Loading...
02-28-06 BZA Agenda e Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 28, 2006 7pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes - January 24, 2005 II. The Petitions are: 6410 Glenwood Avenue (05-11-25) Dale & Kim Lampe. Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 1 0(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements ., 5.2 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 29.8 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for a garage/home addition e III. Other Business Discussion of when the BZA would like to present their Annual Report to the City Council. IV. Adjournment e " . . . Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals January 24, 2006 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, January 24,2006 in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. McCarty called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Hughes, Landis, McCarty, Sell and Plannin Commission Representative Waldhauser. Also present were Director of Planning a pment MarkGrimes, Planning Intern Kristen Gonzalez and Administrative Wittman. Member Duff was absent. I. Approval of Minutes - December 27,2005 MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Sell and motion carrie the December 27,2005 minutes as submitted. II. The Petitions are: o approve 4901 Winsdale Street (06~01 ~01) Ron Wallace. Applicant Request: . 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback ired 35 ft. to a distance of 28.7 ft. at its closest ard (north) property line. Purpose: from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (E) Accessory Structure ements . 112 sq. ft. more than the allowed 1,000 sq. ft. for a total of 1,112 sq. ft. of accessory structure space. To allow for a garage/home addition. Gonzales referred to.a location map and stated that the subject property is located atthe corner of Winsdale Street and Spring Valley Road. She explained that the applicant is requesting a variance from the front yard setback requirements to allow for the front entrance of the proposed new addition to be located 28.7 fromthe property line. She stated that the applicant is also proposing to have 1,112 square feet of garage (accessory) space which is112 square feet more than allowed in the zoning code. Waldhauser referred to the drawings of the proposed home addition and asked if the garage would extend outfurther than the front porch. Grimes referred to the elevations in the agenda packet and suggested that the applicant elaborate. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals January 24, 2006 Page 2 . Gonzales noted that the neighbor to the south of this property has stated that he is concerned aboutdrainage in the area. She explained that the applicant will have to apply for a grading and erosion control permit as part of the building permit process. Ron Wallace, applicant, stated that he is not aware of any drainage issues on the property, but if there is a problem he will try to remedy it. He said that he is not planning on changing any elevations and that part of his proposal includes creating a swale to direct water to the proper location. . McCarty referred to the drawings of the proposed new additions and to explain his request. Wallace showed a picture of the existing hous the house after his proposed additions. He stated that building 0 IS because there are two 35-foot setbacks. He explained that th 'an are mostly for aesthetic reasons because he doesn't want it was added to the house. Grimes referred to the drawing of the west elevation garage would be coming slightly forward. Wallac built slightly forward. Grimes said he thought th asked if the survey was more accurate. Wallac exactly correct, but the survey was accur is due to the fact that the front setback want the house to look like a box. the p posed new ew garage would be awin was incorrect, and ed that the drawings weren't s the hardship in this case the property and he doesn't Grimes clarified that the existin stall garage. Wallace said t would become living space and a one- McCarty asked if the pro said no because it h sliv really seeing a har and that is mor regular open f living spa t would be considered an open porch. Grimes above it. McCarty stated that he 1s having difficulties ont porch addition. Wallace stated that it is a corner lot cCarty asked the applicant about building just a living space above it. Wallace stated that it really isn't o-story open foyer. nt if he had thought about setting the garage back on the lot allace stated that the north side of the house is really more of a ve better aesthetics. He added that he didn't think the neighbors to want the new garage closer to their property. McCarty referred to the proposed balcony above the new garage and asked how far it would come out. Wallace said the balcony would be a couple of feet wide. He said that he is trying to make this house fit in with the rest of the neighborhood and that right now it is an eyesore and a rental property. He said he would be willing to move the proposed balcony to the west side of the addition. He added that he didn't feel that he was asking for too much considering that the setbacks are halfway through the property. . McCarty opened the public hearing. . Edward Betzold, 1455 Spring Valley Road, stated that his property is directly south and adjacent to the subject property. He stated th h location for 52 years and in that time they've watched rivers fl. He said that the water hasn't caused any damage to his yar concerned that this proposed addition could stop the flow of on his property. He showed pictures of his property a he direction of the water flow. ed is yards. ut he is it to dam up ssed the McCarty stated that he thinks Mr. Betzold has a applicant will have to have spot elevations done part of the building permit process. Hugh streets in that area soon which also mi nee . He explained that the e is positive drainage as a ty will be re-constructing the drainage issues. The Board discussed various opt' McCarty suggested allowing th existing cantilever of the ho could go as close as 30 f variance would then be cantilever on the ho se. os front entry and garage additions. to be able to come out as far as the ropos front porch would remain open and roperty line. Grimes clarified that the only addition to be in line with the existing Landis asked if reiterated that side of th ny would still be a part of the request. Hughes aid he would be willing to move the balcony to the west , seconded by Landis and motion carried unanimously to approve quired 35 ft. to a distance of 32 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (nort erty line to allow for a garage/home addition. (New construction is allowed to follow the same plane as the cantilevered section of existing home which is currently located 32 ft. from the front yard (north) property line.) . · An- open front porch may go to a distance of 30 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (north) property line. · The total accessory structure space shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals January 24, 2006 Page 4 . III. Other Business 2005 Year-End Envision Report The Board discussed the graph and spreadsheet prepared by staff that showed how many and what types of variances were approved in 2005. Grimes noted that this is what they told the City Council they would do as a part of the Envision process. IV. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 pm. . . . 05-11-25 6410 Glenwood Avenue . Dale and Kim Lampe, Applicants . . . Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: February 26,2006 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Kristin A Gonzalez, Planning Intern Subject: 6410 Glenwood Avenue Dale & Kim Lampe, Applicant The Lampes own the house and property at 6410 Glenwood Avenue. The applicants are requesting a variance from Section 11.21, Subd. 10 (A)(1), Front Yard Setbacks, in order to construct a new garage addition. A survey was required to obtain information regarding the existing structures on the property: The proposed new garage addition to the house will bring it to within 29.8 ft. of the east front property line. The applicants have brought this variance to two past Board of Zoning Appeals meetings. The first time it came to the BZA, there wasn't a full Board present so they gave the Lampes the option to table it until the next meeting when there was a full Board, which they chose to do. The applicants came back with the same plans the next meeting of the BZA. Still unable to reach a decision, the applicant and Board decided table it again and give the applicant the chance to change the plans so the new addition was in line with the existing garage. The applicant has changed the plans to meet the existing garage setback. Originally, the applicants plan was to turn the existing garage into living space and add a new garage on to the north side of the old garage, bring the home within 18 ft of the property line. In the new plans the applicants are keeping the existing garage space as garage and adding on to make it into a two car garage. The addition will also include storage and workshop space. The applicants state that their hardship is the fact that the current garage, while it looks like a two stall garage, is only large enough to fit one vehicle. The existing structure is non- conforming because the garage is 5.2 ft. over the setback requirements. To expand their garage, they would need to get a variance to bring the home into conformance. The project requires a variance from the following City Code: . Section 11.21, Subd.10 (A)(1), Front Yard Setbacks. City Code states that the required front yard setback shall be 35 feet from any front property line along a street right-of-way line. The requested variance is for 5.2 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 29.8 ft. at its . closest point to the front property line. A review of the City file indicates that the house was built in 1952. No other major additions have been made to the house since that time. =-= l 340 315 ~ .~~ " C;:: ~~:~_ m..; ::: :::<:~,,~~ Ii _ 6n3 ~ t ..,..< - 200 6573 z: !: US i~ 130 - <( 140 ~ 3: ~ 125 I~ 12.0 - 120 Bii m 115 ~ 11 m - z: UO 85 80 - ! 40 45 1-' WfSTER~AVE 28 6670 6S6O 6630 3l: "It l:l z: ;;: 669S 6665 :5 i 6614 6630 2$ CORTLAWN CIRS 6615 6565 6535 6515 6495 6415 6455 644S 28 6655 Cl) M.JQ~'m . 330 320 329 319 310 240 30t 230 220 210 6520 6523 6500 ~~ " :~ 6448 530 6530 105 301 231 221 215 209 us 320 316 300 240 230 , m 220 !5 m I 210 )10 ii 146 z: 119 124 .....----I" 120 UO 6330 6401 ........ {ffl ( \ 105 % ~ \II 110 120 130 130 6324 6320 us us 135 145 28 24S 2$0 324 235 ~~ : ou) -.. \ 221 . 1\~'" ,.......~ 109 6237 211 217 221 c 20S ! ! ~ 124 f'A~ W !"" I?/J' !~'ft I k 26 55 15 [\. \ 61401 6100 r-.... 117 .,.. 15 L/ 'f 7i/ Z; !: <(~ ~ I~ .-1- 105 \N'E:$TEfUt AVE 100 !~ i ~~ 110 V US -~~z 6S8O ~ ~~~ :zs 6101 120 1 US :140 145 III 200 ~ 20S <( 220 S 225 I It 240 iD 245 300 30S 320 300 30S 325 320 325 :l!l!l " ; CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: Dale W. & Kimberly S. Simpson-Lampe 6410 Glenwood Ave. Golden Valley, MN 55427 (~ [t "~ :-~{ I -~~l) '\ ( i, " Lf"- " ~f /:,~'\\ ~Jj,} ! , L co ~ '2"1." 4-~ f (i.( L (' -I ~J; \ ,,<(,\'. '",:",~t> I II' I. t \ '1 ') '" , ;..." (H,R,(J. ',C. ?~ {... \. I A~>' '~. \. /~ 1(, LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 322, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying South of the North 130 feet thereof. -f-- f tr- I""t' ~'~.=-, .-.---- l ) ! _U'~_,.-\-~ L'rne of 'l~o 1 4~---- \ - It~'1,,~- 1<.'. l_ ~. ""~~: , J) 4>'(1' ~ Ii " f'l./ (I , \'\1, )/\ () II l. I ne oJ. " !fe':' f"..!. ,"- ~ f .~ \ . '~;J! / ~r41.ld'~S8~(\b'()~"E"- rI.I.'Y'. ". ,4 (!iFl.bPI,,\!) h. J ~. /' I " +~-.., . H\ - ~.I:O 't:f'"ij \ /(, , w'tJU ~$ ... ,<:) -I- V< <:I t: 'J i I c., ...l .1 1\ '. .\;. , " , /"- r. 1", ~lj 1 u.l a r---J .1'- ~J 00 L o V I Ii" '" "~ -n ~j tL ,,,\ t>("" '2..1 a '=? Lr- ",,-. .... "~ "" '~ ~, ~..~' <( L N <) -- ~n. t......~ ..\......)...~~", *:~'.., III J( ~ ~ ~-'.:: N'tt (f" o <:I o U) Lt! . . . . Cl . Ci ,---I' cy;" ,/,8 ..=>-- ~C/ \~'" ,-. ~. >b P.:",,,, }D :. EI>. 'i~' , c} ':Z /.-' I 1_. /--'""'! ,,). / " C G, . ./; "'; 7~ (> /: <? I' "1/ <) o ~ 'R .1 o . I> J ^ . c<:" ~ " ~ ~~ '- '" ...... o 0- ''t,. ",' iJ" ,~c !ft,"" ~~ ~~t" \ ". C?.& \~ \ , ~ . ...' f~. , ' ,iJ l'h ./' '\ 11. \~n ~7 ~ 5".ca "~' , '~ - -. ( .... 5'9.: Q l ,. 'x'j!;~),~/ ~\ < ">'~6: O!<.>'().;b'" '/i'll', ({.>- "j( ~ , / ~;~" ~ .; 1-;- '. . c-J \..l' i:-J t f". ,~I o uJ C. ,-.J 1-. o -'"I --./ < .,./ roo ,~, '..1i 1"'1/\ ..... " "', ~// ~\ i:'-' ~ ~~ ,~. 'Z' / /' L 0 .- --- \:1 F..: C: T' E'~ C( N' \1 ._ ,,)._ r... AVE,. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION: I here certify that this survey was prepared by me andjthat am a duly Registered Land Surveyor und~r thflaws ~e State of N~nn~sota, _As surveyed by ethis . dayof 1~2005. . Yf}J~ LEGEND: Scale:] inch = 30 feet Bearings as shown are assumed . Denotes Iron Monument Found (1) o Denotes Iron Monument Set (3) [Capped by RLS No.1 0948] M - Current Measurement P - Original Measurement Note: Distances as meaSlIff'O ::Iff' in fppt tpnth~ \Inri hnnrlrprlthc nf'., f'nnt and Surveyor, Mn. License No. 10948 . 141.10 seqo56'OCf"E I I II I ~'-~tJ~ I I . , I i I I I ' ! , I I I ! I I I LU I I~ I I~ I ,; I ,= I I X---'" I "-, \ , I ^ I I ~ u.-", I \ )l" , , "" ,~ I '---' .~____ ,': ~l /"" "', '"" " j \ , " , I I O. : " ",,' \j I , ,,' , i , '-'~\ 0- 'i I 'tj "'" """,,~ I. "",--L1 '.... ~ ' y, ',~~---- "', I /1 I \ ,~ ----- -, ' I ' QI I --:'f$. /' '" I " I, -I ,J ~~/ '\, " I '" 'i-- J" I" "" I' \ ......__ ' I', Q I I 1 \ "J I '" I , ".... "--,,/ I I I .... ~ .-- . .....---- ,....'-......, I~IO\- 1_, , \I 'I ' , \ 0 lJ'--l" \ '" ....')':::.:-:;;Z,l"},-,-;...,,1' "" I 'Ii '....-;->--' "'t 0,' jl 0 I \ "'- '1 " ~~.1 1,1 "'K--'1 I~ ""---..... , " , , I \ I \ I a ' , , \ I , , '" ",,' ---- I I I I I I I I I I ' , I i , ! I I I I I , i I I I I.. _~_.... " ,"" : " " I \ I -,I 1\', ~ 'I I' 'a'PJ ! 'L - "~' , - I Y,- - '" u / ......-r. ,f I ~ I I I 0 I I I 1T. , I IN I, I JQ... ,. · 'J... 'I . \ \ I 'i" I I "...._1___-, I . "'", ~ ~ . ~ ~ .... .... " '\~ 10 IZ lw I ::>> I Z , W ,,,' ~ Q ~ 8 w , I I I , I I i , I I , I I , I I I I I I i I I I , i I I I I I , I I i I I I I I I I i I I i I , I , I , I i I hereby certify that this drawing _s prepared by me Of' un<!.. my direct supervlslon and that I om a duly Regl.l.-ed Professional Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota Registration No. 235B9 Date 2/7/06 BRICKBOXGROUP Drown By KSL DALE: LAMPE, AlA . Checked By OWL 8410 CllDIWOOO AW: eIIIo Commlnlan No. 20050901 ~~o.:N 55427 ProJocl Location: LAMPE RESIDENCE 6410 GLEN WOOD AVE GOLDEN VALLEY, MN .- /- / \\. // / "\./ / '\. /^-- .-/ \ / -- /\/S~ ., /- \ /- I .// I /./ I // / // / // / / / ./ / ./ /' ./ /' / - /~--- -- ....... "- '\. p . ~ ~ iji i ".----....., /' '"'- / \ / \ / \ , 0 I \ , I \ / \ / '\. / '- /' ..........---' 35' FRONT SETBACK. 25' FRONT SETBACK .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-'-'-'-'-" ~ ---~ - - / Ul" IS' side setback? ----.-.---.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. _._._._-_._---_.:;~_._~ -.-.-.-.---.~-.-~~--.-,,~.-.-.-.---~.~-~.-.-.-.---.-.-.-. / ~ "/,, / '\.\. ___ / I. /\::1"-" \ _._._.,,~.::-----._._._._.~~~ _._._._._~_._._._._._:.. ._._._._._._._._._._._._."';(~~~~~.""_._. I \ I rJ.52.CfO SOoQq~IE " / I 0 I I P \\.~ I / \ . I ' '-(--..L._'-/' \ / \ I - GURBLINE \ \ / " /' ..........---- \ '"'- '"'- " -- -.. --------' EDGEWOOD AVENUE NORTH . E3J / / / ./ /' / ProJoct loc:Gllan: LAMPE RESIDENCE 6410 GLEN WOOD AVE GOLDEN VALLEY, MN I hereby certify that this drawing was prepared by me or under my dlfect .....pervlslon and that I om a duly Registered ProfeaslonGl Architect under the Jaws of the State of MlnnellClta Registration No. 23589 Oat. 2/7/06 Drawn BY KSL a.ecked By 0 WL Commlulcn No. 200509- BRICKBOXGROUP DALE LAMPE. AlA .L "'0 ClLENWOCO ..\IE GOLDEN VAUrt'. UN &5427 T; 7e3- I City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals {BZA} Zoning Code Variance Application . For Office Use Only: Application No. Date Received . BZA Meeting Date Amount Received 1. Street address of property involved in this application: b tf 10 . Gr LeV LUC:C>.D Ai/t:= 2. Applicant: Nrz,~ ~ f (c-ijt1/7 LAII4{>e" ~IO C71QJIAI=-I.A--vG Gb/d~ Va !JPN 1..).1;-1 934-'2-1 Address ). ""7 t.;ity/State/Zip -~ Business Phone Home Phone J?-f M I l--/>r1v1 p6~ t:..r:7M,~1' . 1Jer 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. New ADt7rrf&>,J Or Arr~ zq >';?2- c;,~e '1?) eXIGTING, 1616'2- (2IxfV1~lA!72.. fS}<l<g,T(~ l'b' f.l./tr;;€' ~~~ Sl-tAt.-l.- fl:6 f51v1L:>Det.,~ fJ.J'f(? UVINc;.. SPAce. 4. A brief statement of the hardship which provides legal grounds for the granting of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. f~Pf'~ ~e Af:::?711'1L:>,J iJouJ.,t;? ~ I~I bpP ff<D~ ~ J::UF 7D pOU-OlJIJJ~ ~lfS;~ ~ tJt-tH!Z "PfZo?Jt~s. j PlAceMeNt ~ qt.16rINM- J-lt,btS6 t>fJ n ~csr j .. MJ1:? SE:V~ fIIlMUfU ~t;;:S. 5. To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also understand that unless construction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted, is not taken within one year, the variance expi s. . 6. If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the owner of this property: ~ Print Name of owner Signature of owner Variance Application Submittal: The following information must be submitted by the application deadline to make a complete application. If an application is incomplete, it will not be accepted: X Completed application form, including signatures of surrounding property owners. ,X A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on survey requirements. ~ A brief statement of the hardship which provide grounds for the granting of this variance (see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs, or other evidence, if appropriate. ~ You may submit detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this project. The site plans and drawings submitted with this application will be the basis of any variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued. ~ Variance application fee, as follows: $125 - single family residential; $225 - other Signatures of Surrounding Property Owners Note to the variance applicant: As part of the variance application process, you will need to attempt to obtain the signatures of all surrounding property owners. This includes all properties abutting the applicant's property and directly across the street. If on a corner, this means across both streets. To obtain thes.e signatures, you will need to personally visit each of these property owners, tell them about your project (we encourage you to bring along a copy of your building plans) and have them sign the area, below. The signature is meant only to verify that you have told them about your project and gives them opportunity to comment. If you have attempted to contact a property owner on two separate occasions and not found them at home, you may simply write something to the effect "made two attempts, owner not home" and then write their address. City staff will also send a written notice informing these property owners of the time and place of the BZA meeting. Note to surrounding property owners: This is an application by your neighbor for a variance from the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of ~y possible effect the granting of this variance could have on your property. You will also be ~eiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting. 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. rint Name lrt-l-ee~y-6L, vie- Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Print Name Comment Signature Be' eltJ /}-D v J 7L (:) ..~! rl-:-' /' tJ / \/ /r ,.. .t.i'.c/ / /,.{ - /~~ " Address ( I OJ' . c..'Pk"c" tVr"Ot:> -#Jb,p N.n C A i2. So^" G~o.b . (' - 7Z fltt {:DLJ//f'Y GR~ JI- G Dd J...l d e ~ ~~ \-be l:-r ( Address Ill:> 'Z.....! ,~ 'voJoo~ tJ Address h3:Jd ~ int Name f!?{f..,L,... 1DfJ/lf."./N~~ Comment ----YJerf ~J'- Signature Address l W ~.I~ A-rre... Print Name ~fDap'j;,1 r;A~/PPJ Comment --ne+- h.:> vu..e. - Signature Address fb+t8 ~(enWb/".)d ky- Print Name J11~ l-uk.f'/#7 Comment -nc:r-f h~- Signature Address~! c;,1et1~ad~. Print Name &mment Signature / ~ Address619f WflA5-tet/'17 /1ve- . . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals November 22, 2005 Page 4 Sell agreed that it is a Ave. drops off, the p(opose will increase the value of the neig ... ~ the way Xenia aid. it is a good plan that 6410 Glenwood Avenue (05-11-25) Dale & Kim Lampe, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd.10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements · 17 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 18 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for a garage/home addition. Grimes stated that the applicants are requesting to convert their existing garage into living space and construct a new garage that would sit at an angle and be 18 feet at its closest point from the property line along Edgewood Avenue. He explained that there was some confusion regarding the setbacks for this property and that the applicants thought Edgewood Avenue was considered to be a side yard. He stated that the applicants are trying to avoid losing some mature trees and they are proposing to keep the existing curb cut. He added that there are some other options with construction on this lot that the Board should discuss. Sell referred to the survey and noted that the dimension from the existing south east corner of the house to the property line along Edgewood was not listed. Kim Lampe, Applicant, stated that she has an updated survey. Grimes stated that the dimension is 29.8 feet. He added that the applicants have said that they will be moving the existing shed to a conforming location as well. Ms. Lampe stated that they were not aware that the property has two front yard setbacks and that they think of that as a hardship. She explained that the reason they are proposing that the garage be set at an angle is because they want to utilize both of the homes entrances. She stated that adding onto the front of the house cuts off the front entrance and that adding onto the back of the house cuts off the back entrance. Sell asked if the existing deck would be removed. Dale Lampe, applicant said yes. He stated that the existing garage is only 16 feet wide so they can't get two cars in it. Waldhauser asked the applicants when they purchased the home. Mr. Lampe said they purchased it in May 2005. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals November 22, 2005 Page 5 Grimes referred to a tree located directly behind the proposed garage and asked the applicants if it could be built the Same the distance away from the property line of the existing house if the tree wasn't there. Mr. Lampe stated that there is a tree in the front of the proposed garage that is causing a bigger problem. Ms. Lampe stated that their house is almost 40 feet away from the neighboring house so it wouldn't feel like the proposed garage is so far into the front setback. Sell clarified that by angling the proposed garage it would come approximately 10 feet closer to the east property line than the existing house. Waldhauser stated that the proposed 30 ft. x 25 ft. garage is really a three-car garage. Ms. Lampe said the garage would only have two garage doors. Waldhauserasked the applicants about the possibility of just expanding their existing garage into a full two-stall garage. Ms. Lampe explained that that is where their back door is currently located. She said that the proposal is to convert the existing garage into kitchen and dining room space and that because of the trusses and various other problems and angles it wouldn't work. Waldhauser asked the applicants if their main objective in doing this garage addition is to get more kitchen and dining room space. Mr. Lampe said yes. Waldhauser said that apart from the need for a double garage which is necessary she has a hard time seeing the hardship in this case. The home was purchased recently and this would be a nice addition but she doesn't think the need for additional kitchen and dining room space is a hardship and it would be feasible to add on to the existing garage. Duff stated that he is also having a hard time seeing a hardship in this instance. He said he thinks considering corner lots as a hardship is too inclusive. He said he also has a hard time finding trees a hardship and that for him trees are more of an economic issue. Landis said that he disagrees because corner lots have two 35-foot setbacks and that he is never in favor of removing a tree. He said he sees this corner as being a hardship. Duff stated that considering all corner lots to be a hardship is too broad in his opinion. Sell stated that for many years this house has been considered non-conforming. He said if the variance request was along the Glenwood Avenue side of the property he would have a bigger problem with it. He stated that if this were a proposal just to get a bigger garage to house toys and lawn mowers he would say no, but this proposal is to create a better living space. He said he looks at it like it is already a non-conforming situation that would be a little bit more non-conforming and the next house is 75 to 80 feet away so he would, in this case, support the variance request. Grimes stated that existing home was built before 1982 so it is considered conforming. He asked the applicants why they couldn't keep the same setback as the current garage and remove the tree in the back. WaJdhauser noted that the tree in the front makes too severe of an angle for the driveway. . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals November 22,2005 Page 6 Landis asked about the height of the existing tree in the back yard. Ms. Lampe said she did not know the height, but that it is approximately 30 inches in diameter and the tree in the front is 80 years old. Landis said he agreed with Sell. Waldhauser said that this proposal would be increasing the intrusion by quite a bit. Duff stated that no one is stating anything unreasonable and this is a positive plan but for him there has to be a hardship and he doesn't see one in this case. Grimes stated that since there are only 4 Board Members present they could vote to table this request in order to have a full Board present. Sell asked the applicants if they would like to table their request to the December 20, 2005 meeting. Mr. Lampe said they would like to table their request. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Duff and motion carried unanimously to table the variance request for 6410 Glenwood Avenue until the December 27,2005 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. III. IV. Adjournment . . . Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals mber 27, 2005 lIey Board of Zoning/, s was held on Tuesday, n Valley Road, Golden er at 7 pm. I. econded by Waldhauser and motion carrie 22,2005 minutes as submitted. II. The Petitions are: 6410 Glenwood Avenue (05-11-25) Dale & Kim Lampe, Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd.10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements . 17 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 18 ft. at its closest point to the front yard (east) property line. Purpose: To allow for a garage/home addition. Grimes reminded the Board that this variance request was tabled at their November meeting because there were only four Board Members present. He added that there has been no new information submitted so this meeting a continuation of their discussion from November. Kim Lampe, applicant, stated that they have been thinking about different options. She explained that the existing garage is not the driving force behind this proposed project, but that it is too small to use as a two stall garage. She stated that they would like to convert the existing garage space to living space and that part of what they love about their lot is the huge mature trees. McCarty stated that he his concerned about this proposal because the existing garage already projects out further than others on Edgewood and that this proposal would exacerbate the situation. He asked the applicants if they would consider straightening out the proposed angle of the garage. Kim Lampe explained that part of their long range plan is to remodel the kitchen and dining room using the existing garage space. She added that the reason they are . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals December 27,2005 Page 2 proposing angling the new garage is so they can use the existing driveway cut and save the tree roots in that area. McCarty said that another concern he has is the hardship. He explained that the Board of Zoning Appeals is set up to review proposals based on hardships and he is having a hard time seeing one in this case. He added that he doesn't think this is a bad design and he understands that the applicants don't want to lose any trees, but there seems to be other options. Waldhauser said she also understands that the applicants are trying to work around some existing trees, but they may need to go. She said there are other options and it seems possible to straighten out the proposed angle of the new garage. McCarty said the proposed new garage addition is a large addition but it could be reconfigured and twisted back further into the yard. He said that even with a re-design the project would still require a variance, but he would not have a problem with granting a variance if the new garage were in line with the plane of the existing garage. He proposed that the Board give the applicants some leeway in allowing them to change their variance request. Kim Lampe said that she did not completely understand the Board's concerns about the proposed garage projecting out too far because there is so much space between their property and the property to the north. Waldhauser said she was more concerned about the neighbors directly across from the applicants. Lampe said she has shown the neighbors across the street the proposed plans they are alright with it. She added that she realizes that they don't have a seriously hard hardship but they are not going to be offending anybody. Duff stated that the proposal is a reasonable plan, but whether there is a hardship or not is the key and that is the problem the Board is having. Grimes said that since it seems like the Board would possibly allow a variance for a new garage if it is in line with the plane of the existing garage, one option would be to table the proposal again to allow the applicants time to redesign their proposal without having to re-apply for another variance. Duff said that he wouldn't be in opposition to that approach because there is already an intrusion into the front yard setback area and it would be pretty hard to say that the applicants couldn't build up to that point. McCarty asked the applicants if they would like to table their request again in order to redesign the garage addition to be in line with the plane of the existing garage. Grimes explained to the applicants that they could also appeal a negative vote to the City Council. The applicants decided to table their request and redesign their plans. MOVED by Waldhauser, seconded by Duff and motion carried unanimously to table the variance request for 6410 Glenwood Avenue for 90 days. III. Other Business No other business was discussed.