Loading...
05-25-10 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 25, 2010 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, May 23, 2010 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 McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. I. Approval of Minutes - October 27,2009 MOVED by Sell, seconded by Kisch and motion carried to approve the minutes from October 27,2009. McCarty abstained from voting. II. The Petitions are: 2461 Dresden Lane (10-05-01) Jeff and Emily Piper, Applicants 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 replacement of the railing and surface boards on the existing deck. Hogeboom referred to the property on a location map and explained that the applicants are requesting a side yard variance in order to bring their existing deck into conformance with zoning code requirements. He explained that the applicants came to the City to obtain a building permit in order to replace the railings and surface boards on their deck. It was during the building permit process that the applicants were made aware that the existing deck is not in conformance with setback requirements. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this variance request due to the topography of the lot and the fact that the deck was constructed by the previous homeowner, not by the applicants. He added that the neighboring property owners are also supportive of this variance request. Nelson asked if a variance would be required if stairs were located in the setback area instead of the deck. Hogeboom stated that stairs are allowed to be located in setback areas. Kisch questioned granting variances for structures that are built without obtaining a building permit. He said he doesn't feel that asking for a variance because a structure was originally built without a permit constitutes a hardship. Hogeboom stated that staff would feel differently if a nonconforming structure was built by the current homeowner, but in this case Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 25, 2010 Page 2 the deck was there when the applicants purchased the home so in order to bring the deck into conformance with zoning and building code requirements staff asked the applicants to bring their proposal to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Sell stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals has in the past felt that it isn't fair to blame current homeowners for nonconforming structures that were built by previous homeowners. He said he supports this variance request because the deck has existed for a long time, most people probably don't even know it exists and this homeowner is trying to fix the problems and bring it into conformance. Segelbaum asked Hogeboom if he knows how long the existing deck has been located where it is. Hogeboom said he didn't know and suggested asking the applicants. Emily Piper, Applicant, reiterated that when they applied for a building permit to repair their deck they were told they needed to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance from the side yard setback requirements. She referred to Segelbaum's question regarding how long the deck has been in its current location and stated that the neighbor to the south said she thought it was built in the early 1990s. Sell questioned if the existing deck is structurally sound. Hogeboom stated that the Inspections Department will address that issue when they do their inspections on the new work being proposed. Nelson noted that if this deck had been built with a permit it would have been grandfathered in. She said she feels there are hardships with this property due to the grade and because there is a side door that has access on to the deck. Kisch agreed and added the current noncompliance is more of a risk and it would be worse if the applicants aren't allowed to bring the deck into conformance with the building code and zoning code. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. MOVED by Sell, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request 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 bring the existing deck into conformance with the zoning code and to allow for the replacement of the railing and surface boards on the existing deck. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 25,2010 Page 3 608 Turnpike Road (10-05-02) Dana Swindler and Gre~ Walsh, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(b) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 8.5 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 4 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition. 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 (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition. Hogeboom referred to the property on a location map and explained the applicant's proposal to construct a garage addition. He noted that the applicant's stated hardship is that the existing garage doesn't provide enough space. He referred to photos of the property and showed a paved parking area next to the existing garage where the proposed garage addition would be constructed. He also noted the location of an existing retaining wall which would act as the north wall of the proposed new garage. He referred to the front yard variance request and stated that the proposed new garage addition would line up with the front plane of the house but because of the angle of the lot it will be closer to the front yard property line than the required 35 feet. He stated that staff is recommending approval of these variance requests due to the placement of the home on the lot, the fact the new garage addition will go no further toward the side yard property line than the existing retaining wall already does and because of the corner lot restrictions. He added that the proposed new addition would also add some articulation to the north side of the house which is also a requirement of the zoning code. Kisch referred to the survey and noted that if the proposed garage addition goes all the way to the existing retaining wall then the garage would be 2.5 feet away from north side yard property line not 4 feet as stated on the agenda. Hogeboom suggested the applicant explain the exact dimensions of the proposed garage addition. McCarty questioned how the front of the house was originally built 32.2 feet away from the front property line instead of the required 35 feet. Sell stated that in the past the zoning code considered the longer side of the property line to be the front and the shorter property to be the side. Hogeboom added that the front yard setback requirement for structures built prior to 1982 is 25 feet so the existing house is considered to be in conformance. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 25, 2010 Page 4 McCarty questioned the structural integrity of the existing retaining if it is going to be used as the new garage wall. Hogeboom stated that the structural integrity of the retaining wall will have to be verified before a building permit is issued. Paula Merrigan, representing the applicant, stated that they intend to have a structural engineer inspect the retaining wall. She stated that it is logical to use the existing retaining wall as the new garage wall because they don't want to have a space between a new garage wall and the existing retaining wall and they don't want to undermine the integrity of the existing retaining wall when constructing a new garage wall. McCarty asked what the total width of the garage would be after the proposed addition is built. Merrigan stated that the garage would be 28.75 feet wide. Segelbaum asked about the width of the proposed addition. Kisch stated that it appears that the proposed garage addition is approximately 15 feet in width. Merrigan reiterated that the logical place for them to construct the new garage is where the retaining wall is located. She explained that the house does not have a basement; it has limited storage space and a small amount of side and rear yard space to construct any other type of accessory structure. Kisch asked if the existing retaining wall has footings. Merrigan stated yes. Nelson asked about the height of the proposed garage addition and if the top of the existing garage is a deck. Merrigian said the garage addition will match the height of the existing garage and it will have the same parapet across the front. Dana Swindler, Applicant, added that the top of the existing garage is just a rubber membrane roof and not usable deck space. Nelson asked how the proposed new garage will visually impact the neighboring property. Merrigan reiterated that the front of the garage addition will look the same as the existing garage and the side of the garage facing the neighboring property will be railing so it won't read as a solid wall on the side facing the neighbors. Kisch referred to the survey and asked why the rear wall of the proposed garage wall isn't being constructed all the way back to the existing retaining wall. Swindler stated that he would like to add more green space in that area. Merrigan added that the back wall of the proposed garage addition ends where the back wall of the existing garage ends. She stated that they could build the proposed garage addition all the way back to the retaining wall on the side and toward the rear but the homeowner wants to add more green space. Kisch stated that this variance request is extreme and asked the applicant if the full variance isn't granted if he would go forward with a garage addition project. He said he understands the need for a larger garage and the need for more storage but he is uncomfortable granting this large of a variance. Merrigan reiterated that the garage addition was logically driven and they want to use the existing retaining wall because of all that it is holding back. Kisch stated he thinks repairs to the retaining wall will have to be made and portions of it are going to have to be torn down anyway. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 25,2010 Page 5 Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Kisch stated he understands the thinking behind the design of the garage addition but it seems like too large a variance and too close to the side yard property line. He suggested the Board grant a variance for 6 feet off the required 12.5 feet to a distance of 6.5 feet to the side yard property line instead. He added that he would feel comfortable approving the front yard variance as requested. Segelbaum asked for clarification regarding the interior and exterior dimensions of the overall garage. Kisch stated that the interior would be approximately 25 feet in width and the exterior would be approximately 27 feet in width. Segelbaum asked about the space that would then be left between the new garage wall and the existing retaining wall. Kisch suggested that the new garage wall be used as a retaining wall and the existing retaining wall be removed. Nelson expressed concern about an addition being constructed above the garage at some point in the future. Segelbaum stated that this variance request is only for this proposal and if an addition was proposed in the future the homeowner would have to come back to the Board of Zoning Appeals with another variance request. Kisch noted that the proposed new garage can only be 32 feet in length before it has to articulate. Merrigan said she doesn't this the proposed garage will be more than 32 feet in length. MOVED by Kisch, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to approve the following variance requests: 6 ft. off the required 12.5 ft. to a distance of 6.5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line and 3 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 32 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line to allow for the construction of a garage addition. III. Other Business Election of Officers MOVED by Sell, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously re-elect Segelbaum as Chair and Kisch as Vice Chair. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:03 pm. ~~i:n -----'