Loading...
10-27-09 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 27, 2009 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, October 27,2009 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Kisch, Nelson, Segelbaum, Sell and Planning Commission Representative Waldhauser. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Commissioner McCarty was absent. I. Approval of Minutes - September 22,2009 MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Kisch and motion carried 4 to 1 to approve the September 22, 2009 minutes as submitted. Commissioner Waldhauser abstained from voting. II. The Petitions are: 8830 23rd Avenue North (09-10-15) Merwyn and Joyce Larson. Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 3.78 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 11.22 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to the existing garage. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 13(0) Pre-1982 Structure Setback Requirements . 1.5 ft. off the required 3 ft. to a distance of 1.5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line. Purpose: To bring the existing shed into conformance with Zoning Code requirements. Hogeboom explained the applicants' proposal to expand their existing garage toward the west property line. He stated that the width of the current garage is 19 feet and the applicants would like to build a 23-foot wide garage which would be more functional. In addition, the west wall of the existing garage is crumbling and needs to be replaced. Hogeboom referred to the survey and noted that the front corner of the garage would be located 11.22 feet from the west side yard property line, however the back corner of the garage would be located 14 feet from the west side yard property line. He stated that staff is in support of this request because there isn't a negative impact to the neighboring properties and it is a reasonable request. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 27, 2009 Page 2 Hogeboom noted that there is a shed on the property which is located 1.5 feet away from the east property line. The zoning code requires that sheds built prior to 1982 be at least 3 feet away from side and rear yard property lines. He stated that staff is recommending that the variance for the shed be approved due to the fact that the applicants have indicated that their plans include removing the shed in the future. Waldhauser asked about the setback requirements for sheds built today and if the applicants need the variance for the shed in order to get a building permit for the proposed garage addition. Hogeboom stated that sheds today need to be located 5 feet away from side and rear property lines. He stated that the applicants could receive a building permit for the garage addition without obtaining a variance for the existing shed. Merwyn Larson, Applicant, stated that the neighbors are supportive of their proposal and reiterated that a 19-foot wide garage is too small and they want to build a more standard size garage. Joyce Larson, Applicant, added that the neighbors most affected by the proposed garage addition are in support of this proposal and have also received a variance for a project they did in the past. Sell asked if the proposed 4-foot wide addition would just be on the garage level or the entire two-stories of the house. Mr. Larson said the addition would just be on the garage portion of the house and not on the second story living space above the garage. He showed the Board some elevation drawings of the proposed addition and discussed the type of roof line and the pitch of the roof. Nelson asked the applicants how long they've lived in this house. Mrs. Larson said they've lived in this house for 20 years. She added that the shed was on the property when they purchased the house. Waldhauser referred to the application and asked the applicant to explain how the garage wall would be supporting the slope. Mr. Larson explained that the current west wall of the garage is crumbling and they need to extend the wall four feet in order to spread out the loads to more adequately support the structure and provide stability. Kisch asked the applicants if they intend to remove the existing shed in the future. Mr. Larson said yes and added that they will probably build a new shed in the same location. Kisch asked the applicants why the proposed addition needs to be 4 feet in width and noted that a typical two stall garage is 20' x 20' or 22' x 22'. Mr. Larson said he feels a 24' x 24' is a standard size garage and if the proposed addition were only 2 feet wide it would look strange and out of proportion. Kisch asked about the width of the garage door. Mr. Larson said the garage door would be 18 feet wide. Sell referred to the photos of the property and asked if a tree located near the garage is going to cause any issues. Mr. Larson said he didn't think the tree would be a problem. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 27, 2009 Page 3 Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Sell stated that he doesn't have any concerns with the garage proposal because 19 feet of width is not a real two stall garage. He stated that he would like to consider the shed to be a non-conforming structure and would like to give the applicants a time frame in which to move or remove it. Segelbaum stated that variances stay with the property forever and the Board can't give an expiration date for a variance. He suggested placing some sort of condition of approval regarding the location of the shed. Hogeboom stated that his recommendation would be to approve the variance for the garage addition and deny the variance for the shed giving the applicant an appropriate amount of time to move or remove the shed. Segelbaum asked if the applicants would be able to get a building permit for the garage if the non-conforming shed is still on the property. Hogeboom said yes. Segelbaum asked the Board about how they felt regarding a hardship in this case. Waldhauser said the garage wall needs to be rebuilt and it is not logical to rebuild the garage 19 feet in width. She added that there is also no neighbor opposition. Kisch referred to the survey and asked if granting the variance for the front corner of the garage to be located 11.22 feet from the side yard property line would also allow the back corner of the garage to be located 11.22 feet away from the same property line. Segelbaum suggested that the Board add language to the request that states the front corner of the garage can be located 11.22 feet from the west property line and the back corner of the garage can be located 14 feet from the property line as shown on the survey. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests: . 3.78 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 11.22 ft. for the front (south) corner of the garage at its closest point to the side yard (west) property line to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing garage. . 1 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 14 ft. for the back (northwest) corner of the garage at its closest point to the side yard (west) property line to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing garage. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to deny the variance request for the shed to be located 1.5 ft. off the required 3 ft. to a distance of 1.5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (east) property line. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 27, 2009 Page 4 2450 Kewanee Way (09-10-16) AI Helgemo, Applicant Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 13.1 ft. off the required 30 ft. to a distance of 16.9 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an open front porch. Hogeboom stated that the applicant is proposing to build an open front porch that would be located 16.9 feet away from the front yard property line. He explained that all the homes fronting Kewanee Way were given a variance in 1959 to be located 25 feet away from the front yard property line rather than the required 35 feet because of the topography in the area. He stated that even though a variance was granted back in 1959 any new construction has to conform to current zoning code requirements. He added that the proposed planters and stairs were not taken into consideration for this variance request, only the roof line of the proposed porch addition. Nelson asked if this proposed front porch did not have a roof on it, if it would have to come before the Board for a variance. Hogeboom said the applicant would still require a variance for the landing portion of the proposal because it is greater than 25 square feet in area. Kisch referred to the survey and asked for clarification regarding the size of the proposed front porch. Scott Peterson, Builder Representing the Applicant, explained that the roof of the front porch will project 7.5 feet out from the house. The Board discussed the proposed roof dimensions, the landing area dimensions, the dimensions of the existing house and the location of the foundation versus the location of the cantilevered portions of the house. Segelbaum asked the applicant about what they feel the hardship is with their existing doorway and stoop. AI Helgemo, Applicant, said the way the proposed front porch was designed is proportionate with the rest of the house. Sell said he can see the benefit of a front porch because it would provide protection from the weather. Nelson asked the applicant if there is a hardship with how the front entryway currently functions. Peterson stated that the current overhang is approximately 15' high and doesn't really provide any protection from the weather. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 27,2009 Page 5 Hogeboom stated that staff considers the hardship to be the uniqueness of this lot. He stated that the fact that the house was built 25 feet away from the front property line causes the applicant to have to ask for a variance for a front porch that most properties could build without the need for a variance. Nelson added that there are no neighbors across the street and no neighbors behind the applicant so there really is no negative impact to any neighboring property owners. Kisch asked the applicant if he'd be willing to shorten the overhang to 5.5 feet in depth instead of the requested 7.5 feet. Peterson said he thinks having a covering over all of the steps is a benefit. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Segelbaum said he is trying to balance the amount of hardship with and impact to the neighboring properties and the reasonableness of the request. He said he is concerned because all of the houses on this street are lined up with each other and an open front porch would have an impact to the sideways view. He said he'd be willing to consider a 5- foot deep open front porch. Kisch agreed that a typical front porch is 5 feet deep and allowing an open front porch to be 20 feet away from the front property line seems reasonable in this case. Nelson agreed and explained to the applicants that the Board has been very protective of front yard setbacks in the past. Hogeboom referred to the survey and stated that it appears that the house may be located slightly more than 25 feet away from the front property line and suggested that the variance language state that the proposed front porch could be located 20 feet from the property line instead of saying that the applicant can build a 5-foot deep front porch. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Waldhauser and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance for 10ft. off the required 30 ft. to a distance of 20 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line to allow for the construction of an open front porch. III. Other Business Segelbaum gave an update on the variance appeal for the property at 316 Meadow Lane North. He stated that the applicant appealed the Board's decision to the City Council at the October 20 Council meeting. The City Council upheld the Board's decision and told the applicant to work with the staff regarding the construction of her deck and possibly applying for a new variance. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals October 27, 2009 Page 6 IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 pm. Chuck Segelbaum, Chair Joe Hogeboom, Staff Liaison