Loading...
08-24-10 BZA MinutesMinutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 24, 20.10 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7:40 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 -July 27, 2010 MOVED by Sell, seconded by Kisch and motion carried to approve the minutes from the July 27, 2010 meeting. Commissioner McCarty abstained from voting. II. The Petitions are: 3335 Major Ave N (10-08-05) Tim and Jean Mohr, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements • 7 ft. off the required 30 ft. to a distance of 23 ft. at its. closest point to the front yard (west) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of an open front porch. Hogeboom explained the applicant's request to construct a roof (open front porch) over the existing concrete steps. He stated that the applicant received a variance for the same proposal in 1997 but the front porch was never built. He added that variances not acted upon within one year expire. He noted that all of the homes on this block are located closer to the front yard property line than allowed. He explained that staff would have recommended approval of this variance request under the old interpretation of reasonable use but under the new Supreme Court interpretation staff is not able to recommend approval. Kisch noted that part of the requests approved in 1997 were completed and asked if the variance would still apply to the parts that weren't completed since they were all part of the same proposal. Hogeboom said no, and explained that the variance for the part of the proposal that was not constructed expired after one year. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 24, 2010 Page 2 Kisch noted that the existing house is located 30.5 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line and a variance was given in 1997 to bring the house into conformance. He asked if the applicant would be allowed to build a 30-inch overhang into the front yard setback area. Hogeboom stated that 30 inches of eave or overhang would be allowed to be built into a setback area but the pillars being proposed could not be located in the setback area if they are attached to a roof. Kisch suggested the applicant build the overhang with supports on the house rather than with pillars. Segelbaum said he thinks the 35-foot front yard setback requirement would then apply because it would no longer be considered an open front porch which is allowed to be 30 feet from the front yard property line. Nelson questioned the setback requirements for an uncovered front stoop or porch. Hogeboom stated that a 25 square foot landing area and stairs could be built in a setback area without a variance. Tim Mohr, Applicant, said he wants to have a roof over his front steps because there is a room under the steps that gets wet when it rains which is causing moisture and mold problems. He said he also wants to protect his front door and what he is proposing will improve the look and value of his property. He stated that when he bought the house there was approximately a half an inch of mold on the walls in that room under the front steps. He added that an overhang built with supports rather than pillars would not match the style of the house. He showed pictures of the work he has done to the front steps and the mold that was on the walls in the room under the steps. He added that he doesn't think the room under the steps can be put to reasonable use without a variance to allow for the proposed roof. Kisch stated that some water infiltration problems can be remediated with flashing or with the installation of a different door or different methods. Mohr stated that it would be nicer to be able to make the room under the steps usable space. He added that the size of the front steps is not being altered and that his proposal will improve the character of the neighborhood. Segelbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Segelbaum closed the public hearing. Kisch referred to the foundation under the front steps and stated that it extends out 5 feet underground. He asked if the front yard setback would be considered from that foundation. Hogeboom stated that setbacks are figured from the foundation of structures located above ground. He noted that garden structures such as an arbor or a pergola would have different setback requirements and that might be something the applicant could consider. Kisch said he thinks the foundation under the steps would have to be considered when figuring setbacks. He added that if you consider the existing foundation under the steps to be non-conforming then the roof structure wouldn't be encroaching into the setback at all. Hogeboom explained that anon-conforming use cannot be expanded. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 24, 2010 Page 3 Sell asked about the size of the area or room under the front steps. Mohr said the room he wants to use is directly under the steps and is approximately 6 or 7 feet wide. McCarty agreed with Member Kisch that there are other ways to potentially fix the water infiltration issues. Nelson said the criteria for granting a variance would have been met in this case if the Board was using the previous interpretation and to her the "reasonable use" language is still unclear. She questioned if it is reasonable to have mold in a home or if it is reasonable to expect that rain won't pour down on someone standing at the front door. McCarty stated that the property can still be put to a reasonable use even if the space under the front steps can't. Kisch agreed that the property can still be put to a reasonable use. Council Member Shaffer asked how big a stoop can be. Hogeboom stated that a stoop can be 25 square feet. Shaffer noted that the area in question is larger than 25 square feet so the Board has to grant a variance for an existing front porch and as soon a variance is granted for the porch the applicant can build a roof because a porch includes a roof. Hogeboom stated the stoop in this case is not larger than 25 square feet but it protrudes out further than 30 feet. Shaffer noted that the applicant said the porch is 6 feet by 7 feet. Hogeboom clarified that the stoop is just the landing area at the top of the steps and in this case the room is under the stoop and the steps. Shaffer said the porch is a structure because there is a room underneath it. Therefore the City has to grant a variance for it to bring it into conformance. The whole structure would be considered a porch which would allow for the construction of a roof without requiring a variance. Nelson stated that the ordinance regarding front porches and stoops should be reconsidered because something huge could be built in a front yard as long as it doesn't have a roof. Kisch noted that a variance is not required in order to replace or repair an existing non- conforming structure and asked if the existing porch can be replaced since it is already there. Hogeboom said the stoop and stairs located there now are not non-conforming so the applicant wouldn't be repairing or replacing anon-conforming structure. Shaffer said this is not just a stoop because there is a room under it. Kisch agreed that since there is already a foundation under the stoop this structure really qualifies as something else. The Board discussed the definition of a porch and a stoop and they also looked at the applicant's photos and discussed a small overhang area located above the door. Hogeboom said the definition of a porch is an outdoor platform with a roof. Hogeboom explained that the word "porch" is not defined in City Code. However, the word "stoop" is defined. Hogeboom stated that, according to the City Code's definition of stoop, this structure qualifies as a stoop and not a porch. Kisch stated that there is still ambiguity regarding the definition of a porch and added that it is the Board's responsibility to interpret the definitions in the zoning code. McCarty suggested the Board either make a decision or table the request in order to get further clarification from the City Attorney regarding the definition of a porch. He said he is Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 24, 2010 Page 4 not comfortable calling the existing structure anything other than a stoop. The applicant said he would be willing to table his request. Segelbaum stated that under the previous variance standards he would be in favor of this request because the situation is unique to this property, the proposal is reasonable and it won't negatively impact the neighborhood. However, "reasonable use" as interpreted now does not fit because the property is still able to be reasonably used. MOVED by Sell, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to table this request until the September 28, 2010 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm. � � Chuck Sege aum, Chair J e Hoge o m, Staff Liaison