Loading...
05-26-09 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 26,2009 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, May 26, 2009 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 Representatives McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes - March 24, 2009 MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Segelbaum and motion carried unanimously to approve the March 24,2009 minutes as submitted. II. The Petitions are: 4015 Wayzata Blvd. (09-05-02) Jesse Toutaes, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 5.9 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 6.6 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second garage stall. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and explained that the applicant is requesting a side yard variance in order to construct a second garage stall. He stated that this property received variances in 2001 for the construction of a similar proposal however the garage has not yet been constructed. McCarty said according to the survey it appears that the proposed garage addition will be located slightly in front of the existing garage. Hogeboom noted that the existing garage is 35.5 feet away from the front property line. If the applicant wants to build closer than 35 feet to the front property line he would also need to request a front yard variance. Segelbaum asked Hogeboom to clarify the proposed additions shown on the survey. Hogeboom explained that the survey illustrates the proposal requested in 2001 and the current proposal. Jesse Toutges, Applicant, said he is proposing to build the second garage stall 2 feet closer to the front property line than the existing garage. He added that the current garage is 20 feet wide and he would like to have a 22-foot wide garage. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 26,2009 Page 2 Kisch noted that a front yard variance request for 1.5 ft. off the required 35 ft. would need to be added to the agenda. The Board agreed. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Kisch and motion carried unanimously to add a variance request to the agenda for 1.5 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 33.5 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line to allow for the construction of a second garage stall. Toutges explained that it would be easier for him to move the proposed garage addition forward because there is a well area he is trying to avoid toward the back of the existing garage. McCarty asked if the proposed garage could be built over the well area. Toutges said yes, but it would be more difficult because he would have to "block in" the area and move the water meter. Kisch asked if there would be one garage door or two as a result of this proposal. Toutges said there would be two separate garage doors. Segelbaum asked if the proposed addition is pushed as far back on the lot as possible but still avoiding the well area. Toutges said yes, the proposal drawn on the survey comes as close as he can to the well area. He added that he feels jogging the front of the proposed new garage out by 2 feet will look more appealing as well. Sell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing. Nelson said she doesn't have any issues regarding the side yard variance request. Segelbaum agreed that the side yard variance request seems reasonable. Toutges noted that the neighboring property has a garage that is located 2 or 3 feet closer to their front yard property line than what he is requesting. McCarty questioned if the curvature of the street is making the neighboring garage appear closer to the front property line than it really is. Nelson stated that she feels the front yard setbacks along 1-394 should be considered slightly differently than normal front yard setback requirements. Kisch stated that the applicant's proposal in 2001 had a different garage configuration which did not require a front yard variance so there are other options in this case that would allow the applicant to have a two-stall garage without requiring a front yard variance. The Board members agreed that there isn't a strong enough hardship in this case to allow a front yard variance especially since there are other options. Kisch suggested tabling this request in order to allow the Board time to review how a front yard variance would impact the surrounding properties. Toutges said he would like to start his project next week. Sell asked the applicant if he would go ahead with the project if the Board denies the front yard variance request. Toutges said yes. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 26,2009 Page 3 MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Kisch and motion carried unanimously to approve the request for 5.9 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 6.6 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (west) property line to allow for the construction of a second garage stall. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by McCarty and motion carried 4 to 1 to deny the request for 1.5 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 33.5 ft. at its closest point to the front (north) property line to allow for the construction of a second garage stall. Sell voted no. 1525 Sumter Ave. N. (09~05~03) Michael Johnson, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 9 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 26 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new deck to be built over existing front steps. Hogeboom explained that that the applicant is proposing to construct a deck over his existing front steps. He stated that the applicant began construction on the deck not realizing he needed a variance from front yard setback requirements. He added that the City is considering this structure to be a deck, not a stoop or porch. He noted that if the applicant were to build a roof over this proposed deck it would be considered an open front porch and he would be allowed to build it 30 feet from the front property line without a variance. Kisch referred to the survey and asked if the 26-foot measurement is from the bottom of the steps or the edge of the deck. He asked if there is an allowance made to allow steps to go into the setback area. Hogeboom stated that when a structure is considered a deck the measurement is taken from the edge of the platform. If this structure was considered a landing the steps would be included. McCarty questioned if steps would be considered part of a front porch. Hogeboom said yes. Michael Johnson, Applicant, referred to his plans for the deck and explained his proposal. Nelson asked if the partially constructed deck is only missing the steps or if more deck area is going to be added. Johnson stated that the landing area is already constructed and that the steps are the only thing yet to be added. Segelbaum asked the applicant why he isn't just replacing the existing front steps with larger concrete steps. Johnson stated that a huge new piece of concrete didn't seem viable and that he was unable to remove the existing concrete. He noted that all of the houses on his block were built right at the 35-foot front yard setback line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 26,2009 Page 4 Sell stated that the applicant really only had 3 feet of landing area when the swing of the door is considered. He said he agreed that front lan<:Iing areas should be made larger because they are safer and more functional. Segelbaum asked if the existing size of the concrete steps is dictating the size of the proposed deck. Johnson said yes. Kisch asked what dictated the proposed triangular shaped side portion of the deck. Johnson said having the space on the side of the deck allows more room for the door to swing open. Segelbaum asked if there will be railings installed. Johnson said there would be a railings installed on the driveway side of the deck. Segelbaum asked if it is imperative to have steps around the entire deck. Johnson said he would still need a variance with or without steps. McCarty asked the applicant if the City saw him building this deck and made him stop. Johnson said yes. Segelbaum asked if the depth of the deck remained the same but the side triangular portion was removed if there would still be enough room. Johnson said if he removed the side portion of the deck, the new deck would be where the concrete steps are currently located. Sell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing. Kisch said this is a difficult request because construction of the deck has already began, the footings are already in place and it would be hard for the applicant to create a new 25 square foot landing without requiring a variance. He said he thinks the landing area could be made a bit smaller. Segelbaum said he is not as concerned about the depth of the deck as he is the shape of the deck. He said he'd be more comfortable if the size of it were reduced and if it had a rectangular shaped deck/landing area. McCarty agreed and said that if this proposal would have come before the Board before construction started he wouldn't have supported this design. He said he is having difficulty allowing the steps in the front. Kisch said he doesn't think the Board has the right to place design restrictions on the proposed deck and that the decision should be based on hardship and setback requirements not style. He said he is inclined to grant the variance request. Segelbaum said he is focusing more on the size of the landing area. McCarty said he is concerned that construction of the deck was started without a permit and in his opinion this proposal is not appropriate. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 26, 2009 Page 5 Sell said he thinks the language in the zoning code needs to be clarified regarding stoops, landings, decks and front porches. The Board agreed. McCarty said he would address the issue with the Planning Commission. Segelbaum suggested adding a condition to limit the width of the deck to 8.6 feet from the edge of the house and removing the small triangular shaped area on the side. McCarty asked where the steps would be placed. Segelbaum said he thinks the location of the steps is a separate issue. Kisch said he thinks the location of the deck and steps are dependent on each other. McCarty said he is fine with allowing a larger landing area but he doesn't want to see the steps go any closer to the front yard property line than the current steps. Sell noted that the steps can't go out into the driveway and if they were on the side of the deck they would have to walk around the entire deck to access the steps. Segelbaum said he is comfortable allowing the steps in front but he wants the area to look more like a landing, not a deck. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Nelson and motion carried 3 to 2 to add a condition that the landing/platform area of the deck be no larger than 8.6 ft by 5.6 ft. in size. Kisch and McCarty voted no. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Nelson and motion carried 4 to 1 to allow 9 ft. off the required 35ft. to a distance of 26 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line to allow for the construction of new deck over the existing front steps with the condition that the landing/platform area of the deck be no larger than 8.6 ft by 5.6 ft. in size. McCarty voted no. 2301 Brunswick Ave. N. (09-05-04) Ian & Gretia Biaham, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 5.5 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 29.5 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second garage stall. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 5 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 10ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second garage stall. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 26,2009 Page 6 Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(d) Articulation Requirements . The wall of the addition along the south property line will be 37 ft. in length without articulating Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second garage stall. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicant's proposal to construct a second garage stall which requires three variances. He stated that the hardship noted by the applicant is that they currently have a one-stall garage. Segelbaum asked if the articulation requirements apply to all walls or just to side walls. Hogeboom said that only side walls are required to be articulated in order to avoid a tunnel effect between houses. Ian Bigham, Applicant, referred to the survey of his property and stated that they are asking for the new garage addition to be located 31 feet from the front yard property line, not 29.5 as indicated in the staff report. Nelson asked the applicant why the garage addition needs to be built closer to the front property line. Bigham explained that the current garage is only 20 feet deep and there is a thick, concrete porch located to the rear of the garage that would be difficult to break up. Segelbaum asked if the new garage could be built in a portion of the porch area since the porch is being extended into the rear yard. Gretta Bigham, Applicant, stated that the porch floor is higher than the garage floor. Nelson said she doesn't have any issues regarding the side yard variance request but is concerned about the front yard variance request. Kisch referred to the garage work space shown on the plan drawings and asked Hogeboom if that would also be considered accessory structure space. Hogeboom said yes. Kisch noted that the proposed garage space approaches 1,000 square feet. Kisch suggested that the garage work space and porch be made smaller so they would not need the articulation variance. Mr. Bigham said he was concerned about the roof trusses if he shortens the length of the garage and porch. Sell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing. Segelbaum said he is alright with the side yard variance and the lack of articulation however he is concerned by the front yard variance request. Nelson stated that the way the porch was originally constructed causes somewhat of a hardship in this case. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 26,2009 Page 7 Kisch asked the applicants if there would be one or two garage doors on the proposed new addition. Mr. Bigham said there would be one garage door. Kisch said he is fine with the lack of articulation in this case. He added that a 20-foot wide garage might work because there would be sufficient work/storage space in the back of the garage. Hogeboom referred to the survey and stated that he believes the front yard variance request for 5.5 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 29.5 ft. is correct as stated in the staff report. Sell asked if 22 feet x 22 feet is standard for a two-stall garage. Hogeboom said there are not written standards or minimum requirements but it has been common practice by the Board to consider a 22 foot x 22 foot garage a minimal two-stall garage. Nelson asked if the existing house is considered non-conforming because it is located 34 feet from the front property line. Hogeboom said it is not considered non-conforming because it was built prior to 1982. Segelbaum asked if the proposed new garage addition would require a variance if it was built along the same front plane as the existing garage. Hogeboom stated that any new construction would have to follow setback requirements so the proposed addition would require a one foot variance even if it were built along the same plane as the front of the existing garage. Sell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Kisch and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance for 1 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 34 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line to allow for the construction of a second garage stall. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance for 5 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 10ft. at its closest point to the side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a second garage stall. MOVED by Segelbaum, seconded by Kisch and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve a variance allowing the wall of the addition along the south property line to be 37 ft. in length without articulating to allow for the construction of a second garage stall. McCarty voted no. 1315 Angelo Dr. (09-05-05) Mohammad & Mariam Vedadi, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 9.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 3 ft. at its closest pointto the side yard (north) property line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 26,2009 Page 8 Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second garage stall with living space above. Hogeboom referred to a survey of the property and explained the applicant's proposal to build a second garage stall with living space above. He stated that staff has some concern about this proposal regarding drainage and the proposed 3-foot distance to the north property line. He said staff is recommending approval of the proposal however they felt it would be better if the second garage stall were built 6.5 feet away from the property line rather than 3 feet as requested which would allow the applicants to have a 20-foot wide garage. McCarty said he would feel comfortable allowing the proposed garage to be located 5 feet from the side yard property line. Kisch asked if staff's main concern is the grade of the lot. Hogeboom said yes. Segelbaum asked if there are reasons the applicant couldn't build a detached garage to the rear of the house. Hogeboom said it would be possible to build a detached garage on this lot however it would cause a greater disturbance to the lot and a new driveway would require a 3-foot setback from the property which might also require a variance. Mohammad Vedadi, Applicant, stated that he is proposing a second garage stall because currently he has a very small single stall garage. He stated that he originally wanted to add a 12.5-foot wide garage stall on the north side of his property, however when he had the property surveyed he realized that property lines weren't located where he thought they were and the existing garage was located only 12.5 feet away from the side yard property line. He referred to the staff recommendation and noted that if he built a 20-wide garage as recommended the inside dimension would only be 18 feet. He referred to the suggestion of building a detached garage in the back yard and explained that trees would have to be removed, there is a steep slope, he would still need a variance for a new driveway and it would look bad aesthetically to have a garage in the back yard. McCarty asked about the dimensions of the proposed garage. Vedadi stated that if he built a 9.5-foot wide addition the dimensions of the garage would be 21.5 ft. x 22 ft. Sell asked if the outside wall of the existing garage would remain. Vedadi said the existing exterior wall would be removed. Sell asked if there would be one garage door or two. Vedadi said he would like to have 2 separate garage doors. Vedadi referred to the survey and noted that the house was placed oddly on lot. There is 22 feet of side yard area on the south side of the lot and only 12.5 feet on the north side of lot. He noted that there is an additional 17 feet between the property line and the neighboring property to the north. Sell said he is concerned about there being enough room along the north property line for maintenance. Segelbaum added that if the Board allows a variance for the garage addition Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 26, 2009 Page 9 to be built that he would like staff to review the plans again because it would be changing the staff recommendation of 6.5 feet. Hogeboom stated staff will review the plans again as part of the building permit process and the drainage and erosion control permit process. Kisch asked the applicant what he would like the inside garage dimensions to be. Vedadi said if he stays 5 feet away from the property line the inside dimension would only be 19.5 feet in width. He said the variance he is requesting would allow a 21.5-foot inside dimension which is a minimal 2-stall garage and it will not ruin the aesthetics of the neig hborhood. Segelbaum asked the applicant if he has spoken to the neighbors to the north. Vedadi said he has spoken with his neighbors and they are content with his proposal. Segelbaum asked the applicant if had considered building a tandem garage. Vedadi explained that there is an existing bathroom located directly behind the garage so if he were to build a tandem garage he would have to build it to the front of the house which would look bad. He said he has considered every option and what he is proposing will work the best. Segelbaum said he is concerned about the neighboring house to the north. Vedadi noted that the neighbor's house is set back 15 feet further on their lot than his and that they have said they feel it will be ok visually. McCarty said he is not comfortable with the variance request allowing the garage to be 3 feet away from the side yard property and that he would be more comfortable allowing the garage to be 5 feet from the property line. He added that he feels a detached garage could be added to the rear of the house. Vedadi reiterated that he would be opposed to building a garage in the back yard because logistically and aesthetically it wouldn't work. He added that there would also be a lot of additional concrete needed to build a garage in the back and there is very limited storage space and living space in the existing house so they want the living space above the proposed new garage space. Segelbaum suggested the applicant buy some property from the neighbor to the south. Sell stated there could be issues buying property from the south because this property is not platted. Kisch stated that grading the rear yard in order to build a garage may cause more drainage problems. He said it would be environmentally better to build the garage addition to the side, rather than to the rear, because there would be less impervious surface and run-off. Sell agreed that there are some grading issues with this lot. Hogeboom stated that staff agreed that there would be more impact to the surrounding properties if a garage was built in the back yard. Sell suggested allowing a 4.5 foot variance in order to allow the applicant to build a 20-foot wide garage. McCarty stated that 5 feet is the setback requirement for sheds and detached garages so he would feel more comfortable allowing a 5-foot variance. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 26,2009 Page 10 Sell opened the public hearing. Ned Van Hamm, 1300 Angelo Drive, said this is ridiculous because there is almost 20 feet between the Vedadi's property and the neighboring house to the north. He said it is not Mr. Vedadi's fault that the original survey of his property was done incorrectly. He said the City has given variances to other parts of the City such as Hidden Lake and what the Vedadi's are requesting is reasonable. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing. Nelson said she would advise the applicant to move before she would advise them to build a garage in the back yard. She said putting a garage in the back yard would devalue this property and possibly the surrounding properties as well. Kisch said he is in favor of granting an a-foot variance to allow for a 20-foot wide garage to built 4.5 feet away from the property line. Segelbaum added that the Board's role is to look at the reasonableness of proposals and to improve the value of properties withQut destroying surrounding properties. He said he feels that a 3 foot side yard setback is too small and he agrees with Kisch's recommendation of allowing the garage to be built within 4.5 feet of the property line. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance for a ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 4.5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of a second garage stall with living space above. 401 Westwood Dr. S. (09-05-06) Rebecca Krantz & John Fraser, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 3.5 ft. off the required 12.5 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 second garage stall with living space above. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(d) Articulation Requirements . The wall of the addition along the south property line will be 40 ft. in length without articulating Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 26,2009 Page 11 Purpose: To allow for the construction of a second garage stall with living space above. Hogeboom explained that the applicants are proposing to construct a second garage stall with living space above. He stated that they received variances in 2000 for a similar proposal however they did not build the addition at that time. He added that staff is recommending approval of the requested variances. McCarty questioned if the articulation requirements apply to all walls. Hogeboom said that the articulation requirements apply only to side walls. Rebecca Krantz, Applicant, showed photos of their existing house and explained the proposed addition. She stated that the neighbors to south won't be able to see the addition and there will be no negative impacts to any of the surrounding properties. She stated that she is trying to have a colonial style house to match the home styles in the neighborhood. Kisch asked the applicant why she can't meet the articulation requirements and which rooms would be affected by the articulation. Krantz stated that the rooms affected by the articulation would be the dining room and kitchen. She reiterated that no one will be able to see the proposed addition. McCarty said there seems to be enough room to articulate the proposed addition. Joseph Buslovich, Architect for the project, showed the Board some proposed pictures of the house after the addition and discussed the grade of the lot including a steep slope in the rear yard. He asked why the wall has to articulate because it is a waste of money and no one will be able to see it. Kisch suggested that the dining room area be articulated. He noted that the look and feel of the interior space would be the same if the dining room wall was articulated in by 2 feet. Krantz expressed concern that if the wall was articulated it wouldn't look like a colonial house. McCarty stated that the style of the house is not considered a hardship. Segelbaum suggested giving the applicants a larger side yard variance in order to allow them more room to articulate the wall. Buslovich stated that the easiest way to build the proposed addition is with straight lines and a straight roof. Krantz expressed concern about the location of a proposed sidewalk if she has to articulate the addition. Kisch reiterated that he would like to see the dining room portion of the addition be articulated. Sell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing. MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Kisch and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance for 3.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 9 ft. at its closest point to the Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 26,2009 Page 12 side yard (south) property line to allow for the construction of a second garage stall with living space above. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by McCarty and motion carried 4 to 1 to deny the variance request to allow the wall of the addition along the south property line to be 40 feet in length without articulating. Segelbaum voted no. III. Other Business Election of Officers MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Kisch and motion carried unanimously elect Segelbaum as Chair. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to elect Kisch as Vice Chair. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10: 15 pm. ~~ r.:,&8 Sell, air _____________ CJ,4.~lI.6 IJ. ~6fLMuY) . ~~~ Joe Hogeboom, 51 Liaison