the shape of their lot. Segelbaum asked the applicants when they are planning on building the garage. Mr. Clark said they would like to start construction by next fall. Segelbaum questioned if the Board should add a condition of approval stating that the proposed new garage would have to be built within a year and half because it may be a period of time before they decide to build the new garage. Mrs. Clark explained that they are doing the house addition first so they don't exceed the 1,000 square foot allowance for accessory structure space. Kisch said he thinks the hardship in this case is the water issue. He said he doesn't think the Board should mandate when the applicants should have to build their garage because the code states that a homeowner only has to show that they have the Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 23, 2008 Page 3 necessary space to build a two-stall garage, and the applicants in this case have done that. Segelbaum said he thinks his suggestion of adding a condition of approval as he stated earlier would then be unnecessary. Sell suggested that a condition of approval be added that says no variances shall be applied for in the future regarding the proposed garage. Kisch said he thinks that would limit any potential new owner of this property . Kisch asked the applicant how big their existing garage is. Mr. Clark said it is approximately 12 feet wide by 25 feet deep. Kisch referred to the survey of the property and asked if the proposed shed/lean-to is going to be built. Mrs. Clark said no because that would put them over 1,000 square feet of accessory structure space. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to amend the applicants request to read 4.41 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30.59 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (southeast) property line. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 4.41 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 30.59 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (southeast) property line to allow for the construction of an addition with a sunroom above. 1524 Valders Avenue North (08-12-18) Todd & Susan Farley, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 3 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 9.5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition. Hogeboom stated that the applicants are proposing to convert their single stall garage to a two-stall garage. He added that the Board has typically considered a single stall garage to be a hardship; therefore staff is recommending approval of this variance request. Sell referred to the plans submitted with the application and asked about the proposed addition on the northeast corner of the house. Todd Farley, Applicant, explained that the addition on the northeast corner of the house is a bedroom addition. Kisch asked about the size of the proposed new garage. Farley said the garage will be approximately 22 feet wide x 32 feet deep. Susan Farley, Applicant, said she thinks the Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 23,2008 Page 4 new garage will be approximately 22 feet wide x 36 feet deep. Kisch referred to the plans and asked about a one-foot discrepancy he noticed. Mrs. Farley clarified the discrepancy and reiterated that the proposed new garage will be 22 feet in width x 36 feet in depth. Segelbaum referred to the existing driveway space located to the right side of the existing garage. Mr. Farley explained that the existing driveway will be wide enough to accommodate the proposed new garage. Sell asked if the two existing trees in the front yard will remain. Mr. Farley said yes. Sell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing. Kisch noted that the application states the variance request is for 4 feet off the required 12.5 foot side yard setback but the agenda states that the variance request is for 3 feet off the required 12.5 foot setback. Nelson noted that the survey states 3.5 feet. Hogeboom stated that staff used the dimensions shown on the official certificate of survey. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 3 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 9.5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a garage addition. 6900 Harold Avenue (08-12-19) Paul S. Olin, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 2.08 ft. off the required 16.5 ft. to a distance of 14.42 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition on the rear of the home. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(d) Wall Articulation Requirements . The wall of the addition along the south property line will be 39.33 ft. in length without articulating Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition on the rear of the home. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 23,2008 Page 5 Hogeboom stated that the applicant is proposing to build an addition on the rear of his home. He said the applicant has stated that the home was originally built with the intention of building this addition in the future. In the meantime, the City's ordinances have changed and the applicant's plans and drawings have already been done. He stated that this proposal won't affect any neighboring properties and that staff is recommending approval of these variance requests. Kisch referred to the photos of the property and asked if the existing articulation of the chimney could be considered for the articulation requirement. Hogeboom explained that the articulation requirements state that the wall has to articulate for a distance of 8 feet and the chimney is 6 feet in width. Kisch asked if the chimney is considered when figuring the side yard setback requirements. Sell stated that chimneys typically aren't considered when figuring the setbacks. McCarty asked if a chimney would be considered if it has a foundation. Hogeboom explained that chimneys are only considered if they have a foundation and in this case the chimney does not have a foundation. Nelson asked the applicant if this proposal has always been his intent. Paul Olin, Applicant, said yes and that the recent hail storms have speeded up his construction plans. He added that his proposed new addition will add another egress window in the basement and explained that he has a bathtub upstairs that also needs to be replaced and the proposed addition will make the upstairs bedrooms and bathrooms more functional. Sell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing. McCarty said he is having a tough time with this request because even though there isn't really a true hardship he thinks the articulation of the chimney should count toward the articulation rules because it meets the intent of the code. He added that he is also ok with the side yard variance request because there is no impact to any of the surrounding properties. Nelson agreed that there is no impact to any of the surrounding properties. She added that she thinks the new rules regarding wall articulation are great but in this case the chimney articulation meets the intent of the zoning code. Kisch agreed. Segelbaum stated that the applicant's noted hardship is that the zoning code changed in the midst of his plans and questioned if there are other hardships the Board should consider in making its decision. Olin reiterated that he started his plans before the zoning code was amended and that the proposed addition will allow for another egress window in the basement. He added that the house does not lend itself to be added onto in any other direction. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 23, 2008 Page 6 Kisch asked if the proposed addition could be set in an addition two feet so it would meet the side yard setback requirements. Olin said that the architecture on the inside of the house would not be pleasing if he jogged the proposed addition in an additional two feet. Kisch stated that the amount of square footage the applicants is proposing isn't going to create something that goes against the intent of the zoning code. McCarty said he is not sure he sees a hardship in this case other than an aesthetic one but he also realizes that the proposed addition will not go any closer to the side yard property line than the existing house already does. Segelbaum stated that the Board has to consider the impact to the surrounding properties along with the reasonableness of the request, balanced with the hardship. He said there is not much of a hardship in this case, but it is a reasonable request and there is no impact to surrounding properties. McCarty said he agrees, but questioned if a change in the zoning code constitutes a hardship. Segelbaum said he doesn't think it should unless the zoning code changes during the construction process. Segelbaum said that if this proposal had any impact to the surrounding properties he would feel differently. The Board members agreed. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the variance request for 2.08 ft. off the required 16.5 ft. to a distance of 14.42 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of an addition on the rear of the home. McCarty voted no. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Kisch and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request to allow the wall of the addition along the south property line to be 39.33 ft. in length without articulating Nelson asked the applicant when he plans on starting construction. Olin said he wants to start construction as soon as possible. III. Other Business The Board members discussed rescheduling their December 2009 meeting date. IV. Adjournment Th~meeting was adjourned at 8:15 pm. (fJ~ Chuck gelbaum~~hair ~~.~ ) Joe ~ogebo , Staff Liaison