Loading...
05-27-97 BZA Minutes , , I. 1511. Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 27,1997 The regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held Tuesday, May 27, 1997, in the Golden Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Rd., Golden Valley, MN. Chair Robert Shaffer. called the meeting to order at 7: 1 Opm. The meeting was delayed waiting for the Council Chambers to be vacated by a previous meeting. Those present were: Chair Robert Shaffer; Members Herb Polachek, Mike Sen, and Mahlon Swedberg; and Planning Commission Representative Rich Groger. Also present were Staff Liaison Mark Grimes and Recording Secretary Eve Lomaistro. I. Approval of Minutes - April 22, 1997. The minutes of the April 22, 1997, meeting were corrected as follows: Page 1, Item I., dates should be March 25, 1997 (rather than 1996); Page 6 at the end of Regel Construction add "The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion", and on Page 10 Paragraph 2 refers to the "inside" wall (not the outside wall). MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Sell, and motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the April 22, 1997 as corrected. II. The Petitions: 7400 Western Avenue (Map 17) (97-5-12) Bvron and Debra Wieberdink Request: Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback -- 9 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 16 feet for the proposed deck on the east side of the house; and Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback -- 4 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 11 feet for the proposed deck, at its closest point, on the north side. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a non-conforming deck on the northwest side of the house. Byron and Debra Wieberdink were in attendance. Staff Liaison Mark Grimes said that the applicants appeared before the Board last August the request was delayed for two months with an option to delay for another six months until a site plan or impact statement from the neighbors was available. The Wieberdinks 1.512 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 1997 Page 2 submitted a letter to Mark Grimes on November 5, 1996, requesting a delay of another six , months. The Wieberdinks will at that time review a proposed deck that would be placed onto the rear of the house. The Ratner's, who owned the property to the east of the Wieberdink's, have now sold that property back to the Mr. Sirny, the developer. Building plans will not be available for review for this site. The Wieberdink's told staff that they have met with their neighbors to the north, who plan to build a house sometime this summer. These neighbors have talked about landscaping between the two houses that would look similar. Both neighbors are interested in saving the large conifer tree. The Wieberdink's are now proposing to build a 10' x 15' deck on the east side (rear) of the house, approximately eight feet above ground level. The existing 4' x 4' landing will be maintained, as well as the steps going to the west so the applicants can access that part of the yard without having to go all the way around the house. John Sirny, developer of the subdivision, faxed a letter to the City seeking a delay of the applicant's request until a future homeowner of Lot 4 can respond to the request. He stated his position against the variance if it is not delayed. Member Swedberg asked if Sirny had any oral contact with the City. Grimes stated that he talked to Sirny today and suggested that he fax the letter. Swedberg commented that the Board has no idea how long it will be until an owner will come forward. Grimes added that the area has been available for three years. Swedberg said that he is still torn on this variance request and emphasized that the Board , must take into consideration the owners to the north. He asked to hear from the applicants. The Wieberdink's commented that the Ratners, who owned the lot to the east approved of proposed deck six months ago. The Ratners now are planning to build a house across the road, on a double lot. The applicants commented that they contacted Mr. Sirny in August of 1996 and again in March of 1997 regarding the variance and received no response from him either time. The Wieberdink's believe that the lot, to the east, will not be sold in the near future because the developer is waiting to see if the value will increase. Swedberg asked if there is written approval from the prior owners of the adjacent lot and the Wieberdink's answered yes. Sell asked if that is the only access on that level and was told yes. MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to proceed with the variance request. Swedberg stated that the applicants have proceeded in good faith with the Ratners, and Mr. Sirny is not in attendance and gave no indication as to when the lot may be sold. Swedberg asked why the dimensions are 10' x 15'. The applicants responded that is 41 would to extend past the kitchen window. The owners added that the landing, on the north side, is part of the deck but is not a big area. The bow window extends out six inches. , , ~ Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 1997 Page 3 1513 Groger asked about the series of boulders going down into the yard. The Wieberdink's answered that the deck won't extend past the boulders. They intend to work with the next door neighbor and hope to save the large tree by putting more boulders in this area. The owners showed pictures of the area. Shaffer asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak to this issue; no one came forward. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Polachek and motion carried unanimously to approve a waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(8) Rear Yard Setback for 9 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 16 feet for the proposed deck on the east side of the house; and a waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback for 4 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 11 feet for the proposed deck, at its closest point, on the north side to allow for the construction of a nonconforming deck on the northwest side of the house. Swedberg commented that the 10 foot width is minimal and the deck is not useable if it is more narrow and that it is in keeping with the design of the house. The applicants asked if the stairs were approved and were told yes; stairs are not considered part of the structure and do not require a variance. 3335 Major Avenue North (Map 3) (97-5-13) Tim Mohr Request: Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 4.5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 30.5 feet for the existing house on the east side; and Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 10 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 25 feet for the proposed overhang over the front steps. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a non-conforming overhang over the front steps and for the construction of a conforming garage and living space on the south side of the house. Tim Mohr was in attendance. Staff Liaison Grimes said that the applicant is proposing to build a conforming addition onto the south side (rear) of the house. Mr. Mohr is also proposing to replace the existing front steps whichare beginning to crumble and would like to add an overhang over the steps which would be held up by posts. The overhang is being held up by posts, which will be considered part of the existing structure and the eave area will begin on the outside of the posts. The Inspections Department has determined that the variance is for that portion of the overhang from the house to the two posts. 1.514 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 1997 Page 4 The applicant told staff that the overhang was a last minute add-on and was not calculated , on the survey. Staff believes that the posts go no further into the setback than five feet, as the applicant has stated in his narrative. Swedberg pointed out that there is an existing house on the east side but that he would not make them tear down the house for a 4.5 foot variance. He added that the architectural detail will add character to the house. Mr. Mohr said that he wanted to remove the steps, redo the entry and then put the steps back which would solve a water problem in this area. MOVED by Polachek, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to approve a waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for 4.5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 30.5 feet for the existing house on the east side; and a waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for 10 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 25 feet for the proposed overhang over the front steps. The variances will allow for the construction of a nonconforming overhang over the front steps and for the construction of a conforming garage and living space on the south side of the house. 2400 Dresden Lane (Map 5) (97-5-14) Steve and Sara Gabel Request: Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback - 5.2 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 9.8 feet for the proposed garage addition on the north side of the existing garage. , Purpose: To allow for the construction of a non-conforming garage stall. Steve and Sara Gabel were in attendance. Grimes explained that the applicants would like to add a third stall garage addition onto the existing garage located on the north side. The Gabels would like to park their boat in this stall and have space for additional storage. The only alternative location for the garage is in the rear yard and the owners are not in favor of that due to the severe slope. Sell stated that from the front of the house it is a 4 foot slope which is not practical, especially in the winter. Groger asked how a car can enter the garage with the flowering crab in front of the stall. The Gabels indicated that access can be done. Grimes told the Board that the owner to the north has objected to this variance request. Polachek asked if there would be a door from the existing garage to the new stall. The ~ Gabels said yes. The noted that the third stall garage would be set farther back than the existing garage opening. , , It Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 1997 Page 5 1515 Swedberg asked who owns the shed. The Gabels said they did. Swedberg asked if the shed is suitable for storage and the owners said that there is water in the shed in the spring time and that the lawn mower cannot be stored there on a permanent basis. Swedberg asked why they needed a third stall and the Gabels responded that they would like to park the boat in the garage and that they may be getting a third car. The Gabels also noted that a third bathroom would be added to the house using part of the space of the existing garage. Swedberg said that a third stall garage addition, in his opinion, would have a strong influence on the neighborhood which is clean and not congested. Shaffer commented that if the neighbor to the north added to his house, then the two houses would be very close, the closest of all the houses in the neighborhood. The Gabels stated that they had difficulty reaching the owner to the north, and when they did talk with the neighbor he indicated more concern for when he might sell rather than now. Swedberg stated that these opinions don't influence him. He is more influenced by the neighborhood. A third garage is special and would require the greatest of needs for him to be in favor. The bathroom is a third one, not a second one, and the boat is temporary as is the third driver. However, the variance is permanent. Mr. Gabel pointed out that three stall garages are becoming more prevalent in new construction even in their area, although not on their street. The Gabels said that their significant need for storage justifies the additional garage stall. They noted that the back of the lot is on an angle and only a narrow portion of the garage would go into the setback. Swedberg said that if this were going from a one- car to a two-car garage he wouldn't object so strongly. He realizes that three stall garages are becoming more prevalent but this one seems above and beyond the need. Polachek asked where the applicants keep their boat now. The Gabels on the side of the existing garage. Mr. Gabel added that the neighbor is away for much of the year. Groger stated his agreement with Swedberg. He added that the interior need is what is driving this request and that it is difficult to justify the additional garage stall which would go toward the neighbor and into setback. Shaffer asked if anyone in the audience who wished to speak; there was no response. MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Groger to deny the request. Polachek stated that he will vote in favor of the request because families are bigger now, and there are more vehicles and more drivers. He sees this as permissible. Sell stated that he goes along with Swedberg's thinking. He commented that the house is on the curve and if the house were on the straight-a-way it would be difficult to park on the street. He stated that an 18 foot wide garage is minimal as it is. Sell also feels that the variance is for the foreseeable future. He continued by noting that building in the back is a problem and the variance is only in the front of the building, not the back. 1.516 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27,1997 Page 6 The owner asked if it would make a difference if the variance were 4 feet rather than 5 , feet. Shaffer stated that the neighborhood is spaced nicely and he believes that this will affect the neighborhood and be visible from the turn. He advocates to keeping the neighborhood the same unless there is a hardship. The motion passed three to two to deny the request. Grimes informed the owners that they have the option to appeal to the City Council and must make a decision within 30 days. Swedberg encouraged them to move quickly. 1337 Quebec Avenue North (Map 15) (97-5-15) Lorri and Mike Kennv Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 10 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 25 feet from Quebec Avenue North. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a non-conforming garage stall. Lorri and Mike Kenny were in attendance. , Grimes explained that the applicants would like to add a third stall garage addition onto the south side of the existing garage. The proposed garage addition would be set back by the exact distance as the existing garage and house. The Kenny's noted to staff that they are unable to park their pick-up truck in the garage because the truck is too long. They would also be using the proposed addition for extra storage space and to park their boat inside. The house is set back 25 feet rather than 35 feet which is standard in the neighborhood. They will still meet all the setbacks except on Quebec Avenue North. In addition, this house is small. Groger stated that this variance would be consistent with the neighborhood and there is plenty of space, and only one setback variance. Swedberg stated that he wrestled with this one, too. He said that he could be convinced but would like to know why the garage is planned as it is. Mike Kenny, the owner, commented that he is a contractor and brings tools and materials home and in the winter they get covered with snow. The Kenny's also have a trailer and a boat, plus bikes. They stated that they need the storage space. Swedberg commented that the boat and truck are temporary while the variance is ..JI permanent. . , t It 1517 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 1997 Page 7 Mike Kenny described how he spends a half hour emptying the truck at home every evening and another half hour loading it up in the morning. He explained that he needs a long truck for the two kids and the eight foot bed for lumber and other building supplies. Swedberg asked why those dimensions were selected. Kenny answered that those dimensions would accommodate both the boat and the camper and would allow space for bikes and other storage. Swedberg asked if the boat would be stored in the back of the garage and Kenny answered that the boat and camper would be parallel next to each other. Swedberg questioned the size of the garage door which leaves three feet on each side of it and Kenny answered that he wanted to avoid special ordering a door and was watching the price. Shaffer suggested that the garage could be set back 10 feet but that would put it way into the yard and it would interfere with the pine tree and the garden. He concluded that this was not such a good idea. MOVED by Polachek, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to approve a waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for 10 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 25 feet from Quebec Avenue North to allow for the construction of a non-conforming garage stall. Shaffer asked if the Board wanted to attach anything about the survey requirements to the motion. The owner stated that they will get a survey when they remodel in the future. Sell stated that it is needed now. Polachek and Sell amended the motion to include a stipulation requiring a survey. Swedberg stated that the Board is dealing with the same distance from the lot line, the length of the garage will fit, and the design is compatible with the neighborhood. He will vote in favor. Shaffer suggested setting the garage back a token foot so the roof lines won't hit each other. This would give more definition to the look of the house. Mr. Kenny said that he had considered that. Shaffer added that with 36 feet of garage along the face some added definition would make it more interesting. The. Kenny's indicated that they will consider it. Swedberg stated that the entire structure is 84 feet long. Shaffer asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak and no one came forward. 1S18 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 1997 Page 8 1437 Orkla Drive (Map 20) (97-5-16) Iver Iverson , Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 1 foot off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34 feet for the proposed porch/deck on the east side of the house at its closest point to Orkla Drive; and Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback --16 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 19 feet for the proposed deck on the north side of the property, at its closest point to Winsdale. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a non-conforming porch/deck, a conforming garage, and living space. Iver Iverson was in attendance. Grimes explained that Mr. Iverson would like to construct a porch/deck starting at the southeast corner of the house that wraps around the north corner and extends down a flight of stairs and ends at a deck that is approximately 10' x 10'. The porch/deck is approximately 4 1/2 feet wide. The applicant would like to place a grill on the decking at , the northeast corner. A small platform is added at this corner for placement of the grill. The kitchen is located on the upper level and the placement of the grill, at this area, would allow him to use the front door. Mr. Iverson is also proposing to add a new two-stall garage and living space to the rear (west) side of his house. He is proposing to remove existing lower windows and extend this room further west and also have an entry at the lower level. The existing garage will be remodeled as living and storage space. The garage doors will be removed and new doors installed. The building will be slightly within the setback on Orkla (1 foot). The house is already non-conforming on Winsdale, within 26.4 feet to the line. Since Winsdale is a large street, the setback space appears bigger than it is. Shaffer questioned the owner about the wrap-around deck. The survey has different dimensions from the plan. The plan shows that the deck sticks out 6.6 feet to 20.8 feet on the northeast corner. Shaffer also asked if the dimensions overhanging the driveway match the other corner. Mr. Iverson answered that the diagonal bump out is two feet, the same as the other corner. Groger asked how much is deck and how much is walkway and the owner answered that the whole thing is deck and the bump out is to accommodate the grill next to kitchen. Swedberg asked if the front of house is all deck or part walkway and the owner answered ~ that it is a low level deck. . Grimes stated that because it is a structure, it requires attention. , , It IS 19 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 1997 Page 9 Swedberg asked if the deck around the house is wood and the owner answered yes. Iverson continued that the deck is actually 10.6 feet going west and 6.6 feet going north, essentially 10 x 11 deck. Grimes asked if it would affect a window if it were more to the south and the owner stated that there is a window but he is negotiable on that, he could push it south. Grimes suggested putting in a sliding glass door and the owner acknowledged that that is an option. Polachek asked if the deck could be pushed back a bit which would offer more privacy and the owner agreed to consider that. Groger asked if the deck will replace the concrete walk and the owner answered yes. Shaffer asked about the concrete stoop in the front and the owner stated that it is actually a wood entrance. He added that he just bought the house last August and he wants to make it look more attractive. Swedberg asked why the wrap around walkway is 4.6 feet wide and the owner stated that it is to accommodate a comfortable walkway and fit with the step down of the front stoop. The structure stays within the setback except at the southern point. Shaffer asked where a person goes when he steps out of the front of the house to the south and the owner said that it really goes nowhere but it balances the house better and the structure would look odd without it. Shaffer asked if the structure is clear of the setback on south side where deck extends beyond the house and Grimes answered that it should be recalculated and it may need a variance. However, the owner could angle the end of the deck. Grimes stated that it is an unusual looking house, not square and not rectangle. Shaffer asked if anyone from the audience wished to speak and no one callJe forward. Groger suggested taking the lower portion on the west and moving it south 2 feet to be flush with the rest of the house. Groger said he had no problem with the requests, there are a number of trees that screen the deck. The change would enhance the front of the house and require only a one foot variance which is a minor change. Swedberg said that the front is okay except for 1 foot which is no problem. The bump out on the walkway is 20.8 with a 14.2 variance needed. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Polachek and carried unanimously to grant a waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for 1 foot off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34 feet for the proposed porch/deck on the east side of the house at its closest point to Orkla Drive; and a waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard setback for 14.2 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 20.8 feet for the proposed deck on the north :1520 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 1997 Page 10 side of the property at its closest point to Winsdale, to allow for the construction of a , nonconforming porch/deck and a conforming garage and living space. (6) 1949 Xerxes Avenue North (Map 1) (97-5-17) Darwin and Rhonda Hammons Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback-- .5 feet off the required 22 feet to a distance of 21.5 feet for the existing house facing Xerxes Avenue; and Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- .5 feet off the required 22 feet to a distance of 21.5 feet for the proposed garage facing Xerxes Avenue: and Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback -- 8 feet off the required 29 feet to a distance of 21 feet for the proposed garage on the south side. To make the existing house legally non-conforming and to allow for the construction of a non-conforming garage. Owners Darwin and Rhonda Hammons and neighbor Dan Thyken were in attendance. , Grimes stated that Darwin and Rhonda Hammons are proposing to expand the kitchen area and add an attached two stall garage on the south end of their house. The proposed garage would need a front yard setback variance and a rear yard setback variance. This property is located at the far northeast corner of Golden Valley and is a very narrow lot. Because of lot size and shape there isn't any other opportunity to add on to or improve the home. Purpose: Groger asked if this is a two-story addition and Grimes stated that they are considering both a one-story and a two-story addition but the variance is the same for either. Darwin Hammons stated that the addition will be one-story. Groger stated that a one-story addition is more appropriate since a two-story on the hill would loom over the neighbor. Swedberg stated that this variance is dealing with an extension on an existing house which has a long history. MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to approve a waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for .5 feet off the required 22 feet to a distance of 21.5 feet for the existing house facing Xerxes Avenue and a waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for .5 feet off the required 22 feet to a JI distance of 21.5 feet for the proposed garage facing Xerxes Avenue; and a waiver of . , , It 1521. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27,1997 Page 11 Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback for 8 feet off the required 29 feet to a distance of 21 feet for the proposed garage on the south side to make the existing house legally non-conforming and to allow for the construction of a non-conforming garage. (7) 2441 Kyle Avenue North (Map 5) (97-5-18) Allen and Andra Barnard Request: Purpose: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 6.9 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 28.1 feet for the proposed garage at the northeast corner; and Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback -- 9.57 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 5.43 feet for the proposed garage on the north side; and Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback -- .2 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.8 feet for the existing house at the southwest corner. To allow for the construction of a non-conforming garage on the north side and to make the existing house legally non-conforming. Allen Barnard was in attendance. Grimes explained that the Barnard's are proposing to construct a new garage on the north side of their house and convert the existing garage to living space. The 39 foot deep garage would be used for parking three cars, a work area, and much needed storage. A U-shaped driveway will be constructed to alleviate cars having to park on a sloped driveway or on the street. The City gave them approval for the U-shaped driveway some years ago. The existing garage will be remodeled and made part of an existing family room, which is located behind the existing garage. The topography of the lot slopes down toward the street. The existing driveway is steep and hard to keep clear of snow and ice. The rear of the yard slopes upward to the west and makes it impossible to add a garage to the rear of the lot. Because the family room is located behind the existing garage, the applicant cannot extend the existing garage to the west for additional space. The Barnard's believe that the only logical location for the proposed garage is on the north side of the property. Allen Barnard stated that he has lived there 24 years and has been thinking about remodeling all that time. The family entertains often and has three cars. The driveway takes a lot of work in the winter. Barnard wants the U-shaped driveway for parking and needs a third stall garage for a third vehicle. He commented that this lot is-unique as it is pie-shaped. The area to the north has been left natural and the back third is much higher than the house. Mr. Barnard commented that this is a nice location, secluded in the back 1.522 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 19'97 Page 12 and somewhat to the north. Although they are 35.5 feet back it is really 50 feet because of , the right-of-way. He has talked to the neighbors and no one has a problem with the proposal. Shaffer asked how the plan fits in with the woods and the neighbors. Barnard said that he has talked to the neighbors and noted that the addition would face the garage side of their house. Shaffer asked if it is staked out and Barnard said no, except for the surveyor's stakes which are in the woods. There is a fence on the lot line which makes it difficult to stake. Also, the hillside rises quite steeply. Groger asked if some of the woods would be retained and Barnard said yes and that he would like to add evergreens on the north. Groger asked how cars will be stored and the owner stated one would be in the back and the other two next to each other. The cars have been measured to determine the needed size. The owner said he tried to avoid a front yard variance but it created a back angle. Sell stated that this is a unique lot with a lot of problems. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Polachek to grant a waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for 6.9 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 28.1 feet for the proposed garage at the northeast corner; and a waiver from Section 11.21, Subd 7(C)(1) , Side Yard Setback for 9.57 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 5.43 feet for the proposed garage on the north side; and a waiver from Section 11.21, Subd 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback for .2 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.8 feet for the existing house at the southwest corner to allow for the construction of a non-conforming garage on the north side and to make the existing house legally non-conforming. Groger stated his concern with the setback to the north - 10 feet at the front which goes down to 5 feet in the back. Sell stated that it is because there is only 12 feet of space in the back. Shaffer stated that typically an angled wall means something. Barnard stated that he wanted space in the back of the garage for a snow blower and snowmobile. The shed would come out and the back of the garage would be used for storage. Swedberg noted that this is a nice house in a nice neighborhood and he appreciates that the owners want to make more of it. But this addition is too much; it is more than the lot allows. This would be an immense structure with an impact on the neighborhood. Shaffer asked what is on the north of the house and the owner stated that the living room is there. The house is unique with a big overhang roof with rocks under it. He would move tI that wall and provide a walkway from the front entrance to the garage to avoid walking through the living room. Barnard said he wants to fill in under the roof about 6 feet and , t It :1523 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 1997 Page 13 bring the wall out to the end of the roof. Groger asked if the living room runs the length of house and the owner answered yes. He wants to pull out the front door, bring the windows out further, and create a walkway. Shaffer asked if there is a basement under the family room to which the owner said no. Shaffer suggested expanding the garage into the family room and adding a family room somewhere else to not intrude on the neighborhood to such a great degree. The owner stated there is a brick fireplace in the family room and two steps up to an eating area in the kitchen, both of which are nice features of the house. Swedberg asked if this is negotiable since this is a 27 foot variance for a garage. He emphasized that a variance is permanent and the use is temporary. The owner indicated that he will negotiate but asked about the angled line of the north side. Polachek asked about the size of the windows on the west side and if part of the garage could go up to the windows. The owner stated that there is a pool and there is pool equipment in the corner. Shaffer stated his concern about the front yard being down to 28 feet coming around the corner. The structure will be sticking out. The other part of the house is 35.4 feet. Sell stated that the garage is already 35 feet back and the house will be further back than the garage. The black top favors the east, and doesn't impact the neighborhood that much. The existing garage is visible from the street. Shaffer asked what determined the 6 foot dimension and the owner answered that the existing roof is 6 feet to the support posts along the front. The roof line will continue as it is. Swedberg stated that the roof line won't intrude into the set back. Shaffer asked how big the overhang is and was told that it continues across the front of the garage. Polachek stated that this must be an expensive project and asked if the owner had professional help with the design. Barnard answered that he did the plans himself. Polachek stated that he would like to see the owner hire a professional and come back with a new plan. Swedberg stated that he would like to negotiate the 27 foot garage. A 22 foot garage wouldn't need a variance. The owner stated that the cars would hit a wall. Groger stated that this is a huge garage which requires many variances. Shaffer asked if the Board wished to change the motion. Swedberg stated that he would vote against it. He would prefer to delay a month and see other plans. Sell offered to the withdraw if the Board prefers a delay. Shaffer stated that the owner is trying to come up with things that work which means that the plan doesn't work. Swedberg asked what the owner thinks and Barnard stated that another person won't come up with anything else. He is willing to negotiate but wants useable space. 1S24 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 1997 Page 14 Shaffer explained to the Barnards that the Board seems to be split. If the vote is to deny, , then the owner would need to re-apply. However, if it is delayed, the owner can just come back with another plan without re-applying. The other option is a denial in which case the owner could appeal to the City Council. The owner stated that he would not appeal. Shaffer suggested that other architects could probably come up with fresh ideas. Groger called the question and the motion was defeated 3 to 2. Shaffer stated that if the owner asks to withdraw the vote they will do so and delay it a month. MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Groger, and passed unanimously to withdraw the previous vote at the request of the owner and delay for two months. The owner may appear at that time if he wishes. 1400 Rhode Island Avenue North (Map 15) (97-5-19) Frank Manaro Request: Waiver from Section 11.21 J Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- .4 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.6 feet for the existing house facing Rhode Island Avenue North; and Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 15.6 feet of the required 35 feet to a distance of 19.4 feet for the existing house, at its closest point, facing Knoll Street; and Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback -- 15.2 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 19.8 feet for the proposed three-season porch, at its closest point, facing Knoll Street; and Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback --14.8 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 20.2 feet for the existing garage facing Knoll Street; and Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory buildings -- 2 feet off the required 5 feet to a distance of 3 feet for the existing garage on the east side. . Purpose: Too make the house and garage legally non-conforming in order to allow for the construction of a conforming three-season porch on to the rear of the house. Mike Shish, the contractor, was in attendance. , tI , , , 1525 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 1997 Page 15 Grimes explained that Mr. Manaro would like to construct a conforming three-season porch onto the east (rear) side of the existing house. The addition would be behind a wood fence and cannot be seen from the road. The existing house is non-conforming on both streets and the existing garage is non-conforming on the rear property line. This is a corner lot and the house was conforming at the time of construction. Mike Shish, contractor, had nothing further to add. The porch will be even with house. Groger asked if the porch will match. Shish stated that it will match the existing siding, that the identical siding is still available. Swedberg stated that this is an existing house in an old neighborhood and that the plan is consistent with the neighborhood and the other houses. The addition is an improvement and doesn't hurt anything. MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to approve a waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for .4 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 34.6 feet for the existing house facing Rhode Island Avenue North; and a waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for 15.6 feet of the required 35 feet to a distance of 19.4 feet for the existing house, at its closest point, facing Knoll Street; and a waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for 15.2 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 19.8 feet for the proposed three-season porch, at its closest point, facing Knoll Street; and a waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Buildings for 14.8 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 20.2 feet for the existing garage facing Knoll Street; and a waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory buildings for 2 feet off the required 5 feet to a distance of 3 feet for the existing garage on the east side to make the house and garage legally non-conforming in order to allow for the construction of a conforming three-season porch on to the rear of the house. 300 Turners Crossroad (Map 13) (97-5-20) Clarence and Peaav Green Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback -- 4 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 11 feet for the existing house on the south side. Purpose: To make the house legally non-conforming so a conforming entry can be constructed. Clarence Green, owner, and Richard Miller, nephew of Clarence Green, were in attendance. Grimes explained that the applicants are proposing to add a 9' x 18' entry between the garage and the house. This entry will be conforming. The home is 11 feet from lot line and it must be made legally non-conforming in order to add a conforming entry. 1.:>26 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27,1997 Page 16 MOVED by Sell, seconded by Polachek and motion carried unanimously to approve a , waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7( C)( 1) Side Yard Setback for 4 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 11 feet for the existing house on the south side to make the house legally non-conforming so a conforming entry can be constructed. 201 Westwood Drive (Map 9) (97-5-21) Deb and Dan Mallin Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback -- .7 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.3 feet for the existing house on the north side of the lot; and Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback -- .7 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 14.3 feet for a proposed addition on the northeast side of the existing house. Purpose: To make the house legally non-conforming and to allow for the construction of a non-conforming addition. Deb and Dan Mallin were in attendance. Grimes explained that two very small variances are required in order to permit the , construction of a two-story addition onto the existing house on the northwest side. The new construction consists of additional bedrooms and living space. The request is to add to the rear of the home. The addition would be even with the house at .7 foot variance. Plans have been submitted. The front of house is conforming. Some people have voiced concerns and may be here tonight. Swedberg stated that the variances are minor and he has no problem with them. The owner stated that the reason for the expansion is due to the expanding family, the perceived safety requirement to move children upstairs, and to add to the family room. The plan keeps the existing line of the house. Swedberg asked if the back has a dormer window and the owner said yes. Shaffer asked if there will be a new roof and the owner said yes, over the new dormer. Grimes asked about the height of house and the owner said that the house will increase about 3 to 4 feet in height. This is fitting with the house and the neighborhood and matches the overall look and feel of the house and that only. 7 feet is needed to match the ..II existing house. . , , , 1327 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 1997 Page 17 Grimes asked if the siding on the addition would match the existing structure and the owner said that it would and some of the garage brick and some from other locations would be re-used. MOVED by Sell to grant the request. Shaffer asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak. Alfred and Lyla Anderegg, 117 Westwood Drive South, came forward and talked about the pine trees and landscaping between homes. Mr. Anderegg said that he saw the plans briefly and thought they would just add to the back but now he thinks the addition goes up 10 to 12 feet which would abruptly change his view, especially to the south. He continued by saying that the Mallin lot is about 2 feet higher than his so the wall will block his view. The neighbor also expressed concern that this abrupt change would be a detraction to potential buyers at the time of a sale. The plans he saw, make the house look out of proportion to the homes on the street and is not in the motif of the neighborhood. The Andereggs commented that they would be very disappointed if they have to look at that wall rather than trees and that they are concerned about resale. They are long time residents of Golden Valley, 36 years, and they are concerned about the lack of esthetic judgment and concern for the neighbors. They asked about the increase of interior volume of the home. Polachek stated th.at the roof will be less than 5 feet higher than it is now. Swedberg asked how the neighbor knows that the value of the house will be decreased and if they have a professional opinion on that issue. Mrs. Anderegg commented that it is her opinion, not a professional opinion, that there would be a decrease in property values. Swedberg noted the comments of neighbors and seconded the motion. Groger stated that for the record, the basis of his vote is that it is a minor variance and that the neighborhood has changed over the years and larger homes are prevalent. 7155 Madison Avenue West (Map 14) (97-5-22) Hennepin Countv Property Services Request: Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements -- 33 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 17 feet for the proposed building on the south side; and Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements -- 8 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 17 feet for lack of greenspace on the south side; and Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements -- 6.46 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 43.54 feet for the proposed building on the east side; and 1.:>28 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 1997 Page 18 Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements -- 20 feet off , the required 25 feet to a distance of 5 feet for the lack of greenspace on the east side. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new building at 7155 Madison Avenue West. Owner David Pfeffer was in attendance. Grimes explained that Hennepin County has already presented three other applications to the City for review. A Comprehensive Land Use plan map amendment would change the use of the property from Industrial to Semi-Public Facilities. A rezoning would change the zoning from Industrial to Institution (1-3) and a Conditional Use Permit would allow for the operation of a residential facility (16-bed juvenile detention center) in the Institutional (1-3) Zoning District. This site became a group home in 1975 when the City Council determined that such a use of the property would fit in with the surrounding industrial area. Group homes were not a permitted industrial use, but the Zoning Code gave the City Council authority to allow miscellaneous uses in the Industrial district that would be compatible with its permitted uses. This was approved by motion of the City Council. Some time after the group home , was built, the City Council changed the Zoning Code and did not permit uses other than those specifically outlined in the Code. The group home is now considered a legally non- conforming use. It may continue as it is today but it cannot be expanded. The Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections has been looking for alternative ways to house the growing juvenile offender population, since it was determined by the County Board that the present 87 -bed facility at 510 Park Avenue would not be expanded due to high costs. When the County first approached the City in 1996, the idea was to either tear down the existing group home and build a new 16-bed facility or substantially rehabilitate the existing building on the same footprint. Hennepin County wants to tear down the group home and build another facility. Variances are needed to do so. The zoning needs to be changed to Institutional, and a Conditional Use Permit is needed. Also, variances are needed because setbacks in Institutional zones are fairly substantial. If granted, Hennepin County can request a Conditional Use Permit. If denied, Hennepin County will appeal to City Council. Swedberg asked if the property would require setbacks for light industria.1 instead of the juvenile facility, and Grimes stated that it probably would since this is a small, corner lot. The existing building doesn't meet the set back requirements. Groger stated that parking goes up to the lot line now. ~ , , lit Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 1997 Page 19 1.529 Grimes stated that the City Council permitted the group home because there was no reason not to. Now it has a non-conforming group home in the industrial district. The City felt they had to allow it to operate. The neighbors prefer a new home. Security with the group home was a challenge. Swedberg said that it seems that a building of any size would need variances. Grimes stated that maybe a small building could be built without variances. This neighborhood was developed in the 60's without setback requirements. Swedberg observes that the City could get more out of this than we have now. It will look better in back, too. Grimes added that a wall 12 to 14 feet high would keep the juveniles inside. The wall will have razor wire on the inside whichwill not be visible from the street. Swedberg asked about landscaping. Grimes said that a landscape plan will be presented. The County is working with neighbors to plan landscaping. Traffic is minimal less than 50 trips a day, less than usual in an Industrial zone. The owner stated that there are 23 employees on a 24 hour basis. Grimes said that visitors are limited to parents and guardians, and must be approved ahead of time. Groger added that friends will not be visiting. Groger related the concern of the owner to the south as this facility would be 5 feet from his lot line. However, there will be someone with the juveniles when they are outside. Grimes added that the wall is 14 feet high so no one will know who is in the facility. Shaffer asked about security cameras and the owner said they will be inside and will probably spin. Shaffer added that the windows facing Nevada are high security windows that no one can see out of. Groger asked about parking needs and Grimes answered that only the employees and a few visitors will be parking there. He added that on-street parking is common in that area and that he doesn't see a parking problem. Swedberg stated that in looking at alternatives, the City couldn't do much better than this proposal. MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Groger and passed unanimously to approve the waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements -- 33 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 17 feet for the proposed building on the south side; and the waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements -- 8 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 17 feet for lack of greenspace on the south side; and the waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements -- 6.46 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 43.54 feet for the proposed building on the east side; and the waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements -- 20 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 5 feet for the lack of greenspace on the east side to allow for the construction of a new building at 7155 Madison Avenue West. 1S30 Minutes of the Soard of Zoning Appeals May 27, 1997 Page 20 III. Other Business , There was no further business. IV. Adjournment Chair Shaffer adjourned the meeting at 9:35pm. (L~ Robert Shaffer, Chair ~ Mark Grimes, Staff Liaison t ~