The URL can be used to link to this page

09-27-11 BZA Agenda Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7 pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes —August 23, 2011 Regular Meeting II. The Petitions are: 701 Parkview Terrace Kathrvn Sedo, Applicant (11-09-17) Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements • 11.75 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 3.25 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Single Family Zoning District (R-1), Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements • .08 ft. off the required 7.3 ft. to a distance of 6.5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Purpose: To bring the existing garage into conformance with Zoning Code Requirements III. Other Business IV. Adjournment ,; "Tf�i��oeumsr�t�.�a�ailabFe in��l�ernat�formats upan,a 72-hou�requ�sfi.Plea�e.call � 7b3-S93-8006{T'fM;763-593-3968j t�m�ke a request. Eacamp�es of alternate forma�s ' ,_ � may'i'nclude I�rge pr��t,ele�fronic,B�ti11e,audiocasse�te,et�, � �� ,� ,'� Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the _ Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 23, 2011 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, August 23, 2011 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Nelson called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Boudreau-Landis, Maxwell and Nelson, and Planning Commission Representatives McCarty. Also present were City Planner Jp�;Hageboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa `Wittman. � ��;"� �� I. Approval of Minutes —July 26, 2011 Regular Meeting � � �� `,�,� ;�� ' `Y�(' "_�j:1 (�� MOVED by Boudreau-Landis, seconded by Maxwell and moti�h carra��'unan�mously to approve the July 26, 2011 minutes as submitted. II. The Petitions are: 236 Janalyn Circle Joseph & Kathleen Mucha, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11...21, Si�ngle Family Zoning District(R-1), Subd. 12(E) Accessory Structure Requ"irements • 392 sq. ft. more than the allowed 1,000 sq. ft. of accessory structure space Purpose: To allow far the c4nstruction of a shed and gazebo Hogeboom referred to,a map�af,the subject property and explained the request by the applicants to build a $h�d/�azebo��tructure that would put this property 392 square feet over the 1,000 s�uare��`qot.rri�xirnui�`n square footage allowed for accessory structures. � � �� McCarty a5;�e�,.abo�tF�he a�e of the house. Joe Mucha, Applicant, said the house was built in 1�952`�. . �� '�� Ne;l�on ask�d�if t{��house has 3 garage stalls. Hogeboom said there are 3 stalls but a car v�ro,uld not ft in fhe middle stall. , ;;. Mucha sliowed plans for the proposed structure and several pictures of the property. He stated that the middle stall portion of the garage space is used for storage because the house doesn't have a basement. Lloyd Jafvert, architect for the project, referred to the pictures and explained that the middle garage door is really a regular door and not a typical roll-up garage door. Nelson asked about the size of the middle garage stall. Mucha said it is approximately 12 ft. x 22 ft. and that it used to be a regular garage stall before they built the third stall but now it is storage space and a passageway in order to have access from the garage into the main living space in the lower level of the house. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 23, 2011 Page 2 Jafvert stated that approximately 50 to 60 square feet of space is taken up by the concrete block walls. McCarty asked for clarification regarding the middle garage stall being storage space or living space. Mucha reiterated that the middle garage stall is storage space, not living space but includes the access door into the house. Hogeboom stated that homes with tuck-under garages are at a disadvantage because there is no basement. Jafvert agreed and stated that the applicant's gardening equipment takes up most of the storage space they have. Nelson asked about the size of the proposed new accessory structure. Mucha ref��;ed to the drawings and said the porch area is approximately 11 ft. x 11�f�: the'��prage a'r�a is approximately 11 ft. x 12.5 ft. and the walkway between them is�approximafely 4 ft: in width. Jafvert noted that the proposed structure meets all of the other s�t�ack requirements. Mucha stated that he feels the pie shape of the property is a hardship because it doesn't lend itself to constructing a detached garage.a ., � Maxwell asked if the neighboring properties on Westwood Drive would be able to see the proposed structure. Jafvert said they would be able to see';from their back yards. Maxwell explained that one factor the Board has to consider is if the landowner's situation is due to circumstances unigue,to the'property that weren't caused by the landowner. Mucha reiterated that �ecau�e of the shape of the property he is limited in what he can put on the property. He asked what�would happen if he eliminated the three garage stalls and came;before the Board with a request to build a detached 1,000 square foot garage. He added that tthe p,roperty is also a valley and is very low. Jafvert added that if they were to build a "n`ew defached garage they would also have more hard surface on their pro�erty. � Nelson asked the appficant how long he has lived in this house. Mucha said they've lived there since 1;978. `' Boudreau-Landi�'�asked the applicant if he originally used the middle garage stall for a garage or�if,it li�� alway��"been used for storage space. Mucha said they used it as star,age and'��arke�d;the cars outside until they built the third stall. � Boudr��-Land�� asked if there are interior walls between the garage stalls. Mucha said there is rtbt,��ivall between the finro original garage stalls but there is a wall between the original garage and the garage addition. Javfert stated that he didn't think tuck under garage space should be counted toward the square footage allowed. Fie thought only attached garage space counted. McCarty said he considers the three garage stalls to be garage or accessory space even if a car isn't parked in one of the stalls. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals August 23, 2011 I'age 3 � Javfert stated that the interior space of the garage is approximately 906 square feet, and even less if the storage space is removed from the calculation. The Board discussed if they should consider interior dimensions or exterior dimensions. Hogeboom stated that staff uses exterior dimensions. Maxwell said he thinks the proposal would blend in nicely and it is very tasteful but he's not sure if the landowner's situation is due to circumstances unique to the property that weren't caused by the landowner. Nelson agreed that the proposal is in harnra,ony with the surrounding area and it doesn't alter the character of the locality but�;Fi�;''doesn't see unique circumstances that weren't caused by the landowner. Boud'reau-Landis agreed. Mucha asked if he built a wall in the original garage if would still need a variance. ' McCarty said if part of the garage were converted to actual living sp�ce and not used as storage or garage space than he may not need a varian�e to build the propqsed accessory structure. Hogeboom added that the space wou�d�,also �ave to��e cut-off from entering through a garage door. � �`'� � � Mucha asked if they could build anything without a variance:,Nelson said no, because they are already over the amount of accessory structure space that the zoning code allows. Mucha asked how he can address the tuck under garage issue. Hogeboom explained that the Board's decision can be appealed to the City Council. Mucha said he would rather see the ordinances change regarding prop�rties with tuck under garages to not having to count the garage,space as accessory structure space. Maxvvell said the word attached could mean adjacent. Nelson stated that in her years of real estate experience an attached;garag,e includes tuck under garages. McCarty agreed that a tuck under garage (s'attached and should be considered when calculating accessory structure &p,�ce. 4 � t I �� !x MOVED by McCarty, secon�ded b�`Boudreau-Landis and motion carried unanimously to deny the variance::as reque'sted.'" III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IVe `a�ourn�nent �y; , : The meeting adjourned at 8:10 pm. Nancy Nelson, Chair Joe Hogeboom, Staff Liaison �i�y �� , �G��1�� `� Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Date: September 22, 2011 To: Board of Zoning Appeals From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: 701 Parkview Terrace Kathryn Sedo, Applicant Background Kathryn Sedo, owner of the property at 701 Parkview Terrace, is seeking finro variances from City Code. One variance is to allow for the construction of a deck within the north side yard setback area and the other is to bring the existing attached garage into conformance with City Code. The applicant is proposing to construct the deck to serve as a landing area for stairs into the backyard as well as a connection to a sidewalk that leads to the front yard. The proposed deck would encroach 11.75 feet into the setback area. Several variances have been obtained for this property in the past. In 2003, three variances were granted to bring the existing home into conformance with City Code. At that time, the applicant proposed to build an addition to the home, and variances needed to be obtained for the existing structure in order to issue a building permit. In 2008, a variance was granted for the expansion of the attached garage into the north side yard setback area. The variance was granted to allow the garage to extend to within 7.3 feet of the north property line. A current survey indicates that the garage was constructed 6.5 feet from the property line. A variance is needed to compensate for the discrepancy. Variances The proposal requires variances from the following sections of City Code: • Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements. City Code establishes a 15-foot side yard setback for this property. The applicant is requesting 11.75 feet off of the requirement for a distance of 3.25 feet befinreen the closest point of the proposed deck and north side yard property line. • Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements. A prior variance had established a side yard setback of 7.3 feet for the attached garage. The applicant is requesting .08 feet off of the requirement to a distance of 6.5 feet befinreen the existing attached garage and the north side yard property line. Attachments Location Map Enlarged Plan —Site Layout Survey July 22, 2008 BZA Minutes Memo to the BZA dated July 14, 2008 November 25, 2003 BZA Minutes Memo to the BZA dated November 17, 2003 Variance Application �� 4�34 4212 A19G 4198 310 I 309 � 49fi�tf i 314 � 315 ' i -.- ——————— T3Ec+neta�t�d— —————-� d418 1 8$1 � l�t�adoeti►P 1 . d301 q�� 4Z71 433�1 �115 d441 t � _ 1 44� � �3'!9 611 ! � 5!S 5�3 529 �g �k1 ! e� -.� d r s�o ' s�!� --,.� _, _ -. s. .. J�r�fyn'Glr°.._ _�_ �� Sfl1 I i d $�� 1 5i!5 51� 52� 828 �� 5S8 �!� 1 1 ; _ __ _ t i t �1 ' . � �"° s � Subject Property �ao x , ,-- -----�--� � t g �18 � �15 7U8 + ' � . r 7� T4�! j 7�9 ,Tt10 ' . .' � r � ' �. :� � � . 71? �� j � 8Q1 � t � 8D1 ?1� 4 8t7 SflBI 6 T21 8iF + �' g�� 1 � �1 1 p ""°+ f {� v1� 1 qh ��`� 8tt8 �` 831 � � M��'�,� i �t11 I `` 8� �e � 818 `'.o � �p 824 °*4 ``� 9�' 8�4 t �l,1 e. 8� � ��`r� 82t! �,� d > �, 915 B 9t� �,��' j�' �� 10�1 1015 1031 1045 �t �# : `''� 1{t�1 *.� T i �� r �� ' r 1it99 ��fiY*otYr—�_� ..p �19�h�TyP��P',�t'bs �` 92U i r � �s �,�� u, „ ,� 1a�1� 1 � �'�� a 102� i�'� 1'l�tl � .�,,�',�� ' (�i�� 1Q11 B11$ � �``°;, 1� ��y�I�� 11A9 �,� �� ' ��s � �� „ 44� � d�!22 qg,�2 17�2 $$ 6 �8 �--,m_—_�y�a�,te�atd-- ------�' _��O��Y 900 t .� y 4 � y;-` --�-—._ `�terst�te kwyr3g4^�— �~ `°`—�. y�� _� e��.�t+s•�aca�r�� ..,� -.�_ _ � ,- _�-.�:� -;:z:: - i:�ii + �8� � � � 4. �� a � �� 1 ,�'�f � �` �1 I �i � � 3 {{ c � - - - _.F- !1__,�\ :I I � �� ,� �� ` � �-°CQ ! € � i �� _ � � � � � ' __ �� -- � � ! ' � r'O $ :: � _` , a�. � ' � ! ::1 r'� �c _ / ` ' •�' �✓ + � � i �� , �:: : 1-� � '� � � I j . � - , rz :�: m ��:� ` �� :� ;� �, �: . � . . . . . . � . .. . .. . .. . , . . . �� . . . ... - . z . .. .. �I � � — � I � . . . � . �. . .. . r , r -- I Y _ ,�: .. .. .. . .. ... . . - ; : . , -� ,�i �;�,�y� ' ��:�� , � . � . � , ,I . / ; :, ; : . � � '1 � — '�� '� 'I ;� , ,'' '� -,-,.•, . � I: . . . �� . . ::� ra).\ • ' � • ' �� \�' �:� Ii� , . \ .• ' , f. ' �� ,�I, ' A . ' : � �� i � �� ` , .�]' �� : • � •� ��1 G �� t � \\ ��V. ' '� � I .',J '� �" � ,. � � 7:� �� . � � �� , . ' . . . . . . �� . . . _`� :�:: �� ! : . � ' f � � � ;� '� ,. �:�,.;: : �_ , t� , � ;, -o � . : � i ;: : .,= :��: _� �,a:.:.;; . : . :. : . . � : : � �: y . . . .r-,-,� . . . . . . . ,: . . � :�i _ • . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . � . . . . . --- � � ° ::i !� , _ O . . . . . ,. . . _ . . . . . . . .------ - . - ' , - ,;, : � ��' ::{ �� i � � _ ;__ - . . ' ' .v _ _ . _ _ __ __ - � ,- � _ -�-�� ' _��.��.��.��«�� , � '� �� `, ' �. cn ��:��°,�,� , `�� ; m � � � _ � , . . . . . - . , oa � � - � ��: � �:� r �a � %'_ �� --- - �_ -- ��. � � �� , �'� , o � _ �; .� � '�' �� •,`�`�� i - � � � _ � r�+r.r�ly� _ I 3_��I �` '\) <� _ , ,,, ' :� � ��; 4 r � � a � ,. e � -- - — ----- � � '� _ 'I — � �. 1 , .,,, _ . : , , � �_ _ . , . . . � - -. _ - � r� � �, � . . �� ;� , �- �- � , o � � � , -�� ., _._ , , . ,�� _ { �.� , ;,, ;,; � � - �� -- ��0 �, i ""t` . . . �n � . :l; , . . . ! � _ � I � I � � I . � ; � - i , ' �I, ;, ,I _ ,��==_:=�.� �r � , � , � � , - � . . , � . . -� �� ,. � � _ �� % �� _ � �� ;�� , � _- _ , - - I ; > . � . � �� a ' � , � �_. . �� :,; . �� - . . —T; , � ,_`_ , „i��` _ ,. ,, _ , � � ,- ,� . _ ---- - . . ' �-� e,; � . .� . � . . _, i ,: - I �� --..-- � >-' `^ - -_ � '`� ? \ ; j i J' _ F I� _�' , , �;. _ z- �. . !. _ _ �' , � � � � x �� _ _� . . , ��: : . _ � „� _ ; __ _ �^` �. ;� �� , > ' �� ,� ��a,� i � ; f. .r!� �� r -� ., `� � f-.- __ --�r, i_� �� ,�y_� ''� =� y Jf ...� ..- ..�I . — i _- - ��. � " rz--. ._:. ...__ . ._:� .'.. � . . .- , � � , „ v ,,, �r. ;II Q l . _ I ' , ��,�,�. ,',i ( _.. � �`=.y _ �./ r-..__I� . � .-��. ;�..: I��'" `!�,� ,,_ '`, �_ —..; -r—a. � I _ �'� i �� " l �� R.�i, ni . ' � �` .—� . _ _- � �.. ,.�� , . � '— , � �f_ � ti i- �� . I — _ ..; _'� � . _ `f � . �� ,_'.,- ;_ .._. _. , _ . - / ,- ... { ._— ,. d, -..; _. -.-_._, � , , ._..._ i ".-...i_. / /- __ i '� .- i ..__. i � _ i _ .. '- _—___ -- " - _-- . 2 � ��.—' _N - i - .. �.: � Z , _- -�- _� . -�---� � _ � � � rn --#i- � - - z� � _ _ ��_��- ,-- �- � Z ; � �/ ._ ,- � :��1'�— � v" �� t � i ,, . �' i _ ///��11 ,_ �-' t i / I�� :J� .:.: _ ",�� 1""i � � � �_1 -_ -._.-_-_._ . .. � _ . . �� - ,... � � _. i .. ,� �_... / � �i, I �� . .� .. .. I � O W �14 IWsA'i I� r � .. ] _ _ - L �_.i - ..�+._,..,. . :^.�. _ iin � m � , � _ `._� ' , � � � , vm _ _ _ _ � '� ' �� _ -., oN _ ��- _ _ :- .p - = , ';- , _, , °�g- _ - � ., - - - - � -s - s� � �- ��- �_ � , _ = : - , -- �i� — - -- _ , � - - - _ � o m ,, - -'l�- - _ ti „� _ -, - T - ---� °� � � � � � , ` 'r� , m - - -- ' - - - - ' - __ � -� � . ___ - - _ - > 0 �: � � .- � � ��\,;_ _ :. Z i_ . ... �y �__ . . �� "' -� . - -,� - _- - � �_ _ v �{ � � �: . �� g , _ _ - =- _ :� ~� ,, , r � �� ,��. � ,. , �, '' � e zm I'�7 � ��a- 1� -r. � 1 , � t � M ,5b.04.00 S � - — --$L'806-- — - �I � ��{ I ti � � .�sF3 �„�,,�s°� . — .�— — _ �' � — -�,_ �_ -' _�-a�:_-:�=_-----��-_------- ---- � _ - �°'�-�- °-_=-=== - -_=�_-"-----------__--�-------- ---- � - ______ -- _;_:__ _ =-=- ___ ---�-_-==�---�� -- 1 _, _ :_ ::_____�=�-�_�:---��=_==;__- -------� ---- _ = . -".�---_ ---�=-___ ::-:t-_.-----===#==_==�-� - == f'_ �'� %''- ' _-�--`=�=-4"_=_____'_ �-_�r -- e�i p _ _ � ____' - . j^'s��'' --''"_-'^��.sso��"_-�'��—'---_- -- ' } „��~ r .__—_—� �--- - --'- �'� � -'�-' _ -�"�^ °asd "----��—�- _ �� _ - � � -- -�_-"_�-_--------- $ ' ----'- '--- _ _ �� ''-��I-'-�-��_-_:._"--'--------rd---'---'- - -- -__ -�:�� ^:_e_;,'_�j--�..w0'-_ '_- - -�ooe ` _.� �- .�� ". - -.-- _� ' ' -----�_ � ---- --- � � _ ��'��'-!-'_ ��30'3t)¢{p11yI1�Y�__'—__�T___ —_'_ ___ W �rJ W �..-� �' � ' ^ H �_t�-SCO—T�`` i e N N-' -�'" 'Ap4�" '+/,� -"--"-""'-9G8-" I _ �� `I_ _ _'�� J,��/ __�7_ '_"''�_ --"[osJ ,_, �_"' "' �j a0 L� y ' _- _ �� A� "-_ , '�w �___ -�--'gpg_ �'_ I N — C� :'== -- -.�;= :; � �-�: ,�" -=�==- —�= C� —J '__ -- -'A� ��+ ' '-- '-- '--- �rgt_ -'�'-' �, � ---- ��=�.��_�---- '� ._..1 --�c�e- �� -��✓_ �f.' .814 \ -916-' `__ - - -'_� T : -e'e- �z "s- ---- 'er` � � _ �`�_ a ---- . Q �J�� '-�:ne `�� z� .�'" °,� � � -e`e"""�� n _:rlt; z p ° �\ ' I �. -ge°- $c �� '�,; � \ �/ � ��; `� `� �.' C �� '� B• i � � n � ' � I � � ° i �I i � r �q i 08t ;g i � i i r � %� � � j •� � i � 3 �� ; �i i d � � �� i -aze�, p � � � �� I � �� ; �`'�, � ' � ,, �ti �. _�- � _ �. � � __,os.�5-- f: , ' �N 03'39'17° W � � fl ��ti �--maE o�smum�a� � os � s � � � s � ` � I'fP� TE'RRAC.�' ', � a .� C ',PARINI � _ �.'--- — . o � � p � • �, �� y� � .� , __J____ _ --= — _ ` .� r � �d �- � V � �� q a�� a r►. � �� ti °,� = � � �� . `"' �'° � .. �$� � � '�o" � � �� .�� S � W ° �3� � �� " � w � �� a�� a � � � w � �A� � �. � � �z � "►� � .. ,�� . �� $�a�� '� �� c�� ' "' �o v� � � c rp � � �..} �p � � � � ef '9' V � � w �� yy ,� � T�`� � � �O � � � 9�� `� � Eo � a �� Q. °�'dy. � Zy � � ^ � � �{r �y�x °� �g �'� `�> �i q� v�� (,) o � P d V oG� w��q �.3 D yy,>+ �-y O� �M ` `�' � ~� O � o-.l..� � ffi Q �� ,°, ��g� �g�� a � E ° p�r� ° � � H �� a ��o �� „ v, �,� � t� �w� � .�� ''Q�� -�� .�;, ��°• �" �� " � � W ;�a �� b.�� W o �, �� w � a,x 4, � � � ° ° m�`y �� c, e°� ty � �:�� vi o `� aa �' A �-o� 4 � ir� �" AQa Z+ ��'.^'�' �a. � �.,,� v � b M � °gq 53 ri � � a p �•�.-9. � ° � � a o. � �I �,,��.g� @�� 5�� ° � U� � Z �l � .'�� `�3�i°r�°�� o��Qa. � � ��v� o °i � a � N �s�o �$$ �q�, �o � � ,°�'� _� o� �`'��1 9 � ��p ^� {! ° A �o el p T QT�.. M � O eQy ~ d� N� �"_' Za� p.i J � �`+O N �"• T'� Q N p... ��v Q � � Z 'p,O' -� �� •u � N O� °�� v�,� � �' v1� �'.e ki � �� • � �� i � � `�'`o� � ��a�'�,°0� b�s� �� U� � �a � � � � .�� A � � � (�"q'b�y� o �y gp �� = �s�C, � Vl Vl VJ r-1'.]•id a'��. U VJ..:�I t> �N t+j�N O Vi � ip� U r-W �e Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valtey Board of Zoning Appeais , � July 22, 2008 A regular meeting of the Golden Vaile Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, July 2 2008 at City Hail, 7800 Gold Valley Road, Golden Valley, M' esota. Chair SeU called th . eting to order at 7 pm. Those present were � rs Kisch, els e baum, Sell, and Pla �� ' mission Representative McCarty. A s re City Pfanner Joe Hogeboo �`` ' nd Administrative Assistant Lis a ""�� : k��: , � {�' �� Q _�� r��a ��.I. ApprovaL � nutes —June , �008 � � � � �;�-� ��= �;�� q�::, MOVE cCarty, seconded by S elbaum and motion carr��i ur�`�.im�t�ly to approve . th ne 24, 2008 minutes as submitted. `=��i:�_ �"�� ° ��.,;��> It. The Petitions are: ;.; �.�,; �,�� _ T,u� .� 701 Parkview Terrace (08-07-10) _n� �_.,�, `,�-� .P �� Kathrvn Sedo,Aualicant ,��' ��; '�� nk,��}�,�` e q.t�r �'s,..;h w:.;. j,. �"��r S~ F� �. �=��{��11(A�(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Request: Waiver from 5��.n ,��, , . Requiremen ��} ; �` �� z� �r'�, � ��•- ..,i.�F��sJ aK;� �` • 7.7 r,��e��uired 15 ft. to a distance of 7.3 ft. at its closest p-'��to th °si�'�;i��ard (north) properiy line. � �:;,.. � Purpose: �o�a11ow �� e construction af a garage addition. � �r �¢ "`'�� Hogeboom ex 'ned ��at ��;��, ��ant is requesting a variance from side yard setback requirements i��r t�� an��er garage to construct a handicapped accessible ramp inside the e. �" sta _d that this praperty has received twa variances in the past in order tc�;briR�� :�.��ome into conformance. �t � �� .,,� .,• . : ��,. S t elbaurri��fer`�� to a survey of the property and asked if there have been additions � �' M1� .,9 1 ' add��d,to the f��use�hat are not noted on the survey. Hogeboom stated that there was a screen� rch a=`�the south side of the house that the applicants built above, but it did not change t��a'�prin# of the house. McCarty referred to the survey and noted that it says "proposed addition" on the north side of the house, Kafihryn Sedo, i4pplicant, stated that when she had the survey done she was considering constructing the "proposed addition" on the north side of the house, but she didn't end up building the adtlition. Se(I asked the applicant how long she has lived at this property. Sedo said she's lived there since 1984 and the house was built in 1939. She stated that the footprint of the house has not changed since it was buiit, hawever they did add a second story on the Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 22, 2008 Page 2 house. She stated that she has talked ta all of her neighbors, particularly the neighbor most aifected by this proposal, and they are ok with her plans. She stated that her daughter has balance and gait issues that make it difficult for her to navigate the steps in the garage leading into the hnuse. She discussed her proposal to knock down the existing garage, r.eplace the garage flooc and replace the existing driveway. McCarty asked if the proposed access ramp will be in its own enclosed space. Sedo said she is hoping to build the ramp in a heated enclosed space. :�,�T�. �Segelbaum asked if the existing access door into the house will be utili �- ��` Se aid yes. Segelbaum asked if there are any ather access doors. Sedo explain d �' there i '�:, patio door off of the deck behind the garage but there are steps leading : e so u :�� g that entrance is not an option. � �'�'� .�. � IVIcCarty asked about#he depth of the garage. Sell noted that�1�� d�� -= of tla, arage `ts 20.5 feet. Sedo added that the ara e is not ve dee f � y fit in it.. 9 9,� rY P ��d #hat.:;.� o c el . a_s,� ; �,Y� sh+�t�� dered for the ram Segelbaum asked the applicant about alternative I� ' � �, p. �Sedo explained that she considered building the '"opose�' ; p m '��e back of the garage but it won't work with the location of the existing d��k, the to "` graphy of the Iot and laynut � of the house. S�II guessed that the house w�s�t�Gig�, .ly buil �,�0 fest away from the front yard property line because the�topograpl��ia°of th�''�at '� � allow it to be built any further back on the lot. Sedo added that��y� or�k�� ,�, way to construct a ramp would be to bring the garage further forward„�£��` ��w��d also ��wre a variance and would look �� ti worse. �° �, ,,° � �y �:: x�� '. Kisch asked what room of - r e��'�ight inside the garage door. Sedo said the garage enters into a narrow kitch and `�; cata't move the kitchen because of a stairway. �� Sell opened the pub��,�,�arin eeing and hearing no ane wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hear� g' a �� a �, � F s 3 �+��'�'t �� ma�'"�� '�`w Nelson stated tha � e B� rd in the past has said that front yards are sacred in Golden Valley. S -, i� " e rds are as sacred. Segelbaum said he thinks side yards would. be con �er � ��e :�' ell said he would prefer there to be an impact to a side yard versus a t � ��- �� .. Seg��_ um r��re tn the steepness of the back yard and questioned if the lot drops off immed��iy be�i'ind the garage. Sedo said the lot does drop off right away behind the garage. � � '� Kisch noted that the variance request is almost 50% of the side yard setback area. He stated that if the main reason for the proposed garage expansion is to construct a ramp� there seems to be a way to build a ramp in a smaller space. He suggested a �4-foot wide area for the ramp instead of the proposed 6-foot area. Sedo said her daughter has issues with spatial pe�ception so the width is really a safety concern. McCarty noted that handrails could be installed for safety. Sedo stated that her builder has said that 6 feet would be best for what she wants to accomplish. She explained that she wo�ld like a little Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 22, 2008 ;Page 3 b� of space for coat hooks and a place for boots and that it would be easier for her daughter and her family if they have enough room for their needs. Sell said he thinks the Board is "nitpicking" over the size of the proposed ramp. He stated that the applicant has a child with physical and mental issues that need to be accommodated. Nelson said she thinks the proposal meets all of the criteria the Board is supposed to consider. :t��° � ��"� � �� . Segelbaum said his concern is that this proposal takes 50% of the si e� cd setba n�area. He said there is obviously a hardship in this case but it is the resp ��ility��.Boarc��o �� look at alternatives. �� , �� yf� .r�� ,��'° McCarty said he is not trying to deny the applicant's daughter e�sie��'� cess� the house. However, he is trying to see if there are other ways to do`��wit � ,-� er var�ance. Sell noted that there is a minimal size garage to work wit�� . '�K, '�� 4�:. h�{�;,uR• x��' �e��. Segelbaum said he also considers the housing st k and t will ��tract the next buyer. He said this proposal seems similar to a mudroo edo sai�� hat a mudroom is kind of what she had in mind. She said the way s��"��°�o � ing to ild the ramp wi11 be better for the house. She said she is not sure Sh�will s,�n �� to cons#ruct what is being proposed without building fhe wall that wi�l'e��ncl=�� i� ramp. ,��, Y .,c�; �� . Nelson reiterated that the three cr��ria th�Bo�rd considers when reviewing variance requests are reasonable use, the�µ r�`�Yr of nefghborhood and the uniqueness of the lot. She said she thinks it is a p�d�� r�� `to consider other options for this proposal but the �� ,... nature of the lot in this ca��`does��t all �the applicant to build the proposed garage/ramp addition anywhere else. °��,.� �� "�� t � �.° � ; ��, McCarty noted that th . t�� sia .fof the proposed garage addition are different on the survey and the ��tch ��:_,es�� ' '. �d fhat the dimensions on the survey are correct. �°_ �� x �r Hogeboor��#��tht��ac��ssible ramps often look out of place and he thinks this . propos��k�ts ��'��f��ra�orporate an accessible ramp and universal design, w�� Se�,�lbaum�s�tetl��}�at the circumstances in this case are unique. He said there will be som�;��pact t �.he neighboring property but this is certainly a reasonable use. �� MOVED �' ��egelbaum, seconded by Nelson and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for 7.7 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 7.3 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line to allow for the construction of a garage addition. , III. Other Business No other business was discussed. �� ' q:� . ..�., , �� e Planninc� � o . 763-593-8095 I 763 693-8109 (fax) Date: July 14, 2008 ° To: Golden'�alley Board of Zoning Appeais From: Joe Hogeboom, City Planner Subject: 701 Parkvi�w Te�race Kathryn Sedo, Applicant . Background Kathryn Sedo is the own�r of the property located at 701 Parkview Terrace: Ms. Sedo is requesting a variance to City Code to construct an addition to her.ex�sting gara�e for the purpose of accommodating a handi�ap-accessible ramp. The proposed addition would encroach into the side yard setback of the property. Ms. Sedo's daughter.has a physical disability which limits her sense of balance. A ramp would help to make the home more accessible. By expanding the garage to the north, an indaor ramp could be built between the garage and the home. This proposed ramp could be accessed firom the garage and from the outdoors. Requested Act�on � The proposed project cequires a variance from the following section of City:Code: • Section 11.24, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements. The City's Zoning Code states"that side yard setbacks in lots greater than 100 feet in width in the Single Family (R1) Zoning District must be at least 15 feet from the property line: Ms. Sedo is requesting 7.7 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 7.3 feet at its closest point to the side (north) yard property line to allow for the construction of a garage addition. Prior Variance Requests In December of 2003, Ms. Sedo applied for a building permit to construct an addition to the rear of her home: At that time; it was noted that the existing home was located outside of the setback boundary. Ms: Sedo was awarded a variance to the side,yard setback requirements; as welt as a variance to the front yard setback requirements. The existing variances are as follows: • 1.7 feet�off the required 15 feet to a distance of 13.3.feet at its closesfi point to tMe north side yard.property line for the existing house. • 5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 30 feet at its closest point to the front yard property line along Parkview Terrace for the existing.house, No other variances exist for this�home. Attachments Location Map (1 page) Variance Application (3 pages) Plan Showing Existing Conditions (1 page) Plan Showing Proposed Garage Addition (1 page) Board of Zoning Appeals Notice of Final Order dated December 23, 2003 (1 page) � Memo from Director Mark Grimes dated Navember 17, 2003 (2 pa,ges) Photos of the Property (3 pages) Property Survey (1 page) . . , � Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals November 25, 2�003 :Page 9 4 . _ Purpose: , To bring the e isfing home into conforma �-'�Yith buifding setback requirements.:. - . : °�F��est: '11Vaiver from tion�l-.2�. .�A►�--F-ront-'!(ard S.e#backs . � �� . . � : 4 ft. off the r uired . to a distance of 32:6 ft.�at ifs closest� poi the fro ya � operty line along Natchez Auenue Norkh for the exis ho . �� Purpose: To bring th. i i ouse into conformance with��uildmg s;etback ,� � �require ts.� >�2 ��,��µ '�� - ��„ ��. � � MOVED by Srriith, seco d by Ovs and motion c ' un�r�imous'F'�to ap��ve the request for 0.4 ft. off required 15 : to a distance of 1 a`��loses��pomt to � s.oufh side yard pco line for the existing house and 2.4 ft �°� e�.�� u�red �5 ft. to:a. � ,;distance of 32:6.. , t its closest point to the front yard pr�pert�i`�'l�ne a(��g Natch�z � ,:Avenue North f he existing house. �,�� .�,�, � - .�,� � ,:� �. 1,�,� `�� "��,�`�s�.� . � rv + . .. Y _..- � ; _ � i"7�� k'S��N ��'I Parkvie��'�ri�ace��`03='11-G5) .` '� �,�;, F�atFi` n``Sec�o';A� ,licant";x �a ��.� �, � � ��F ..'� F°fiy�jk. .: . . �� `�' >.i,'r` , Request; Waiver from'�ect�o A1 ;��ubd.V7(C) SidE Ya�ed Setbacks ,�:. �, :�.�_ • 1.7 ft. off th e uir�� 15��fi� to a distance of 13.3 ft. at its clasest �� q � � �� point to,_� � no h �.de yard°property line for the existing house. k� • , � Purpose: Ta b� `t� the existin':;�ome into conformance with building setback ,� �;. � �equirernQr�ts. . � . . �. , ��9 � � . �Request Vl��ve�.�r m.KSection 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setbacks ,.,,� �;y�� ¢ o�;,�ft�o�fihe required 35 ft. to a distance af�0 ft. at its closest point � �' , ��the.�front yard property line afong Parkview Terrace for#he. � � e isting h,ouse. . - � � � ��. � � � �`��,Purpos�:��'To bring the existing home into conformance with building setback, ��. �� reg.uirements. . ��;�., �,�.:-�' .,��" , IaIIOVED by Shaffer, s�conded by McCracken-Hun# and motior� �arried unanimously to approve th.e request for 1.7 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a dis#ance of 13.3 ft. at its . closesf point to �he north side yard property line fior the existing house and for 5 ft. off the required 35 ft.`to a distance of 30 ft. at its clnsest point to the front yard property line along P�rkview Terrace for the existing house. � :3�'3 ' �� Planning - 763-593-8095/763-593-8109(fax) Date: November 17, 2003 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning�and Development Subject: 70'1 Parkview Terrace (03-11-65) Kathryn Sedo, Applicant Kathryn Sedo is the owner of the house and property at 701 Parkview Terrace. (The properiy is located on the east side of Parkview Terrace south of Glenwood Ave.) The appiicant is requesting dariances from two requirements of the Residential zoning district found in the Zoning Code (Section 11.21) in order to allow for the construction of an addition on the rear of the house above an existing deck that was built in 1991. The applicant came to the Inspections Department in order to begin the building permit process. Since there was a current survey available� it was known that the existing house does not meet the required side and front yard setback. Also, the survey indicates that the existing deck was built slightly into the required sideyard setback area in 1991. (The addition will be constructed over the deck.) No variances were required for the deck construction in 1991. This was a mistake and variances should have been applied for at that time for the deck construction because of the nonconfQrming location of the house. It does appear that the deck was to be built to me�t the 15 ft. setback but it is off by about 0.5 ft. as noted on the survey. City staff has allowed the applicant to sign off on a "Hold Harmless" agreement form in order to receive a building permit for the construction of the addition prior to the issuance of the variances to make the house and existing deck legally nonconforming. The staff agreed to the "Hold Harmless" agreement only after the applicant submitted the required survey and application materials. The signed "Hold Harmless° agreement is attached. The following ar� fhe requested variances: • Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C) Side Yard Setback. City Code requires that the sid� � yard setback shall be 15 ft. The variance request is for 1.7 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 13.3 ft. at its closest point to the north side yard property line for the existing house. • Section 11.21, Subd. T(C) Sid� Yard Setback. City Code requires that the side yard sefback shall be 15 ft. The variance request is for .58 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 14.42 ft. for the existing deck and proposed addition at its closest point to the north side yard property line for the existing house. • Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback. City Code requires that the front yard s�tback from a street shall be 35 ft. The variance request is for 5 ft. off tMe required 35 ft. to a distance of 30 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line along Parkview Terrace for the existing house. The City files indicate the house was built in 1939. The deck was constructed in 1991. No other permits were issued to increase the footprint of the house. However, the house has been expanded vertically. No variances have been granted or applied for on this prflperty. CI� Of GOICIe11 Valley ForQffice Use Only: Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Applicat�an No. Date Reaeived ' Zoning Code Variance Application BZA,Meeting Date Amount Reeeivsd 1. Street address of property involved in this application: �-�I ��K� r-�� T�-�2.�- 2. Applicant: f��`�'� � , S�� Name �I ��-�I�J i�r�1 "I� ��e� V�LC.�f , n�� S��(� Add ress City/StateIZip � iZ � Z � �� 3�-�-� 031 �i� �� 8z Business Phone Home Phone Cell Phone S��D� �� v I�/� � �l� Email Address 3. Detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site plans and drawings submitted with this petition will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. �!'��- UJ�'`dsC `�o 14�r1L �J 5�,1 �� S� c�1� cZ �� 5 \ �� a. �,u�' � "�� '{z� "�j..�T�-CL'�� S� I�.�G�.�a� . �-I � '� � �`"� l �-�. �S S , 4. A brief statemen of the hardship hich provides legal grounds for the granting of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). ttach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. � � �.�- �.� � �— ,�� -� �� r� � � b� !�� .s � S � ��- .�.�� .�, �`�-�� s-�.� b�l--l-`� lq 3�. � �. b� �- ` o �--� Sa�Q r�� R'�� I`�°Q� S u�g �- _ , 5. T the best(�f my knowledge the atements found in this plication are true d correct. I als understand that nless construction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expires. i ignat r o�� plicant By signing this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about the project, not that you necessarily agree or object to the project. If you wish, you may comment on the project. Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other statements regarding the project. Print Name (/�G a Comment , Signature Address � ' Print Name ( � �0�`t/ " Comment � � ` ' Signature �e 10� �. I � Address (� �� e� ' e�� Print Name '��,irQ 7\'�� L��'�' Comment � � , Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address Print Name Comment Signature Address