Loading...
09-24-96 BZA Minutes 1454 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals I September 24, 1996 The regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held Tuesday, September 24, 1996, in the Golden Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN. Chair Herb Polachek called the meeting to order at 7pm. Those present were: Chair Herb Polachek; Members Mike Sell, Robert Shaffer, and Mahlon Swedberg; and Planning Commission representative Jean Lewis. Also present were Staff Liaison Mark Grimes and Recording Secretary Eve Lomaistro. I. Approval of Minutes - August 27, 1996 MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously approve the minutes of August 27, 1996, with the addition of the following paragraph added prior to the motion on petition 96-9-30 -- 311 Burntside Drive: The Board noted that the rear yard fell off sharply and for this reason has grown into brush. There is no way within reason that a shed could be placed in the rear yard. I II. The Petitions are: 108 Turnpike Road (96-9-33) Tarald O. and Amy V. Kvalseth Request: Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- .40 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.60 feet for the existing structure; and Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 24.07 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 10.93 feet for the proposed 2- stall garage addition onto the front of the house; and Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2) Side Yard Setback -- 2.72 feet off the required 11.25 feet to a distance of 8.53 feet for the proposed 2-stall garage addition on the south side. Purpose: To make the house legally nonconforming and to allow for the construction of a 2-stall garage addition. I Staff Liaison Mark Grimes reviewed the staff memo with the Board commenting on the request for a 24.07 foot variance into the front setback; he said that a 1-1/2 stall garage now exists. Staff Liaison Grimes told the Board that he would like the Kvalseths to review I I I i455 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 24, 1996 Page 2 alternative locations or additions to the existing garage instead of protruding into the front setback 24 feet. The applicant, Amy Kvalseth, stated that the back yard is perfect for kids to play in and the side has berry bushes. She would like to maintain both areas as they are. She has talked with her neighbors and all agreed that a 2-stall garage into the front setback would be fine with them. The Board noted that this circa 1950's neighborhood is appealing and while most houses have a 1-stall garage, the addition of a 2-stall garage(s) could raise the value of the neighborhood. The Board agreed that by approving this proposal, they would be setting a precedent. The staff report revealed that a front yard setback variance, for a garage addition, was approved a few years ago for a house across the street. However, that situation was different because of the difficult topography of the lot. Also, there was no alternative location for the garage. The existing garage is still 20 feet from the front property line. The Board reviewed several alternatives for the garage addition including a driveway on the south side leading to a detached garage in the backyard, or enlarging the existing garage by going slightly into the front setback and side setback areas. The Board believes that the proposed garage would dominate the look of the lot. Amy Kvalseth believed that by extending the garage into the side setback the lot would have a more crowded look. She also said that property owners should be able to upgrade their homes. Ms. Kvalseth said that the proposed plan would allow them to remodel the existing garage and possibly make it into a ground level family room. The Board stressed that it usually considers hardship cases where there are no other alternatives. The proposed plan leaves only 10.93 feet of property between the front of the garage and the right-of-way line. Staff Liaison Grimes added that if major changes in setbacks need to be made, they should be reflected in the City Code and not dealt with on a case-by-case basis by the BZA. He said that it is not the function of the BZA to set policy. He also stated that Golden Valley intentionally established generous setbacks in order to give neighborhoods an open, spacious feeling. The Board agreed that building in the front yard, especially to this extent, would have quite an impact on the neighborhood, whereas construction in the back yard has more limited impacts. The Kvalseths commented that families use the back yards for various activities and rarely use the front yard. The applicants also commented that expanding the existing garage would cost. almost as much as building a new one due to the roof line on the existing building. The Board stated their opposition to the request for a 2-stall garage addition due to available alternatives. 1.4:56 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 24, 1996 Page 3 MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to defer for no I more than 2 months the requested waivers from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) and Subd. 7(C)(2) of City Code allowing the applicants to explore other alternatives. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Lewis and motion carried unanimously to approve the waiver of Section of 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- .40 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.60 feet to make the existing house legally nonconforming. 1114 Wisconsin Avenue South (96-9-34) William and Molly Nagle Request: Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 2 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 33 feet for the proposed entry/living addition onto the front of the house; and Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2) Side Yard Setback -- 9.25 feet off the required 12.75 feet to a distance of 3.5 feet for the proposed living addition on the west side of the house. Purpose: To allow for the construction of additional living space and a front entry. I Staff Liaison Mark Grimes explained to the Board that when staff visited the property there was some question whether the survey was correct. The applicants had located the iron at the southwest corner of the lot and commented that the existing fence, which is not on the survey, is on their property. Staff stepped off the requested footage for the addition and believe that either the survey is incorrect or the applicants fence is in their neighbors yard. Staff requested the applicants to locate the front northwest iron and when that was accomplished, staff would come out and take a measurement. Gary Johnson, City Inspector, visited the property and took measurements. He believes that after taking into account the footage on the east side and the house itself it appeared that the proposed addition would come only one foot from the property line instead of the 3 feet indicated on the survey. The applicants told staff that they had found all irons, but unfortunately the numbers and current survey do not match up. Staff Liaison Grimes commented that if the proposal was approved for 3.5 feet, City staff would have to monitor the construction to ensure that the footings come no closer than 3.5 feet. The applicants, William and Molly Nagle, stated that the neighbors shed is partly on their property. The Board discussed the issues and suggested that the firm that did the 1980 survey, if I still in business, could be contacted to resurvey the lot. The applicants commented that all four irons had been found, but a true line cannot be established due to the neighbors shed which sits on the property line. I I I 1!157 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals September 24,1996 Page 4 The Board discussed the proposal further and noted that the addition would come very close to the property line. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to defer the proposed addition request up to three months for waivers of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) and Subd. 7(C)(2) to allow the applicants to establish the correct lot lines on the west side. . 8815 23rd Avenue North (96-9-35) Lorelei Lussier and Eva Neubeck Request: Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback -- 8.6 feet off the required 26.9 feet to a distance of 18.3 feet for the existing structure on the west side. Purpose: To made the house legally nonconforming and to permit the construction of a conforming deck onto the south side of the house. Staff Liaison Mark Grimes commented that the request is self-explanatory. He said that a permit was not issued for the existing porch when it was constructed, sometime before the present owners moved in. Staff Liaison Grimes told the Board that the variance would make the garage and porch legally nonconforming which would allow the applicants to construct a conforming deck onto the south side of the house. MOVED by Polachek, seconded by Lewis and motion carried unanimously to approve a waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback of 8.6 feet off the required 26.9 feet to a distance of 18.3 feet for the existing structure on the west side. III. Other Business No other business was presented. IV. Adjournment Chair Polachek adjourned the meeting at 7:55 PM. ~~ ~ Mark Grimes, Staff Liaison Herb Polachek, Chair