Loading...
08-22-06 BZA Agenda . Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting Tuesday, August 22, 2006 7pm 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers I. Approval of Minutes - July 25, 2006 II. The Petitions are: 817 Westwood Drive South (06-06-11) (continued from 6/27/06) Scott & Cvndi Barrinaton. Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 10ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new tuck under garage with living space above. e III. Other Business IV. Adjournment e " Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals . July 25, 2006 A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Sell called the meeting to order at 7 pm. Those present were Members Morrissey, Nederveld, Sell and Weisberg Commission Representative McCarty. Also present were Planning In and Administrative Assistant Lisa Wittman. Landis was absent I. Approval of Minutes - June 27, 2006 MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Nederveld and mot" the June 27,2006 minutes as submitted. II. The Petitions are: 303 Sunnyridge Lane (06-07-13) Kenneth & Kimberlee Linden . Request: d. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Setback uired 35 ft. to a distance of 18.4 ft. at its closest ,ard property line along Poplar Drive. Purpose: e construction of a sunroom addition o the property and stated that the applicants are nroom addition on the rear of their home that would be within roperty line along Poplar Drive. She explained that this a riance in 1956 to waive the setback requirement along Poplar i',,~ construction of the home. She stated that during staff's review of s*'noted that part of an existing retaining wall is located within the City's the applicants would need to obtain a right-of-permit. Nederveld asked if there were any conditions attached to the variance that was granted in 1956. Gonzalez said no. Nederveld asked if the original house had included this proposed living space if it would have been consistent with the variance granted in 1956. Gonzalez said yes. . Kenneth Linden, applicant, explained that the proposed sunroom addition will be located off of the existing dining room and kitchen area and will have full basement underneath it. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 25, 2006 Page 2, . He stated that they have 11 mature oak trees on their property and there is really no place else to put the addition. He added that the proposed addition would be located slightly further away from the property line along Poplar than the existing house. Joe Lucas, Renaissance Exteriors, Inc., contractor for the project, stated that the proposed addition will keep in line with the existing house and that hopefully it will look like it has always been part of the house and not an add-on. Seeing and hearing no one else wishing to comm a . motion carried unanimously to approve ired 35 ft. to a distance of 18.4 ft. at its closest Poplar Drive to allow for the construction of a Sell asked how the existing sidewalk would tie into the new plans. Lind they planned to keep the existing sidewalk and build some sort of pa Sell opened the public hearing. Todd Ereth, 240 Meadow Lane, stated that he has no probl sunroom addition. McCarty said he thinks this is a very feasible pr home and the existing variance previously . Weisberg stated that since this propo no problems with it. MOVED by McCarty, seconded a variance request for 16. point to the front yard pr sunroom addition. from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard Irements . 8.5 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 26.5 ft. at its closest point to the front yard property line along Westwood Drive North To allow for the construction of a garage addition Gonzalez referred to a survey of the property and explained that the applicants would like to construct a garage in same location as a previous carport that recently burnt down. She stated that the original carport was built without a permit or variance. . Morrissey asked when the carport was originally built. Gonzalez said she did not know because there was no record of it in the property files. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 25, 2006 Page 3 . Sell referred to a letter in the application packet that stated a porch and the carport were constructed in 1976. Morrissey asked about the setback requirements in 1976. Gonzalez said she thought they were the same as today. Nederveld asked about the size of the garage. Gonzalez stated that the size of the garage addition being proposed is 19 feet wide by 18 feet deep but with the already existing enclosed 2-stall garage it would be a four-stall tandem garage when finished. Nederveld asked if setbacks are different for a carport versus an enclosed garage. Gonzalez said no, the setback requirements are the same for both. Scott Mower, architect for the project, stat approximately 16 feet wide and the pro feet deep which is still tight for a two-s yard setback along Westwood Ori proposed garage addition else build it is the least intrusive. He that needs to have access rea Weisberg clarified that the proposed garage would go no further i than the carport previously did. Gonzalez said that was correct Robert Allen Olson, Applicant, stated that they bought the h the porch and carport in 1975. He said he assumed the build for both but he just recently found out that a permit w r added that the proposed garage addition would b above and it would still be located 25 feet from t ey built ding permits v he porch. He rage with deck space . garage space is ace is 19 feet wide by 18 e e ained that they thought the front at they had considered putting the erty but where they are proposing to ,plicants also have a disabled grandchild McCarty asked when the Mower said they fo out permit and that prio building. s kne they were encroaching into the setback area. eded a variance when they applied for the building ad no idea they were dealing with a non-conforming licants were not proposing to build a more full-size, traditional ts to use the existing footprint from the carport and that the ill aesthetically tie into the house better. He added that there is also a at would make building the garage differently very difficult. Sell would have trouble building it anywhere else on the lot. McCarty a what rooms are in the south part of the house. Olson said there is a porch and kitchen on that end of the house. Sell opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Sell closed the public hearing. . McCarty said he is trying to be conscientious about approving variances. He said there are some challenges on this property but the proposed garage could be built in a different location. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 25, 2006 Page 4 . He said he is concerned if this variance request is approved that the applicants may want to come back to the City in the future for another variance request because they want a wider garage as opposed to making the garage wider now. Mower said it wouldn't make sense to build the garage much bigger because it is in their front yard and they don't want to ruin the look of the front yard. Christine Olson, applicant, stated that putting a garage on the other end of their house would encroach on the neighbor to the south. She added that there is also a pool in their backyard so that area isn't available to build a new garage in either without a major transformation. MOVED by Weisberg, sec approve the variance re closest point to the front construction of a g ould not or open it the proposal t the carport has been se he lot. He added that that the garage they are ee the applicants come Weisberg said that the proposed new garage would be in the same f previous carport which was there for many years. He said he doe 't proposed garage would be blocking any site lines. Morrissey stated that had the applicants not had the misfort be here asking for this variance. She said that whether the s would still be the same volume. She said she doesn't a given the topography of the site. Sell said he agre there for 30 years and there are terrain issues e he also wants to make sure the applicants reall proposing is really a minimal garage and back in the future because they want a . McCarty asked if the Board can p said she didn't think the City co pproval of this variance. Gonzalez ne to ask for a variance in the future. 'ssey and motion carried unanimously to the required 35 ft. to a distance of 26..5 ft. at its along Westwood Drive North to allow for the Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(2) Accessory Structure Front Setback Requirements . 19.6 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 15.40 at its closest point to the front yard property line along Adell Avenue North Purpose: To allow for the construction of a garage addition . Gonzalez referred to a survey of the property and explained that the applicant would like to build a detached garage that would be located 15.40 feet from the front yard property line along Adell Ave. instead of the required 35 feet. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 25, 2006 Page 5 . Morrissey asked if there is currently a garage located on the property. Gonzalez said no. Sell asked if the setback requirements would be the same if the proposed garage were attached to the home. Gonzalez said yes the applicant would need the same variance as requested if the garage were attached. Sell noted that the existing home was built too close to Adell Ave. and asked the applicant when she purchased the home. Betty McCool, applicant, stated that she bought the home in 1982. She explained that there was a large single stall gar he property that she tore down a couple of weeks ago because she wa a double garage in its place. . Morrissey referred to the survey of the pro garage there is a concrete slab shown the whole north side of the home. uilt in 1952. he house. McCool said McCarty noted that the single stall garage that was on this p non-conforming. Sell asked when the house was constructed. McCool Sell asked if the garage that was torn down was t that she thought it was the same age. t under the proposed new vious garage did line up with Nederveld asked the applicant i garage to the south rather than large tree to the south and blocked if a new garage red expanding the proposed new h. 001 said no because there is a very n window is to the south and it would be location. McCarty asked the that the setback req she thinks the hardship is with this lot. McCool said allow for a one-stall garage. ms to be plenty of room to move the proposed garage more r of the lot. Also, moving the proposed garage to the more in line with the existing patio and an existing shed bonng property. McCool said that there are large trees in the area ring to. She added that there was already a garage in the location to build the new garage and that it makes the most sense to build it the cCarty stated that trees on a property are not considered to be a Morrissey noted that if the garage was moved to the southwest corner of the lot, negotiating the turn from the driveway would be difficult. . McCarty said he would have a difficult time approving the variance as requested even though it would be easier to build the garage in the location being proposed. He said he'd be more comfortable if the proposed new garage was setback from Adell Ave. the same distance as the previous garage was. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 25, 2006 Page 6 . Sell asked the applicant if she could move the proposed garage toward the southwest in order to be 25 feet away from the property line along Adell Ave. and more in line with the house. Weisberg added that it would need to be moved about 10 feet south and 10 feet west in order to line up with the house. Morrissey reiterated that a garage in that location would make if difficult to drive into the garage. She added that the only fully compliant location on this lot for the proposed garage is right in the middle of the backyard. She stated that she had concerns when she saw this variance request on paper, but when she actually drove by th she really doesn't know where else they could put a garage on this lot an usable back yard. McCool stated that she looks at a garage identical to t 0 osed right out her back door. Nederveld stated that if the previous si variance request was for a double said that one definition in the st of the property. He asked if the stall garage was still on th not comfortable allowin po ut he ,. that he ou more feet away from the the existing home. arage smaller. McCarty said Weisberg said the he doesn't have a problem aesthetically questioned if there is a compelling reason to grant a varianc doesn't see a compelling reason for a hardship. He s comfortable allowing the proposed garage to be s property line because it would be more in line w' McCool asked if that means she has to make th no, it just needs to be pushed a little bit m . ge as still standing and the Id be considered a hardship. He ardships deals with the reasonable use at this proposal differently if the single arty said he thought about that too but he is still built closer to the north property line. Sell stated that he would be blocking h applicant if sh 0 foot wide ara a 22 foot beloc e proposed garage was built further to the south that it ard and half of the back of the house. He asked the , build a 22 foot wide garage instead of the proposed 24 al she could live with that. Nederveld explained that allowing change the variance request and would allow the garage to e north property line instead of the proposed 15.4 feet. lie hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Sell hearing. McCarty s e is not necessarily comfortable with allowing a 17 -foot variance. He stated that another option would be to ask the applicant to table the request in order to look at other options. . Weisberg said he appreciates McCarty's perspective but he feels like the compromise of allowing a 22-foot wide garage, or a variance to allow the garage to be built to within 17.4 feet of the north property line is good. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals July 25, 2006 Page 7 . McCarty said that with the previous existing garage now gone, it is starting over and the applicant is not adding onto an existing one-stall garage. He added that he understands that there is still an existing single stall concrete slab and that the applicant would like a double car garage. Nederveld said that his perspective is if the previous single stall garage was still standing, the Board would probably have thought that allowing a variance for a 22-foot wide garage would be ok. He said he would be comfortable allowing the applicant to build a 22-foot wide garage. III. Other Business to the 22-foot MOVED by Morrissey, seconded by Weisberg and motion carried variance for 17.6 ft. off the required 35 ft. to a distance of 17.4 front yard property line along Adell Avenue North to allow for wide, detached garage. McCarty voted no. No other business was discussed. IV. Adjournment . The meeting was adjourned at 8:2 . . 06-06-11 (Continued from June 27, 2006) . 817 Westwood Drive South Scott & Cyndi Barrington, Applicants . . . . Hey Planning 763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax) Date: August 18, 2006 To: Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals From: Kristin A Gonzalez, Planning Intern Subject: 817 Westwood Dr. S. Scott & Cindy Barrington, Applicant The Barrington's owns the house and property at 817 Westwood Dr. S. The applicants are requesting a variance from Section 11.21, Subd. 10 (3)(a), Side Yard Setback requirements, in order to construct a new living space addition with a lower level two-car garage. A survey was required to obtain information regarding the existing structures on the property. The Barrington's brought this proposal to the June meeting, and decided to table it to make changes and to have a full BZA board present. The applicants decreased the garage space, so they no longer require a variance for over 1,000 sq.ft. of accessory structure space. The proposed new garage and living space addition to the house will still bring the structure to within 5 feet of the north side yard property line. The applicant states that there are several hardships with this property. The majority of the problems with this lot are because of its pie shape and steep topography. The majority of this lot has street frontage with a 35 foot setback, which limits the amount of buildable area. The steep topography directs the placement of the driveway. The driveway already has a steep slope and to move it from its current position would only increase the slope. The project requires a variance from the following City Code: Section 11.21, Subd. 10 (3)(s), Side Yard Setbacks. City Code states that the required side yard setback for lots having a width of 100 feet or greater shall be 15 feet from any side yard property line. The requested variance is for 10ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. . A review of the City file indicates that the house was built in 1992. No other major additions have been made to the house since that time. , Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 27,2006 Page 2 . ' aldhauser asked the applicant if she h s yvere to build a garage on the east si and' iQuld be on the opposite side of t '''-,,- McCarty sal '<, ,t the proposal seems to difficult to const ' a detached 2-stall g requirements. considered any other options. Arndt stated that if of her property it would be c1oserto that neighb property from the existing garage. ake sense. Grimes added that " v Id be very , meet setback Landis opened the public'l1 closed the public hearing. one wishing to comment, Landis Waldhauser concurre, t this location ould be the m obvious place to build the proposed garage. added that the sid yard on this prop really faces the backyard of the adjoining bor. user and motion carried una'n , sly to approve the va' ce request for 7.5 ft. off the requir 12.5 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its '~, side (west) yard property line to allow for the construction of a second garage . 817 Westwood Drive South (06-06-11) Scott & Cvndi Barrinaton. Applicants Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 10(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements . 10ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 5 ft. at its closest point to the side yard (north) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new tuck under garage with living space above. Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (E) Accessory Structure Requirements . 361 sq. ft. more than the allowed 1,000 sq. ft. of accessory structure space . Gonzalez referred to a survey of the property and explained that the applicants are proposing to build a new two-stall garage with living space above. She explained that the proposed new garage would be located 5 ft. from the side (north) yard property line and that the total Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 27, 2006 Page 3 . accessory structure space would exceed the 1,000 sq. ft. limit by 361 sq. ft. (including existing garage space. Nederveld noted that there would be 4 garage stalls. Gonzalez concurred. Landis referred to the survey and asked if the area referred to as heated storage is included in the accessory structure square footage. Grimes stated yes and explained that the staff would consider the heated storage area accessory structure space because the access is through the garage not directly through the house. Waldhauser stated that the actual parking space area is less than 1,000 sq. ft., but the proposed storage areas are making it go over the 1,000 sq. ft. limit. Grimes noted that this is a very unique home and the applicants would like more living space so the obvious solution is to put the new living space above the proposed new garage. Waldhauser referred to the retaining wall on the north side of the property. She said she spoke with the neighbor and found out they have rights to use part of the retaining wall. She asked if that changes the view of the setback requirements. Grimes said no. Kristene Heyer, Keith Waters & Associates, architect for the project, stated that they were the original designers of this home and that it was built for a family with no children. She stated that Scott and Cyndi Barrington purchased the home in 2002 and explained that the applicants are also planning a kitchen expansion and a deck addition that do meet the setback requirements. . Heyer referred to the side yard variance request and stated that they need the variance in order to accommodate the applicant's mother who will soon be living with them. She referred to the property survey and noted that it has a very steep slope and that they are trying to get the proposed living space to be on the main level of the home. She stated that the proposed addition will fit in with the rest of the home and that it will all be contained within one and a half stories and won't be towering over the existing home. She explained that if they were to meet the side yard setback requirements they would only have a 10ft. sliver of land to work with. She referred to the variance application and explained that they feel the hardships with this lot are the steep topography, the triangular shape, the large front yard setback area, the restricted buildable area, the existing driveway access and the limited parking. She added that the applicants have been asked by the City not to park on the street because of the blind curve at the point where their driveway comes out on Westwood Drive South. Heyer stated that they have really looked hard at this proposal and they feel the proposed garage/living space addition is in the least obtrusive location, it is screened by trees, it stays within the original design of the home and it is the only feasible way to get more living space on the main level in this home. . Heyer referred to the variance request regarding the amount accessory structure space and explained that they feel some of what is being called accessory structure space really isn't. The back part of the existing garage will be converted to a hallway and a coat closet and part of the proposed new garage space will be for mechanical equipment and storage. She added that there really is no basement in this house so they need the storage space being proposed. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 27, 2006 Page 4 . Grimes referred to the triangular shaped storage space in the back of the existing garage and stated that if there is a door installed between it and the proposed new hallway leading to the new garage then it could probably be considered part of the house and not accessory structure space. McCarty said he thought the proposal would still have over 1,000 sq. ft. of accessory structure space. Grimes suggested that maybe they build a new one stall garage. Heyer stated that would also be too close to the side yard property line and it is the living space above the proposed new garage that is really their main concern. A one stall garage would not create enough living space above. Scott Barrington, applicant, stated that because of the slope of the driveway and the angle of the garage they need the additional space in order to turn their cars around so they can pull forward out of their driveway. Landis suggested having a one stall garage with an open, covered parking space next to it which would still allow them to have the living space above. Heyer said they would still need the side yard variance. Cyndi Barrington, applicant, stated that they've talked with all of the neighbors and no one has any objections to their proposal. . Waldhauser referred to the retaining walls that are located where the proposed addition would be built and asked how the hill will be reinforced if those retaining walls are removed. Heyer stated that the back wall of the garage would become the retaining wall. She added that they always work with structural engineers to make sure what they are building is built properly. Waldhauser asked if the driveway will change. Heyer said the driveway \/IIOuld remain the same. Waldhauser referred to the survey and stated that it looks like five cars could park on the driveway. Mr. Barrington stated that the whole house was built back in the corner of the lot and it is very hard to get in and out of their driveway. He stated that they need the space on the driveway that Waldhauser is referring to in order to turn their cars around and drive forward down the driveway because it is not feasible to back out of the driveway. Gonzalez suggested that the applicants could change the interior of the house to make space for their mother. Heyer explained that there would be too many stairs for her to climb and that this proposal has the living space they need on the main level. McCarty suggested that since they already have to excavate they could build additional living space behind the existing home. Heyer stated that there is only approximately 10 feet in that area behind the home and if they were to expand the house in that direction the roofs would not meet or drain properly. . Grimes asked how visible the proposed addition would be from the street. Heyer stated that they feel that it will be very hard to see the proposed addition at all from the street. She stated Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 27, 2006 Page 5 . that she doesn't know what the City's intent is regarding the 1,000 square feet of accessory structure space, but she assumes it is because they don't want to see a bunch of garages lined up in a row. She said they agree with that and they've tried to design the new garage space with that in mind. Landis opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment, Landis closed the public hearing. McCarty asked if there were any provisions not allowing variances when this property was originally subdivided. Grimes said he didn't think so. He added that in this case there are some pretty good justifications for variances from a topography standpoint. McCarty said he is having a hard time allowing that much building space, that close to a property line. Waldhauser said she understands that the extra garage space isn't the main desire in this proposal; it is the living space so she has less concern about the variance request for more accessory structure space. She said however, that there are many homes that can't be expanded and that is something people should realize when they buy a home. . Heyer stated that after the proposed addition their lot coverage ratio is still only at 25 or 26% which is under the 30% allowed by the City. Nederveld stated that additional living space is not necessarily a hardship. He explained that the Board is limited by state statute and he doesn't think this proposal meets the state statute hardship criteria. Mr. Barrington said he hears the board saying no and asked what alternatives they have. He said he thinks they've submitted a reasonable proposal that is unobtrusive and wants to know what alternatives they have. Nederveld explained that they can appeal a negative vote to the City Councilor table these variance requests in order to come up with a different plan. Keith Waters, architect for the project, stated that the further they try to build up into the slope to the rear of the home the more lateral pressure there would be against the retaining walls so it wouldn't work. Waldhauser agreed that the location they are proposing to build in is really the only place on the lot where anything could be built. She said that she'd be willing to grant the variance to allow more than the allowed accessory structure space because there is no basement storage space. She added that sometimes houses like this one aren't suitable for a growing family. Mrs. Barrington said that is like saying peoples lives are never going to change and she thinks that the City would want to keep taxpayers in Golden Valley. . Waters stated that there is a clear hardship in this case. He said they've done the very best they can to try to stay within the setback area. They are not going any closer to the neighboring property and no precedent would be set if the variances were granted. Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 27, 2006 Page 6 . McCarty said it seems to him that there are other options that wouldn't encroach so far into the setback area. Mr. Barrington said that on a normal lot that would be true, but not on this lot. He said they have gone out of their way to make this addition unobtrusive and that it has to be located in the spot proposed because the living space needs to be on the main level for his mother-in-law. McCarty said he understands the applicant's proposal but the Board has limitations and is trying to be flexible. Grimes noted that there was one member absent and told the applicants that they have the option of tabling their request in order to present their proposal to a full Board. He reminded them that they also have to option to make their request to the City Council if the Board were to deny their application at this meeting. Mr. Barrington asked the Board to table their request until it can be heard by the full Board. MOVED by McCarty, seconded by Nederveld and motion carried unanimously to table the requested variances until a full Board is present. 319 Hanley Road (06-06-12) uce Fraser & Michelle Bi elow . .1, Subd. 10(A)(1) Front Yard"" . / 5 ft. to a distance of 2 . at its closest point ad. Purpose: Req uest: .~ ubd. 1 0(A)(1) Front Yard Requirements . 11 ft. off the re the front yar Purpose: Request: er from Section 11.21 equirements . 2.5 ft. off the required 5 ft the side (south) yard pro a distance of 2.5 ft. at its c line. . To bring the existing shed int nformance with setback requirements .... . . . 8/16/06 Mark W. Grimes, ALCP Director of Planning and Development City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Rd. Golden Valley, MN 55427 KEITH WATERS & ASSOCIATES, Inc. DESIGNERS & BUILDERS 6216 Baker Road Suite 11 0 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Ref: Barrington Residence 817 Westwood Drive (952) 974-0004 fax (952) 974-0005 www.keithwaters.com License Number - 0001508 Revisions to Variance Request ~~~~ . On June 27,2006, the Owners presented a variance request to the City of Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals. At that meeting the request was tabled so that the applicants could review suggestions made by the board. We appreciated their input and have undertaken this review process. The revised submission reflects as many of the comments of the Board as possible while still meeting the needs of the Owners. We will discuss the alternatives that we looked at during the meeting. The revised drawings are dated 8/16/06. Description of Hardship Please refer to the original description of the topography and lot shape which clearly constitute a hardship. (See Attached) Summary of Plan Revisions 1. The garage under the living space was reduced in its overall length by 8' and approximately 141 square feet. Note that the back wall of the garage must be reinforced concrete retaining wall 12" to 14" thick reducing the inside useable space. 2. The Mechanical/Storage room size was in question of being above the 1,000 s.f. and has been reduced from 361 to 220 sJ. 3. The Bedroom space above was similarly reduced by 141 s.f. eliminating the sitting room and providing only the necessary bedroom and bathroom. 4. The total garage area itself remains at the allowable 1,000 s.f. 5. We examined the option of moving the bedroom into the "notch" at the top of the hill. The hillside topography continues to rise so much at the back of the house, that no . windows could be above grade for egress. (See attached photo). 6. We examined the option of creating living space or garage space underneath the deck, however the structure would need to be sunk approximately 5 feet into the ground in order to clear the front door elevation. This creates steps from the inside of the house, and would be located off of the kid's area. Would also not work as a garage because J:\Barrington\Correspondance\Revisions to Variance Request 8-16-06.DOC .~ . . . the driveway is set for the height of the existing garages 5'-6" above. (See attached elevation). 7. We examined the option of locating a living addition and garage at the southeast corner of the lot, but would still need a variance for a front yard setback. The shortest distance , from the house to the front setback is only 8'. This would also create an even worse driveway situation at approximately 40% slope. (See site plan diagram). 8. We looked at the physical possibility of parking 5 cars in the driveway, as suggested by one board member. It was very easy to see that it completely prevents access into the existing garages, and provides absolutely no maneuvering room to get turned around. Even with a two cars in the driveway this is difficult. It would also be much more unsightly and directly visible from the street. (See site plan diagram). 9. One board member suggested keeping the living space above, but providing a single indoor stall and one outdoor stall. The roof form above and car depth would remain exactly the same, so there would still be a need for a 5' setback. 10. In regard to the suggestion by one board member who said that these considerations should have been thought about prior to purchasing the home, it is unfair to assume that people know about future family circumstances. Please note that with all proposed additions/decks, the square footage is still well below the 30% lot coverage that is allowed. The only logical location on this site is the one proposed. This selection is based upon clear hardship created by the site. It will affect no neighbors, (they have reviewed the plans) and will meet the spirit and intent of the neighborhood and the City. At the meeting, we will provide an elevation of the proposed addition as viewed from the street. The architectural design blends with the existing home, and the 'location is non-obtrusive and hardly visible from the street or neighbors. Keith Waters KW/hks J:\Barrington\Correspondance\Revisions to Variance Request 8.16.06.DOC t, . . . . . . . . Letter to Planning Committee from One of the Homeowners of817 Westwood Drive South Dear Committee Members, Due to a family reunion in Montana, I am unable to attend the August meeting in person. My wife, Cyndi, will attend the meeting to represent both of us. We are resubmitting our request for a variance on the 15 feet setback requirement from a side lot line so that we may build an attached garage with modest living space above it to accommodate the addition of my mother-in-law to our household and a baby late last year. We listened intently to questions posed at the previous committee meeting and thoughtfully considered each one. Based on the audio transcript, it is apparent that the committee believes that we have several obvious hardships providing a basis for a variance request: House is built into and on top of a steep hill. Odd-shaped lot (triangle) significantly reduces buildable space, compared to four-sided lots. Steep driveway (19 degree slope) that requires users to turn around at the top of the driveway and exit the driveway by driving forward. (Backing down the driveway is not possible at night or during the winter months so two years ago we expanded the driveway at the top to create a turn around circle-this addition cannot be used for parking as was suggested by one committee member). City of Golden Valley has requested that we not park on the street because the street itself rises and curves around our house such that parking on the street by us would obstruct the view of other drivers and pose a safety concern, especially for the many children in the neighborhood. The only storage in the house is a small utility room with a crawl space (the slope of the hill required that the architect create a higher tier at the back of the house and this creates the crawl space). Other information that should be helpful to the committee: . The house is admittedly quirky and consists of five partial levels layered together and built into a hill. It was not designed for children (or a live-in mother-in-law) and that is the main reason we intend to remodel. We do have one level that runs about two thirds of the length of the house and we are attempting to locate a mother-in-law quarters on that level to minimize the need for her to walk up and down stairs. . We have three adult drivers, four cars (one is a snowplow) and two children, one of whom is 11. As parents, I know we will blink and he will be 16. . We have many large trees on the property and our plans minimize the damage to those trees. . Weare viewing our options to add solar panels to the house and the new addition would provide appropriate Southern exposure for this purpose. (I manage a "cleantech" investment fund for Piper J affray so this is a passion for me and the new technology allows for panels that blend into the roof just like normal shingles). At the prior meeting, however, two committee members raised questions regarding whether another location for the garage or living space might be possible and we tabled a decision so we could consider the committee's three suggestions. The first suggestion was that we create the . . . addition as proposed but not enclose one ofthe garage stalls so that there would be one exposed tuck-under stall for a car. This option might physically be acceptable in a warmer climate but even then would not be aesthetically acceptable as it would not be in keeping with the style of the house. I think it is fair to say that exposed car-ports of this nature detract from neighborhood , property values rather than increase them. Also, there is no justifiable reason for the committee to require this given that we are under the 1,000 square feet of garage space allowed by code. The second suggestion was that we locate the mother-in-law quarters at the back of the house. As our architect explained at the meeting, this is impossible given the steepness of the hill at the back of the house, a large retaining wall would be required, we would need to remove a portion of the neighbors retaining wall which is on our property by way of easement, and earth moving equipment could not reach that part of the property. Further examination of the property by the architect re-confirmed this. The third suggestion was that we locate the addition on the other side of the house. This will not work because it would require a driveway with an even steeper slope (approximately 40 degrees) and would not provide ample room for the requisite turn around circle. Finally, the second and third options clearly would be in shaded areas and not allow us to locate solar panels there. Conclusion We have demonstrated a clear need for the addition, more than one hardship that provides a basis for granting the variance and carefully considered the committee's previous suggestions. In addition, we have reduced the footprint of the addition to the bare minimum size that would still enable us to open car doors in the new garage space. Our proposal is unobtrusive and nearly invisible from the street given the rise in elevation and that it will be built into a hill and behind existing trees and bushes. The design of the addition matches the existing house. Our neighbors all signed our plans and we worked specifically with the neighbor to the North to ensure the addition would not affect their view or harm their retaining wall. We note that if we were building a detached garage, we would be allowed to build within five feet of the side lot line, as we are proposing to do here. A search of past variance requests and approvals shows the committee has approved more obtrusive projects and bigger additions in the past on properties with significantly less (or no) demonstrable hardship. Finally, we believe the committee is unlikely to be setting precedent by granting our request because, an informal search of Golden Valley lots shows no other lot in the city is triangular in shape with a steep hill that is located on a curving street. We believe our request for a variance allowing us to build the garage/living space five feet from the side lot line is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the city code and respectfully request that the committee approve our request. . Thank you very much for your time and thoughtful consideration of our plans. I also specifically want to thank Mark Grimes, City Planner, for his many hours of assistance and for patiently answering our many questions about this process. Regards, /s/ Scott Barrington .. . . . 6/6/06 KEITH WATERS & ASSOCIATES, Inc. DESIGNERS & BUILDERS Ref: Scott & Cyndi Barrington 817 Westwood Drive South Golden Valley, MN 55416-3354 6216 Baker Road Suite 11 0 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 (952) 974-0004 fax (952) 974-0005 www.keithwaters.com License Number - 0001508 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The property contains a single family home constructed at 817 Westwood Drive. The applicants wish to add to their home and modify the existing floor plan. They are the 3rd Owners of the home. Several internal floor plan revisions will be made within the house to accommodate their growing and changing family. Among the changes are expanding the kitchen and eating area, adding a deck at the first floor, and a bedroom/bathroom over a garage for Mrs. Barrington's mother who will be joining the household soon. The proposed bedroom addition requires the reduction of a side yard setback to 5'. The enlargement of the kitchen and deck do not require a variance (see attached site plan). DESCRIPTION OF HARDSHIP: The site has several unique circumstances created by the land, not the buildings. These include: Steep Topoaraphy - The lot is an extremely steep uphill lot, rising approximately 48' from the lowest elevation to the highest point on the site. The slope from the street at the east property line is approximately 33%; it is approximately 34% at the lot mid point and approximately 15% at the north property line. Westwood Drive drops approximately 26' as it goes around the corner from west to east. The steep slope condition is further aggravated, as the home does not sit on the top of the hill, the steep slope continues unabated above the house. There is no flat area on the site. Irreaularly Shaped Lot - The lot is triangular in shape, an extremely difficult shape. The longest leg of the triangle is on Westwood Drive approximately 235' with a 35' setback. This means that over 7000 sq. ft. of the lot is contained in the front yard setback. This restricts the buildable area. Restricted Buildable Area - This triangular lot has approximately 36% buildable area. A typical rectangular lot of the same size would have 45 to 50% buildable area. Existinq Driveway Access - The driveway has to enter the site where it exists, at the highest point of the Westwood Drive frontage. Even now, it has a 19% slope. If the driveway were to move to the east side of house it would require approximately a 40% slope. The driveway and J:\Barrington\Correspondance\City Variance\Summary of Request. DOC . garage location cannot be changed. Adequate maneuvering in front of the garage doors must be maintained. Limited Parking - The lot is on a blind curve. It can be dangerous to park on the street, and the City has previously asked the Barrington's not to park on the street. The driveway again has a 19% slope and is dangerous to walk down when wet or snow covered, particularly for children or elderly persons. The street is approximately 38' below the 1st floor of the house. With the trees and retaining wall it is not possible to maintain adequate monitoring of parked vehicles. It is not safe to assume that extra parking is possible in the driveway. The driveway is steep; cars cannot maneuver in and out. The configuration of the driveway is very limited due to structural retaining walls/steep grade, which eliminates the ability to expand the driveway. lack of Expansion Area - The kitchen will be expanded to the east with no variance required. It would be imprudent to extend this addition all the way to the setback line. A large overhead power line runs up hill on the east side of the property. The house to the east is significantly lower. To extend further could require building retaining walls near or under the power lines. The proposed deck doesn't require a variance, and will provide the only area to walk out of the house on the main level. The area proposed for the variance is the only feasible buildable location on the site. Economics - No economic hardship is requested. . Spirit and Intent: The proposed addition will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City zoning laws and will not change the character of the neighborhood. The front yard will not change. The Owners have done a great job of landscaping and preserving the existing trees. No trees will be removed in the variance area. The house sits so high above the street that it's not very visible from traffic on Westwood Drive. The only adjacent property to the variance area is city property at 717 Westwood Drive South on top of the hill. The 717 Westwood lot was originally split off from the 817 lot. One of the conditions between lot owners was that the ridgeline of the new house would not exceed a certain height. It did not, and the new addition also would not. The rooflines of the new addition fit the character of the existing house. The Owners of the property have been good stewards of the land and this addition will continue that stewardship. Falls Within Size Guidelines: Despite needing a setback variance, the proposed additions do adhere to the City's ordinance regarding lot coverage. With the new additions, the lot coverage would be 24%. 30% is allowed, therefore showing that the property is not being overbuilt. No Precedent Set: The lot has such an unusual combination of shape and topography that approval here should not open a door for future unknown requests. It is clearly a one of a kind property. Neighbors: The Barrington's have visited with their neighbors on each side and across the street about their request for the variance. None are opposed or feel they are affected by the proposed plan. . Additional Background: The original house and driveway were creatively designed to fit the lot (look at how the roof lines fit into the triangle and building area) the house was custom designed for an artist and his wife who was an agent representing artists. It fit them perfectly J:\Barrington\Correspondance\City Variance\Summary of Request. DOC but contained many idiosyncrasies that make it difficult for a growing family with younger kids . and a live-in grandparent, like the current owner's family. Internally the house is a series of small levels that stair step up the steep hill. By necessity due to grade, all garages on this property are tuck under. The additional garage space would also be tucked under the new bedroom and bath that is needed for Mrs. Barrington's mother. The applicants are not requesting an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), but rather only a bedroom and bath located on the main level of the house. If this space is not on the main level, then every trip within the house would require using stairs. This location allows her car and any future teenage drivers to park without blocking access to any garage doors. Parking on the sloping street or driveway and walking up is impossible. Summary - The Owners are requesting a commonsense arrangement of spaces for a multi- generational family. This is a creative solution to overcome hardships created by a very unique site, while allowing them to plan for the life cycle changes that occur within families. The Owners are committed to living in Golden Valley and raising their children here. The addition of the requested living and parking areas will allow them to do so, and continue their good stewardship of the property. . . J:\Barrington\Correspondance\City Variance\Summary of Request.DOC . . 6'ltt'Q~ivn pts i~t n ct., . . ("\j IS) (L. -.J (I I- o I- BENCHMARK: TOP NUT OF HYDRANT AT 90t WESTWOOD DRIVE. ELEV. = 865.36 ~. J EXiSllNG _ 'HOUSE W N 2i 2.17 _ S 00-44"05'" E~- ........-................ z o ~ 01 ~ .... cD . .... ~~ . ~ ~ '0 . U1 ..... .. ~~lt ~l": =3 0'''0 h Jre-s/'J~. .. YYOOD DR/~ -0- -__ S .1(0 -0(0 .. 'i\1~'!)) ,. " . , -to. . "" / Ai'~~ ~ ~vo ~'" ~~ -i'" . ;g. I''f..\- . . r- ~~ ~ j ; . .. ~'\\ ~~};, , .,. . '1' ... x . ~~., , 'OJ J \ "::Ill Ii , ~ ~ .. -< ;;:.. ~ cl> <:~ I.. .a.. 00 ~ c: .:s f co -- I '(;' ,. ..... I It ; , f:P .'J ~ i t1 3- it 0 ... ,- \ , \ I: , , . if .' ~ t 1 3 . . . . -;a r ... < :ii' .:1 ... c::3 <L. ~ T c: :f <> -r 6- t- 'r -, , GO ..::i E t . ..1. 'tfl "t :Co f:!I '" . ~ , 'i:j j; I~ Ii I ; .., b ." ....-.__...... .__. ., .J. '7,'" ~ 'n", _n. _ __........._ ._~..._~.._._... .._......_....._....._._..._.._,..._ _ .~..... ',,, _ /. ~ J~~ '. A ~ t/1~ . '" / "l '.; /~/~ \ ..~~. ~~ ;, I~?, r '~:-i.i ". .~ 'Y~' , ,If t ft ~ :' '.r;. , ./~~' /' ',., :. ,,/ ~ - -'" \ '/, /,1 ' . \ .. , J . ~.' ./. .fi' I -1t ;.,. I I I " Tl.' ;--. /' . ! }It "'; : 3-.< / / .., ,.1 '. . ~ d "'. f ,:"./ ~ /.4: 't/. ; . ~... ""< ffr::, .~' ( ,',~, ,.. ,/ 1> :+::.;~: . ~'\.Oj; , . ~.: 'h. -"'Y" -.~....._~~... - -. ::! d ~,. .:~ . ,~~, . ~.' ,..' ~. _..~~.., ~r J.;' '. / ~.'. ,,<X;1'I "or"" ",f/;" i . .. .. v /~ ' . , ~'V{~ ~: _._ ~ / . ~. ~ :' . ""., . ~T. ! ' / ,''\(j ;' : '/ . ,~'. ".' ~~ 'AlIa. .' ",.,~" _ - - - ~~/~. .~:/. . .' /~f' ' -:r-- '. ~'\'~.'.'.. " . ~,..~ :-.(a(?" " .. ~ " . ... i '~~.' .~,. ' It 11 ~ " l ;. ~ ',' /~. ~ ~ ~. 6 t' .,' -., 0 ;1\.".. . ~Q I"!J. ,11 .1.'l7 '-'-0 T-- .... . '. '. \."" . ~ ~. ..... ro' o I;:: ~. ~:- .:~V/..jO . ". tI1-O tt.Q: I' ' '..; "", ,( ~ ~ . -~:- ~.' "/' . .... ',..,.~.... ~ ~ " ; ~".:_@l I~~"- ....... . . .!( ';-.,'\ . !t;"" -r : - ~ IJ '.. : ~II~\" .,~'.", '.' " ,:' ~ " 'r - . ';.. :'. i ~. . ! ! nr....-j Ii /";'~~ :, I: .,.:,:: ....:. '~:: ";1"'~"::;"I..l~.__~. ';""',......... '. . i~ 'if fi' 'w>- \ 1 l~\ -: -~ .~ . : .'. . . .' / . .. ~ t '. - ~ \ ' . -l.{ ~ ~ It' I \ ..' ' I ,..0' .: :.,. . , " , I ! _ - .! \ '1" 'lff. & l' I . 'Ii ". ...... J.. / . Q ... - ~ :1, .. Ii ~ Z t~ ~ D z. ., ; " " "~;~ ~~':' " u . ' ., '.. '\~. ..,.,~ ,~'I : ~/ .~~.. 16 " J: I I _'" 1 ;' / "\. ~\. Y. '! I ~ I ~ ..... 1\.1) - "<. I ' . .... >, . - .J,,:--.... \. po. ~.. 1 .-.. I ". : A' i"\ \ I;" Ii\ A . 1(11 Q , ~~ *- ~IJ"~>>"'" ~/ '1 ~. ..\ \. . ). . Ii . . t ~ W t \! . .' ." ,.' ..~ > ..f -/" \ '. y-.... -. . I'l ~ ~2 ~: v ~ t .. . '.y../" I' .. t. ~:'I'l!'" ~ '... L ':.' . -- _ .--:-:' \:_";.;:-..::'-- ~ <W.~r -- <><>:~' ,'I(I'~) i~~ ~ ;, /\.- ~v<<;'-~ -- :: 'i.\ '\. ' .,/,,, \ . I ,So. . c . . . '( '" 'C7 ~ \ ).:t. ) t.Q \'. \ ~",,,,~ . .-0 ,\ .~- .. '€~ , , \ , " ! :i J : ~ I '1 . . ~ ~ ~ , ~ 4' ~ ~ ~'&~ ~ j", ~\ ~ .. ~~ \ ~ ~ , ! ' ~ ~ D '" " .. g. H \)0 ZU> \ )T .... ./ . . . ~ .(;' \ o 6"' ~ c/O . , . . fJf fD :0 ~, 0 m: o. 4: "11 ".... .;ot Ii r ~.; :D l> - -I :m " .r- .)> :z \ \ . #- ur -:i fj' KHTH W f\TERS B i\SSOCIATES, INC. ----~---- l l!'.'iiCf'.:ERS tii BUILDERS -=It ---J Barrington Residence Site Plan h2 \ (> Baker Road SLlile 110 EdL'n Prairi..:, MN 55.,4() . 817 Westwood Drive Golden Valley, MN . . ~.. ___ _ __ ______ ______ I~ II~L-i ' - ... I\. /' ---. ---.------- -- I.... I~---___ . . _~. _ v -:\'- . ' _ I- II...... ~ . . - _.u - --.. '"--.. ':- ~ :..!.. 0 l "'It , . . 1'\ 9' .r f;- '~- ' 'J r- ' ' . :l: '\ \/' . ~:. , . .' f.;:-" ,..-.:-' '\ /......... ~ a... rl ~ ~;~ ~ I .l....:., .. '\ / ~~/,n U - :-' ~: -::-.f-.:.- - t. · !r-- . 'v "iO T'~ i':":" ,~-:- . =, I .:.... r .I .1 '., i-: ..:.. Ii:- ,- _ 1':"'1 '2-5 04L ;.;. ~: : >_ ' ;:~ ~~ 1 ~/..:...!. '''~ """l ~ - .. ' I I J ,..:..- J-- I ~ J.,....:. ,~...~' , '. , T1-:-- t-F-- I I Lt--_- , I I II I I 11--:--- - ~ t '. I~.:I ~- I I ~.. \ t~ tf-l-:-'-'~!-"~' .-." ""-/ ! I ! ; . :. ~ \ .~ ,- Ii.. ~ ,. .1'1 _,~. . l , . 1'1 I.. . N '\ I I ,... .. " . -; ,.- - .._JJ__... . ..~ Ph--- . . - ...- ' ~-- . --- _.~ ,..' ' J I I I Ilj Iii /' II z ! IL llr .1* 1r · " . . tJ ~!, .1 '-- . ~ _ fif':.._ ,;..: -.- '1'. .~ "oL,..S E j '., .. ~. d' t '" 1..... !:- - v ~ -: ;1- ~ ~ ~ triJJ ,......./.7 . L .... '/~" 7 ". .. J, . ,--..;'~ h I" ~ ~ '.1; It .-ff, .!' ~ .I I '" ..L' I J ~ I ~, . -' " " . iI . '-) 'Il:"l" 'I II '~';J.-:;- -4 r::8 G' 1>', ~ ~ (J ) ~. > . j .,. .. .. (, M- II I-I il--- II t t i I . . Vi \ I t\ \\. j I" ';1 ~.. 4- o' o '''It ~ 5" ~'. ~ -' - - ~ f\) ,1 I I tl.l. @ I It' '7" ~~ C@ . .1 .",8 - /f' i i I , , i I 1 ; ~ ~ '~~ ~. , " !. '- J . . . '" ~ .-; .~. .~..~ ..... ~. ~.. \ " .~v ". , .~ .~ ~ I- ." ..." >.. '" f!!' . ~ . I.re)" q~~ ~>i '~) x E~ ~~ ~ :<-1 ~ VJ (D), / ~.bl V....-- ~.. GJ L : ~ '~'-_:'tI@I) r.... ;8 . ~ ,8 \ \ ... \ ' \ -1 . E~ i · <---- .e~3 :~~ i ~'! .~: /, I...._..~..... 1".~' .. """>-' .'@ ',- '-- I . ,>--' ; ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ \) v . /... .... '0 , ~ \ . r \t lJ~ / / / / / / / / ~ 7-"---,/ / .2..... ~\I "- ~-- .-\ ~" --4 % . ... .t?~ )>, ~ ~ T ~ i/~ ~ >'., "'- :a. .;. , -:,":.f '. f~ ':.,>~,/' j;~~\~ ~~~;:{\~'1t/,ii! .t"~~!ir 0;,:--/---' . ,',;:; ~~"ff;;i . :w ~;'I:~:~<;:~":'~' ..:/' '. :,~ji (o;_,~...- ~'~i~ - . f ~" ",,::1,'':. "//;", ~ '\ .. "" \, ~J. \:; ;i - .. -- - .. ". . 7 ....... ~ :J:.~'~ . l\ . (. t, .,.., "7":-'i I'" ^ Jt, Lt co!, ,,- ;~S" .~~! ~.; .,~ ;0.::-: J fI' j 4) ..s; 4J $. u.- o ~ ..,3 <<) dT .$.~ "h'3 \I: ,.. 4)1- ~:t ~.,. ii'2t s::~ -"is fIJ" V'\r -r, .:. '" ~;,.. s: V'ri " '::Irl' s: - "i~ S~ *