Loading...
05-27-98 BZA Minutes . . . 1609 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 1998 The regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held Wednesday, May 27, 1998, in the Golden Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN. Chair Mike Sell called the meeting to order at 7pm. Those present were: Chair Mike Sell, Members Bob Lang, Herb Polachek, and Mahlon Swedberg, and Planning Commission Representative Robert Shaffer. Also present were Staff Liaison Mark Grimes and Recording Secretary Eve Lomaistro. I. Approval of Minutes - April 28, 1998. MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Polachek, and motion carried unanimously to approve the April 28, 1998, minutes as submitted. . II. The Petitions: 6809 Glenwood Avenue (Map 17) (98-5-11) Mary Mackev-Jeska and Steven Jeska Request: Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Buildings - 4 feet off the required 5 feet to a distance of one foot for a shed at its closest point to the west property line; and Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Buildings - to allow for a detached garage along side the house instead of wholly to the rear. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a 26' x 34' detached garage along side the existing house. Mary Mackey-Jeska and Steven Jeska were in attendance. Staff Liaison Mark Grimes told the Board that this is a large, wooded lot. He said the applicants are requesting to construct a detached garage to the side of the house instead of the rear to avoid uprooting established trees in the back yard. Grimes said the existing single-stall garage would be converted to living space at a later date. He also talked about the two sheds located on the west side of the lot and that the smaller of the two sheds would be removed. Swedberg asked Grimes if the side yard requirement is applicable to a detached garage. Grimes commented that accessory buildings must have 5 feet from a rear and/or side lot line. He said in this case the detached garage would be located beside the house instead to the rear. He also noted that if this were an attached garage it would need to be at least 15 feet from the side property line. Polachek stated that the house is set back quite far. Grimes responded that the lot is 354 feet deep and the house is 84 feet back. He noted that the proposed garage would be difficult to see from the street. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 1998 Page 2 1610 Shaffer asked if the larger shed should be totally behind the house and Grimes stated that it is not fully to the rear. He suggested that another variance be considered for the larger shed which is one foot from the property line and not totally behind the house. . Sell asked the owners if they had considered putting the shed on the concrete slab that currently has a picnic table and a basketball pole on it. He noted that the location of the slab is closer to the house than the shed. Jeska answered they had not. Mackey-Jeska stated that the side location for the garage makes sense not only for them but also for the neighbors who have come to enjoy the Jeska's park-like back yard. Jeska said a nice play area for the children would be created between the house and the proposed garage. Swedberg asked how the owners determined the 26 x 34 foot size of the garage. Mackey-Jeska answered that the contractor came up with the dimensions to accommodate cars and a boat. Jeska added that the garage would make it possible to have recreation vehicles inside rather than outside. Swedberg questioned the size of the door being 18 feet while a standard door is 16 feet. Jeska answered there would be framing for another door which would be added in the future. Swedberg suggested that the boat could be swung around to fit. He added that he is bothered by the size of the garage in that there are some houses that size. He said he would like to see the recreational vehicles inside. Swedberg stated that one reason for the garage location is to save trees and that trees have a limited life while variances are permanent. He said ordinarily he would not vote to grant a variance to save a tree but, in this case, the lot is large and the neighbor most affected would benefit, so he is in favor of the proposal. Swedberg commented that the location of the trees are not the only problem in that when a structure is close to the lot line, it is difficult to put a ladder against the side of the structure without going onto the neighbor's yard. Grimes asked if moving the garage 2 feet would make a difference. . Shaffer stated that there is no hardship other than the neighbor's visibility. Swedberg agreed in that there would be a garage facing a garage. Grimes pointed out that this is a large lot of 50,000 sq.ft, and the house is in the center of the lot so it cannot be subdivided. Swedberg asked about moving the shed to the concrete pad. Jeska responded that the shed is already on concrete. Lang asked what the concrete pad would be used for and the owners responded that currently the children ride bikes on it. Swedberg asked about the garage being five feet from the property line and Grimes answered that 10 feet is the distance required from the house to the garage and this plan has 14 feet -- that leaves five feet to the line. Grimes said that staff prefers the 14 feet from the house for safety and fire emergencies. Shaffer stated that a better solution is if the garage is attached to the house. Mackey-Jeska stated that the bedrooms are on that side of the house. Sell stated that bedrooms must have windows. Shaffer asked if the owners have looked at putting the garage next to the existing one and was told . that it would then be in the middle of a nice back yard and that it makes more sense on the side. Jeska noted that their yard has become a "community yard" because of its park-like setting. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27,1998 Page 3 . Shaffer stated that he would like to find a way to meet the code. Mackey-Jeska stated that the garage would not be visible from the street or from most of the neighbors' homes. Shaffer added that he has mixed feelings because he sees no hardship and the park-like setting is beside the point. 1611 Swedberg asked the owners if they had looked for alternatives. Mackey-Jeska answered that the other side of the house is heavily wooded. MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Polachek and motion carried by a vote of 4-1 to approve the variances as follows: Section 11.21, Subd. 12 Accessory Buildings for the proposed detached garage to be constructed along side the existing house instead of to the rear and for the larger shed to remain one foot from the property line and also along side the house instead of to the rear. It was noted that the smaller of the two sheds would be removed from the site. Swedberg noted this is a very large lot and the placement of the proposed detached garage would have a minimum impact to the neighbors and would have a beneficial effect on 210 Jersey. 4530 Douglas Avenue (Map 10) (98-5-12) Maraaret Macneale and Gary Cohen Request: Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Setback - 10.5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 24.5 feet for the proposed 4-season porch at its closest point to the front property line; and . Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback - 10.94 feet off the required 26.04 feet to a distance of 15.10 feet for the existing house at its closest point to the east (rear) property line; and Waiver of Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2) Side Yard Setback - 2.2 feet off the required 11.7 feet to a distance of 9.5 feet for the existing deck attached to the north side of the house. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a 4-season porch and roof over the front steps facing Douglas Drive. Margaret Macneale and Gary Cohen were in attendance. Grimes explained that a variance would be needed regardless of what is considered the front or rear of the property and that staff considers Douglas Avenue to be the front. He noted that the lot is very narrow, only 75 feet wide, and a 35 foot setback is required. Grimes also noted the small side yard. Sell suggested that at the time the property was platted it was probably considered a large lot. Macneale stated that their back yard is small but the back neighbor has a nice yard that feels shared. . Lang pointed out that this would be the first house in the neighborhood with that large an encroachment. Macneale pointed out that their lot is a triangular shape. She said they have talked with all the neighbors and all seemed okay with the plan. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27,1998 Page 4 Swedberg asked how long the owners have lived in the house and was told since 1990. Swedberg . asked if there was a two-stall garage originally on the lot. Macneale said that a photo showed a breezeway in the location that now is a family room and garage. Cohen added that the plan of the original house does not show the garage. Swedberg stated that he spent a lot of time on the lot and that this plan would push part of the house forward. He also commented that the proposed addition would be an obvious intrusion into the front setback and would also break up the straight line of the front of the house. He added that this is a corner lot which makes it even more obvious. Swedberg sees no justification for this request. 1612 Shaffer stated that he sees no hardship except that this is a corner lot and added that a porch is a want, not a need. He emphasized that front set back affect the entire neighborhood. Macneale stated that the kitchen in the house to the east is flush with the line of the request and that this neighbor could barely see the 12 foot stakes from her kitchen and had signed off on the request. Shaffer stated that it is hard to maint?lin uniformity in a neighborhood. He agreed that their options are limited but contended that the 4-season porch addition would be quite obvious. He asked if it could be built smaller. Cohen stated that they had no desire to go to the front of the house but there is no other location that would work. He said the bay window which is in bad shape must be removed and since the window cannot be replaced they would convert the space to a porch. He added that materials for a smaller porch would cost almost the same amount of money as the size proposed. The applicants said they would be willing to look at other options. Shaffer asked about using only the existing space. The owners stated that it may not be worth the cost. Sell asked what is currently in front of . the windows inside. The applicants showed photos to the Board. Cohen stated that this bay window is an odd size; and therefore, very expensive to replace. Swedberg stated that any time a new window is installed it is a sizable job and no different from that of any other owner. Swedberg said that the front of the house impacts the entire neighborhood, whereas the side and rear are less conspicuous. Cohen pointed out that they had built a rock garden on the corner to enhance the neighborhood. Polachek stated that perhaps the owners would like to look at other options and come back to the BZA with another plan. Cohen asked if any addition to the front of the house would be palatable to the Board. Shaffer stated that the Board is usually amenable to compromise. Macneale asked if there is a number of feet into the setback that would be acceptable. Grimes suggested that 6 feet 1 inch to the west may be acceptable. He added that some houses just can't be enlarged. The owners stated that they would consider other possibilities and determine whether or not it would be a feasible project. Cohen asked if the BZA would grant a two to three month stay, and Sell answered that up to three months would be okay at which time they could take care of the rear and side yard variances. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Polachek, and motion carried unanimously to carry over the request for up to three months. Grimes stated that it would be helpful if the owners could define the location of the east lot line. . The owners agreed to do so. . . . Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals May 27, 1998 Page 5 III. Other Business There was no other business. v. Adjournment Chair Sell adjourned the meeting at 8:04pm. IhtL JdL Mike Sell, Chair 1613