Loading...
06-22-99 BZA Minutes . e . 1675 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals June 22, 1999 The regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held Tuesday, June 22, 1999, in the Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, MN. Chair Swedberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Those present were: Members Lang, Polachek, Sell and Swedberg; and Planning Commission Representative Shaffer. Also present were Staff Liaison Mary Dold and Tammi Hall, Recording Secretary. I. Approval of Minutes - May 25, 1999 MOVED by Polachek, seconded by Sell and motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of May 25, 1999 as submitted. . II. The Petitions: 5126 Minnaqua Drive (Map 5) (99-6-14) John and Stephanie Condon Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(2) Side Yard Setback for: · 7.78 feet off the required 14.25 feet to a distance of 6.47 feet for the existipg house at its closest point to the west property line; and · 3.65 feet off the required 14.25 feet to a distance of 10.6 feet for the existing house at its closest point to the east property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a conforming two-tier deck off the rear of the house. Chair Swedberg read the requested variances. John Condon was present. Staff Liaison Mary Dold stated that the variances requested are for the existing house and that the proposed deck is conforming. Dold indicated that the Condons had signed a "Hold Harmless" letter allowing them to proceed with construction of the proposed conforming deck. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Polachek and motion carried unanimously to approve the variances as requested. It was noted that the house was built in 1957 on an unusually shaped lot with unusually sited neighbors. 7156 Harold Avenue (Map 17) (99-6-15) Thomas and Sharon Ruble Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for: Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting June 22, 1999 Page 2 1676 · 5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 30 feet for a proposed . enclosed front entrance, extension of an existing garage and for a proposed garage addition facing Harold Avenue Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback for: · 9.1 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 5.9 feet for a proposed garage addition into the east side yard setback. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a 12 foot wide garage addition onto the existing garage. Chair Swedberg read the requested variances. Thomas Ruble was present. Dold stated that the applicants had presented a variance request at the May meeting which had been reviewed and denied by the Board. She indicated that the applicants were given three months to return with an alternate plan. Dold told the Board the Ruble's have now submitted another garage plan for a second garage stall that would infringe mostly into the east side yard setback area. She indicated that the new plan would enclose the front entrance into the house and enlarge the garage to the front by 5 feet. Lang asked the applicant if he had considered extending the garage to the rear rather than the front. Ruble responded that extending the garage to the front was the easiest option since there is a deck and patio in the back. e Shaffer asked if the plan had been reviewed by a professional to determine how the roof lines will be constructed. Ruble stated that a professional drawing has not been done. He indicated that the roof line may need to be rebuilt and that they will not pursue this option if it proves to be unworkable or prohibitively expensive. Shaffer stated that he was concerned that the plans are somewhat vague and the Board would be approving a variance for a structure when they are not clear as to what the structure will look like when completed. Swedberg stated that the Board would tend to look favorably on approval of the variance but the applicant needs to provide a more definite plan for the structure. MOVED by Shaffer, seconded by Polachek and motion carried unanimously to delay action on the requested variances for three months to give the applicant an opportunity to seek professional assistance in finalizing the design. 4500 Chatelain Terrace (Map 8) (99-6-16) Stephen A. Lenius Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for: · 12 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 23 feet for a proposed 12' x 20' deck off the front ofthe house; and . . . . lfj77 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting June 22, 1999 Page 3 · 8.2 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 26.8 feet for the existing house at its closest point to the front property line facing Westwood Drive Purpose: To allow for the construction of a deck onto the front of the house. Chair Swedberg read the requested variances. Stephen Lenius was present. Dold stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a 12' x 20' deck on the front of the house which would infringe into the front setback area. She stated that one of the variances is for the existing house at its closest point to the front property line facing Westwood Drive. Dold added that the steps that go along the house are not considered part of the structure. Mr. Lenius stated that the house currently has no sidewalk access to the front entrance. He indicated that a designer had suggested that a deck be added to the front of the house which would provide access to the front entrance as well as expanding the living space. Lenius indicated that there is a deck on the rear of the house but it is somewhat unusable due to the shade and the noise from Highway 55. Shaffer asked how the twelve foot width was determined for the deck. Lenius responded that he felt that eight feet was not wide enough to provide a useable area. He added that ten feet would be acceptable but that he felt a twelve foot width was the best option. Lang stated that the narrative provided by Mr. Lenius states that he has restored the house to the look and feel of the early 1950s. Lang questioned if the proposed deck structure will be in keeping with maintaining the 50s look. Lang also stated that Mr. Lenius had provided a list of homes in the neighborhood that utilize the same idea he is proposing for his entry. Lang commented that he had looked at these homes and that in all cases the front area was not used as a living space but as a decorative entry area. Lang stated that he was concerned with approving a variance from the front yard setback for the proposed structure when it will be used as living space. Lenius asked if reducing the width of the deck to ten feet would make the proposal more palatable. Lang responded that he felt the problem was that the area would be used as living space. Swedberg stated that one of the factors considered in approval of variances is that there be no other viable alternative. Swedberg indicated that the applicant has a large backyard which already has a deck. Swedberg stated that front yards have the greatest impact on the neighborhood and it is the responsibility of the Board to balance the needs of the applicant with the best interests of the neighborhood. Sell asked about the height of the deck floor. Lenius responded that the deck is 10 inches off the ground. He added that the deck wall is 2 to 2.5 feet high. Sell stated that if the proposed structure was 8 inches off the ground, the homeowner would not be required to obtain a variance. Lenius stated that the goal was to have the deck floor even with the front door threshold. He stated that he felt it would reduce the attractiveness of the structure to lower the height and have a drop from the front door threshold to the deck floor. Lenius added that his contractor indicated it would be hard to engineer a structure eight inches off the ground. He stated that if the structure were to be eight inches off the ground it would be better to go to a concrete slab and build the wall around the slab. Sell stated that there is a trend toward Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting June 22, 1999 Page 4 :J6 78 people adding front porches and making more use of their front yards. He added that it . makes sense for the applicant to use his front yard due to the location of Highway 55 along his . rear yard. Sell stated that the useable property in the backyard is only approximately 25 feet due to the location of Highway 55 and the easement, which is approximately 30 feet. Polachek stated that the proposed structure provides more of a decorative design than a useful design. He stated that he would be in favor of approving the variance. MOVED by Polachek, seconded by Sell to approve the variances as requested. There was further discussion regarding the motion. Swedberg stated he was concerned with the intrusion into the front yard setback. Lenius responded that the deck will have a low profile and he felt it would blend well with the house. He added that he felt this provided an aesthetically pleasing addition to the home and access to the front door. Shaffer commented that it is a substantial intrusion into the front yard setback but if the structure had no wall the applicant would not need a variance and he could still create the same amount of living space in the front yard setback. Lang stated that he was opposed to allowing the variance since the structure will be used as living space. Sell responded that the applicant could lower the deck floor by two inches and create the living space without obtaining a variance. Shaffer stated that he would vote to approve the variance as requested but would suggest to the applicant that he consider the possibility of a brick patio. Following the discussion, the motion was amended as follows: MOVED by Polachek, seconded by Sell to approve the variances as requested with the restriction that the deck floor be no more than 10 inches off the ground and that the deck be constructed in a manner comparable to the drawing provided by the applicant including a wall that extends no more than 30 inches off the ground with a deck surface that is even with the threshold of the house. The motion was carried. Lang and Swedberg were opposed. . Mr. Lenius stated that he would keep aesthetics in mind as much as possible ashe proceeds with the project to make certain the Board does not regret their decision. 617 Westwood Drive South (Map 17) (88-6-17) Michael Glover Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(A) Front Yard Setback for: · 5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 30 feet for the proposed garage at its closest point to Westwood Drive; and Waiver from Section 11.21 Subd. 7(C)(1) Side Yard Setback for: · 7.6 feet off the required 15 feet to a distance of 7.4 feet for the proposed attached garage at its closest point to the side (east) property line. . . . e 1679 Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting June 22, 1999 Page 5 Purpose: To allow for the construction of a new attached two-stall garage and other conforming living space. Chair Swedberg read the requested variances. Michael Glover was present. Dold stated that, in 1994, the applicant requested variances from City code for nonconformities to the existing house in order to construct a conforming deck. She indicated that this request was approved by the Board. She said that Mr. Glover is now requesting variances in order to construct a new, attached two-stall garage which would be located to the front of the existing garage and include some of the existing garage space. She added that the applicant is also proposing to construct a conforming addition onto the west side of the house. Swedberg asked about the location of the driveway and entrance to the new garage. Mr. Glover stated that the driveway would remain in the same location. He stated that the existing garage structure would be demolished. He stated that even with the new garage placed forward, there is still room for four cars in the driveway. Swedberg asked about the width of the proposed garage. Glover responded that the proposed garage would be 22.8 inches wide, an increase of approximately 3.5 inches from the existing garage. Shaffer stated that the neighbors that are adjacent to the applicant's backyard will actually benefit from pulling the garage forward. Glover added that there is no structure to the east side of his property and, consequently, infringing into the setback on this side has minimal effect. He stated that he had spoken with the neighbors to the north, west and east of his property and they were all comfortable with the proposal. Shaffer stated that he felt the proposal would improve the home and have little impact on the neighborhood. MOVED by Sell, seconded by Shaffer and motion carried unanimously to approve the variances as requested. 1949 Xerxes Avenue North (Map 1) (99-6-18) Darwin and Rhonda Hammons Request: 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 a proposed detached two-stall garage facing Xerxes Avenue; and Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 7(B) Rear Yard Setback for: · 16 feet off the required 29 feet to a distance of 13 feet for the proposed detached two-stall garage at its closest point to the rear (south) property line. Purpose: To allow for the construction of a detached two-stall garage. Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting June 22, 1999 Page 6 1680 Chair Swedberg read the requested variances. Darwin and Rhonda Hammons were present. . Dold stated that in May of 1997, the Hammons had requested similar variances for an addition onto the house and for an attached two-stall garage. Dold stated that the Board approved the requested variances. She said the current request is very similar except that the applicants are proposing a detached garage rather than an attached garage. Dold stated that in 1952 the Village Council approved reducing the street setback on Xerxes Avenue from 35 feet to 22 feet. She stated that the applicants are working with the Engineering Department to locate their driveway in the right-of-way. Swedberg asked why the driveway is offset. Rhonda Hammons stated that the proposed driveway comes off Xerxes in the same location as the existing driveway. She stated that she had investigated the possibility of moving the driveway so that it could go straight into the proposed garage but there is a maple tree that would have to be removed and a street drain that would be located in the center at the base of the driveway. She also stated that constructing new curb cuts off Xerxes would substantially increase the cost of the project. Shaffer asked if the applicants had considered turning the garage. Hammons responded that they did not feel this was an option because of how other garages on their street are placed. Shaffer asked why the proposed structure for which the Hammons received variances in 1997 was never constructed. Hammons stated that the structure was too costly. Lang stated that the proposed detached garage would be located 27 feet from the house. Hammons responded that the location of the proposed detached garage has created some privacy and a nice backyard area. She added that it is very level between the house and the garage. She indicated that there would be a service door that faces the side of the house and three feet of open space between the end of the privacy fence and the garage. e MOVED by Sell, seconded by Polachek and motion carried unanimously to approve the variances as requested. IV. Other Business There was no other business to discuss. V. Adjournment Chair Swedberg adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. ~nk~r;(I,rl Mary Oold, ta . lalson .