Loading...
09-27-11 BZA Minutes Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 27, 2011 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, September 27, 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, Maxwell and Nelson, and Planning Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Member Boudreau-Landis was absent. I. Approval of Minutes -August 23, 2011 Regular Meeting MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Maxwell and motion carried unanimously to approve the August 23, 2011 minutes as submitted. II. The Petitions are: 701 Parkview Terrace Kathryn 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 Hogeboom referred to a site plan of the property and noted that variances were granted in 2003 to bring the existing home into conformance with Zoning Code requirements. A variance was also granted in 2008 which allowed the existing garage to be expanded to 7.3 feet away from the north property line. However, the finished garage ended up being constructed 6.5 feet from the property line instead. Hogeboom explained the applicant's current request to build a deck on the north side of the property line in order Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 27, 2011 Page 2 to connect an existing walkway in the front and side yards to steps leading to the back yard. McCarty asked about the City's inspection process and how the garage expansion ended up closer to the north property line than allowed. Hogeboom stated that he didn't know how the error wasn't detected during the inspections process. McCarty stated that although it is a relatively insignificant error, it was a large variance to begin with. Nelson agreed. Nelson asked about the setback requirements for sidewalks. Hogeboom stated that any paved surface, including sidewalks, patios, etc. have to be 3 feet away from a property line. Maxwell asked if the proposed deck were a free-standing deck if it would require a variance. Hogeboom stated that if it was less than 8 inches in height it would be considered a patio and not a deck. He added that if it were detached, there would need to be 10 feet of separation between the deck and the house as well. Kathryn Sedo, Applicant, referred to the garage and stated that she thinks the property line angles as it goes toward the back yard so that is why it was built unintentionally closer to the north property line than allowed. She referred to a site plan of the property and explained that there are currently stairs leading down to the very steep back yard that she would like to replace. She stated that she really considers the proposed deck to be more like a landing that would connect the existing walkway to the stairs leading to the back yard. She noted that most of the deck could be considered a patio however; the back end of it becomes too steep requiring it to be taller than 8 inches in height. She stated that she needs the extra space in order to exit the doorway and to have room to get down the stairs. Hogeboom concurred that if proposed deck was less than 8 inches in height it would be considered a patio and would not require a variance. Sedo added that the only reason she needs a variance is because of the steep slope of the property. McCarty asked about the height of the deck at the front, or street side. Sedo said the front of the deck would be step height or approximately 6 to 7 inches in height. She reiterated that in order to connect the walkway to the stairs she needs the deck to be the size proposed. Maxwell asked the applicant if her daughter would b� able to use the stairs to access the back yard. Sedo said yes and noted that her daughter can also access the back yard though the walk-out basement inside the house. Nelson asked the applicant how long she has lived in this house. Sedo said they've lived in this house approximately 26 years. Nelson questioned if the deck would still function if it were slightly smaller. Sedo reiterated that they need enough space to make the connection from the front walkway to the stairs and said the deck would be awkward Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 27, 2011 Page 3 and not as safe or accessible if it were smaller. Maxwell noted that the applicant would still need a variance even if the proposed deck was smaller. Nelson suggested constructing a tiered system. Sedo said the slope is too steep. Hogeboom questioned if changing the grade would potentially have a bigger impact on the neighboring property. Nelson said she would feel more comfortable considering a smaller landing or deck or a variance that would allow the deck to be 5 feet from the property line rather than the 3.25 feet as requested. Sedo reiterated that the proposed size of the deck would be safer and more accessible for everyone using it. Nelson said she is sympathetic to the accessibility issues but anyone who has trouble walking is not going to be able to use the steps anyway and they could still access the back yard through the basement. Nelson opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Nelson closed the public hearing. Nelson said she understands this is a tough property to work with but she is concerned about how close the proposed deck would be to the north property line. Maxwell stated that if the applicant built a smaller landing instead of a deck they would still need a variance. Hogeboom noted that the applicant could build a 25 square foot landing or a patio 3 feet from the property line without the need for a variance. McCarty said he would feel better considering a variance for the deck to be constructed along the same plane as the garage wall, no closer to the north property line. Nelson agreed. Maxwell said he understands the safety concerns and given the steepness of the property he is more sympathetic toward the request. He said that the applicant is planning on replacing the existing stairs regardless and would need a variance to do any type of deck. He noted that if this were a pre-1982 structure or if it were a flat lot a deck eould be located 3 feet from the property line and the applicant wouldn't even require a variance. McCarty said he is not advocating that the variance request be denied. He is advocating that there is enough room to build a deck or landing that would stay within the same plane as the north wall of the existing garage. He said he doesn't see a hardship that wouldn't let the applicant accomplish what she wants to accomplish. Nelson suggested compromising with the applicant and allowing her to build the deck 6.5 feet away from the north property line which would be the same variance given for the garage expansion in 2008. Sedo stated that the proposed deck is "patio height" until it reaches the back 2 feet of the deck because of the steep slope. She stated that she would rather modify her plans and construct the deck along the same plane as the north garage wall than have the variance request denied. Minutes of the Goiden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals September 27, 2011 Page 4 MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve a variance to allow for the construction a deck to be located 6.5 feet at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. McCarty noted that since the property line along the north may angle slightly he would like to amend the motion to state that the deck should follow the same plane as the existing north side garage wall. The Board agreed. The Board based its decision on the following findings: • The proposal uses the property in a reasonable manner • The proposal won't alter the essential character of the locality • The property has a unique slope MOVED by Maxwell, seconded by McCarty and motion carried unanimously to approve the variance request for .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 to bring the existing garage into conformance with Zoning Code Requirements. III. Other Business No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:55 pm. ;i��-���1 ��—� �� ;�..�¢ Nancy J. Nelson, Chair Joseph S. ogeboom, Staff Liaison